Those Spend but Don't Pay for It Republicans
 

jps wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
jps wrote:

With $166 billion spent or requested, Bush's war spending in 2003 and
2004
already exceeds the inflation-adjusted costs of the Revolutionary War,
the
War of 1812, the Mexican War, the Civil War, the Spanish American War
and
the Persian Gulf War combined, according to a study by Yale University
economist William D. Nordhaus. The Iraq war approaches the $191 billion
inflation-adjusted cost of World War I


Yep, you're right. This dang war is just too expensive. We should just
stop right now. Pull out, tuck our tails between our legs and return
home. We should then send a broadcast out to all terrorists to please
not attack us, since not only do we not have the resolve to fight back,
we also don't have the money.....

Can you say "open season"? sure you can.......

Dave

Should've had better information going in. We were in a rush to avoid the
hot weather.

That's a given. They did underestimate the resolve of terrorists
operating in the shadows. But ok, so sue me. What do you expect? No plan
is perfect.


Bad estimates on WMDs,

That remains to be seen. It's still a BIG desert out there. Syria's even
bigger.


bad estimates of oil revenues, bad
estimates of Iraq infrastructure -- even though we had people on the ground
in Iraq for months prior to invasion.

None of which took into account the acts of sabotage which are still
going on.

Look, it seems that you guys are holding Bush to a super-human ability
to see all, and know all. The fact is that no matter who is at the helm,
they rely on information provided to them by people trained to do their
jobs. I'm not going to go into the problems which resulted from the
decimation of the intelligence communities at the hands of democrats,
who would rather give the money to slackers, than invest in the means to
protect our country, as this is water over the dam now. But you can't
fully fault the Bush administration, without giving some consideration
to who was feeding his people the intel.



This administration are pie in the sky enthusiasts. They should be
restricted to running paint ball wars.

Slinging rocks, when you don't know the full story is being
irresponsible. Slinging rocks and finding fault while not offering
workable alternatives is equally irresponsible.

Any moron can blame Bush for everything from the Iraq war, to the
economy, to the spreading of AIDS in Africa. But unless you can
elaborate the steps in which you can realistically correct these
problems, then you have no business weighing in on the situation. As a
manager I once knew said, "we don't need more problems, we need
solutions".


Then they could clean up with a little soap and water instead of putting our
country in deep **** and in hawk up to our ears.

Time for another tax cut Dave?

Hey, let's see. I've got a grand total of $1000 dollars back in lump sum
payments. I'm also paying about $800 a year less in federal taxes. That
means that I have more money than I had before. I'm not about to
complain. Better in my pocket, than the government's.

Dave

Those Spend but Don't Pay for It Republicans
 

"WaIIy" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 16:20:55 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"jps" wrote in message
...


This administration are pie in the sky enthusiasts. They should be
restricted to running paint ball wars.


Remember, this is the president who, when asked during his campaign what
his
pastimes were, told reporters he spent a couple of hours a day playing
video
games. And, when asked about his reading habits, said he read the
newspapers, but not much else.

Lights on, nobody home.


That's why he has an MBA, idiot.

MBAs are a dime a dozen, idiot, and are of increasingly LESS value to
employers, compared to 20 years ago. The degree doesn't grant you common
sense, nor does it help you choose your associates more carefully.

Those Spend but Don't Pay for It Republicans
 

"WaIIy" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 18:14:02 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"WaIIy" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 17:47:43 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

MBAs are a dime a dozen, idiot, and are of increasingly LESS value to
employers, compared to 20 years ago. The degree doesn't grant you
common
sense, nor does it help you choose your associates more carefully.


Aside from your obsessive posting style, where is your MBA from or
perhaps your "dozen".

University of Rochester. Next question?


Do you regard your degree as "a dime a dozen"?

If so, why bother?

There is no college degree available anywhere which guarantees performance.
President Nookular is proof of that. As far as how much value I place on MY
degree, it was a luxury that pleased my employer, who paid for it. But my
monetary advances have had little or nothing to do with that, and everything
to do with creativity.

Finally, do NOT, under any circumstances, lump your president into the same
category as the typical college graduate. That's an insult to everyone
involved in this discussion.

Those Spend but Don't Pay for It Republicans
 

Dave Hall wrote:


Hey, let's see. I've got a grand total of $1000 dollars back in lump sum
payments. I'm also paying about $800 a year less in federal taxes. That
means that I have more money than I had before. I'm not about to
complain. Better in my pocket, than the government's.

Dave


Pretty soon, Dave, you'll be up to the poverty level.



--
* * *
email sent to will *never* get to me.

Those Spend but Don't Pay for It Republicans
 

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
jps wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
jps wrote:

With $166 billion spent or requested, Bush's war spending in 2003
and
2004
already exceeds the inflation-adjusted costs of the Revolutionary
War,
the
War of 1812, the Mexican War, the Civil War, the Spanish American
War
and
the Persian Gulf War combined, according to a study by Yale
University
economist William D. Nordhaus. The Iraq war approaches the $191
billion
inflation-adjusted cost of World War I


Yep, you're right. This dang war is just too expensive. We should just
stop right now. Pull out, tuck our tails between our legs and return
home. We should then send a broadcast out to all terrorists to please
not attack us, since not only do we not have the resolve to fight
back,
we also don't have the money.....

Can you say "open season"? sure you can.......

Dave

Should've had better information going in. We were in a rush to avoid
the
hot weather.

That's a given. They did underestimate the resolve of terrorists
operating in the shadows. But ok, so sue me. What do you expect? No plan
is perfect.


Bad estimates on WMDs,

That remains to be seen. It's still a BIG desert out there. Syria's even
bigger.


bad estimates of oil revenues, bad
estimates of Iraq infrastructure -- even though we had people on the
ground
in Iraq for months prior to invasion.

None of which took into account the acts of sabotage which are still
going on.

Look, it seems that you guys are holding Bush to a super-human ability
to see all, and know all. The fact is that no matter who is at the helm,
they rely on information provided to them by people trained to do their
jobs. I'm not going to go into the problems which resulted from the
decimation of the intelligence communities at the hands of democrats,
who would rather give the money to slackers, than invest in the means to
protect our country, as this is water over the dam now. But you can't
fully fault the Bush administration, without giving some consideration
to who was feeding his people the intel.



This administration are pie in the sky enthusiasts. They should be
restricted to running paint ball wars.

Slinging rocks, when you don't know the full story is being
irresponsible. Slinging rocks and finding fault while not offering
workable alternatives is equally irresponsible.

Any moron can blame Bush for everything from the Iraq war, to the
economy, to the spreading of AIDS in Africa. But unless you can
elaborate the steps in which you can realistically correct these
problems, then you have no business weighing in on the situation. As a
manager I once knew said, "we don't need more problems, we need
solutions".

While some seem suprised that things would turn out the way they did, I have
been consitantly predicting that things would happen pretty much the way
they did.

Before the war started, while it was still possible to manage costs, I was
saying that we would have to pay large costs if we marched into a needless
war. I listed financal costs, requirements for long term comitments, loss
of life, failure of the Iraqis to embrace our vision for them, and possible
myhem while our forces are engaged. Fortunately, the last item has not come
to pass yet, but it is a very real possibility.

All this is a matter of public record:
http://www.google.com/groups?q=group...m=325&filter=0

http://www.google.com/groups?q=group...242H6.1262%40s
ccrnsc04&rnum=342&filter=0

http://www.google.com/groups?q=group...m=341&filter=0

Much of the current problems had been demonstrated in Vietnam. If you take
the time to look for the parralells and lessons of history it is very easy
to predict a protracted resistance.

http://www.google.com/groups?q=group...m=333&filter=0

After the war started, it was easy to see you it would go and the problems
that seem to have cought the administration by suprize. The costs were
already clear to anybody willing to do the math. Knowegable generals were
already predicting the need for large number of forces to pacify the
population. The best the right could come up with was to claim were were all
wrong, and that the leadership had some sort of special knowlge not
available to the general population.

http://www.google.com/groups?q=group...m=304&filter=0


http://www.google.com/groups?q=group...m=302&filter=0

I told yuou so!

snip

Time for another tax cut Dave?

Hey, let's see. I've got a grand total of $1000 dollars back in lump sum
payments. I'm also paying about $800 a year less in federal taxes. That
means that I have more money than I had before. I'm not about to
complain. Better in my pocket, than the government's.

So your common sense can be bought for a few peices of silver; why am I not
suprized?

Mark Browne

Those Spend but Don't Pay for It Republicans (with spell check)
 

Sorry for the spelling on the prior post, I hit send instead of spell check.

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
jps wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
jps wrote:

With $166 billion spent or requested, Bush's war spending in 2003
and
2004
already exceeds the inflation-adjusted costs of the Revolutionary
War,
the
War of 1812, the Mexican War, the Civil War, the Spanish American
War
and
the Persian Gulf War combined, according to a study by Yale
University
economist William D. Nordhaus. The Iraq war approaches the $191
billion
inflation-adjusted cost of World War I


Yep, you're right. This dang war is just too expensive. We should just
stop right now. Pull out, tuck our tails between our legs and return
home. We should then send a broadcast out to all terrorists to please
not attack us, since not only do we not have the resolve to fight
back,
we also don't have the money.....

Can you say "open season"? sure you can.......

Dave

Should've had better information going in. We were in a rush to avoid
the
hot weather.

That's a given. They did underestimate the resolve of terrorists
operating in the shadows. But ok, so sue me. What do you expect? No plan
is perfect.


Bad estimates on WMDs,

That remains to be seen. It's still a BIG desert out there. Syria's even
bigger.


bad estimates of oil revenues, bad
estimates of Iraq infrastructure -- even though we had people on the
ground
in Iraq for months prior to invasion.

None of which took into account the acts of sabotage which are still
going on.

Look, it seems that you guys are holding Bush to a super-human ability
to see all, and know all. The fact is that no matter who is at the helm,
they rely on information provided to them by people trained to do their
jobs. I'm not going to go into the problems which resulted from the
decimation of the intelligence communities at the hands of democrats,
who would rather give the money to slackers, than invest in the means to
protect our country, as this is water over the dam now. But you can't
fully fault the Bush administration, without giving some consideration
to who was feeding his people the intel.



This administration are pie in the sky enthusiasts. They should be
restricted to running paint ball wars.

Slinging rocks, when you don't know the full story is being
irresponsible. Slinging rocks and finding fault while not offering
workable alternatives is equally irresponsible.

Any moron can blame Bush for everything from the Iraq war, to the
economy, to the spreading of AIDS in Africa. But unless you can
elaborate the steps in which you can realistically correct these
problems, then you have no business weighing in on the situation. As a
manager I once knew said, "we don't need more problems, we need
solutions".

While some seem surprised that things would turn out the way they did, I
have
been consistently predicting that things would happen pretty much the way
they did.

Before the war started, while it was still possible to manage costs, I was
saying that we would have to pay large costs if we marched into a needless
war. I listed financial costs, requirements for long term commitments, loss
of life, failure of the Iraqis to embrace our vision for them, and possible
mayhem while our forces are engaged. Fortunately, the last item has not come
to pass yet, but it is still a very real possibility.

All this is a matter of public record:
http://www.google.com/groups?q=group...m=325&filter=0

http://www.google.com/groups?q=group...m=342&filter=0

http://www.google.com/groups?q=group...m=341&filter=0

Much of the current problems had been demonstrated in Vietnam. If you take
the time to look for the parallels and lessons of history it is very easy
to predict a protracted resistance.

http://www.google.com/groups?q=group...m=333&filter=0

After the war started, it was easy to see how it would go and the problems
that seem to have caught the administration by surprise. The costs were
already clear to anybody willing to do the math. Knowledgeable generals were
already predicting the need for large number of forces to pacify the
population. The best the right could come up with was to claim that we were
all
wrong, and that the leadership had some sort of special knowledge not
available to the general population. Now we know more about this "special
intelligence" - wishful thinking and willful ignorance of the facts.

http://www.google.com/groups?q=group...m=304&filter=0


http://www.google.com/groups?q=group...m=302&filter=0

I told you so!

snip

Time for another tax cut Dave?

Hey, let's see. I've got a grand total of $1000 dollars back in lump sum
payments. I'm also paying about $800 a year less in federal taxes. That
means that I have more money than I had before. I'm not about to
complain. Better in my pocket, than the government's.

So your common sense can be bought for a few pieces of silver; why am I not
surprised?

Mark Browne

Those Spend but Don't Pay for It Republicans
 

Stop posting political crap here!

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Mark Browne" wrote in message
news:0Hu7b.404385$YN5.267637@sccrnsc01...

Much of the current problems had been demonstrated in Vietnam. If you
take
the time to look for the parralells and lessons of history it is very
easy
to predict a protracted resistance.


Don't hold your breath, Mark. We have a president who, when asked about
his
reading habits, said "I read the newspapers". And, we have voters like
Dave
Hall who, when presented with the idea of learning about history (so we
don't repeat mistakes), claim that history books are of limited use
because
they're either "just someone's interpretation", or because they don't know
the author, so they assume he/she is a "left winger".

That leaves nothing but faith, which has no place in politics.

Those Spend but Don't Pay for It Republicans
 

Mark Browne wrote:

Slinging rocks, when you don't know the full story is being
irresponsible. Slinging rocks and finding fault while not offering
workable alternatives is equally irresponsible.

Any moron can blame Bush for everything from the Iraq war, to the
economy, to the spreading of AIDS in Africa. But unless you can
elaborate the steps in which you can realistically correct these
problems, then you have no business weighing in on the situation. As a
manager I once knew said, "we don't need more problems, we need
solutions".

While some seem suprised that things would turn out the way they did, I have
been consitantly predicting that things would happen pretty much the way
they did.

One could chalk that up to "chicken little" pessimism.



Before the war started, while it was still possible to manage costs, I was
saying that we would have to pay large costs if we marched into a needless
war. I listed financal costs, requirements for long term comitments, loss
of life, failure of the Iraqis to embrace our vision for them, and possible
myhem while our forces are engaged. Fortunately, the last item has not come
to pass yet, but it is a very real possibility.

It will be a dark day in American history, when we back our of a just
cause because we're afraid of the costs. The former soviet union lost
the cold war, simply becasue they could not keep up with our technology,
from a finacial standpoint. They couldn't afford the war any more.

War is not cheap, war is not pretty, war in not fun. But sometimes war
is necessary. I believe that now is one of those times. The terrorists
belive (as you do evidently) that Americans will not go the long road,
becasue of financial worries. All they have to do to win this war, is to
outlast our resolve. Should we prove them right? What would the effect
of that do to our security in the long run?


Much of the current problems had been demonstrated in Vietnam. If you take
the time to look for the parralells and lessons of history it is very easy
to predict a protracted resistance.


We can draw similar parallels to Hitler and WW2. What do you think our
world would be like today, if we didn't get involved because we did'nt
want to invest the money?

After the war started, it was easy to see you it would go and the problems
that seem to have cought the administration by suprize. The costs were
already clear to anybody willing to do the math.

Once again, the cost should be secondary to the necessity.

Knowegable generals were
already predicting the need for large number of forces to pacify the
population. The best the right could come up with was to claim were were all
wrong, and that the leadership had some sort of special knowlge not
available to the general population.

We haven't been there for even 7 months yet. How many other major wars
have we ever won in as short of time? I think many of you guys are far
too impatient.

Hey, let's see. I've got a grand total of $1000 dollars back in lump sum
payments. I'm also paying about $800 a year less in federal taxes. That
means that I have more money than I had before. I'm not about to
complain. Better in my pocket, than the government's.

So your common sense can be bought for a few peices of silver; why am I not
suprized?

Nothing to do with common sense. I just feel that I am a better judge of
what to do with MY money, than the government is.

Dave

Those Spend but Don't Pay for It Republicans
 

Doug Kanter wrote:

"Mark Browne" wrote in message
news:0Hu7b.404385$YN5.267637@sccrnsc01...

Much of the current problems had been demonstrated in Vietnam. If you take
the time to look for the parralells and lessons of history it is very easy
to predict a protracted resistance.


Don't hold your breath, Mark. We have a president who, when asked about his
reading habits, said "I read the newspapers". And, we have voters like Dave
Hall who, when presented with the idea of learning about history (so we
don't repeat mistakes), claim that history books are of limited use because
they're either "just someone's interpretation", or because they don't know
the author, so they assume he/she is a "left winger".

I see many historical parallels. Saddam versus Hitler. When we entered
the second world war, we removed a cancer on humanity. The same can be
said for Saddam.

Vietnam is not the end all rationale, for never getting involved in
another war.

Dave



That leaves nothing but faith, which has no place in politics.

Those Spend but Don't Pay for It Republicans
 

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
Mark Browne wrote:

Slinging rocks, when you don't know the full story is being
irresponsible. Slinging rocks and finding fault while not offering
workable alternatives is equally irresponsible.

Any moron can blame Bush for everything from the Iraq war, to the
economy, to the spreading of AIDS in Africa. But unless you can
elaborate the steps in which you can realistically correct these
problems, then you have no business weighing in on the situation. As a
manager I once knew said, "we don't need more problems, we need
solutions".

While some seem suprised that things would turn out the way they did, I
have
been consitantly predicting that things would happen pretty much the way
they did.

One could chalk that up to "chicken little" pessimism.

Or an understanding of the issues involved.




Before the war started, while it was still possible to manage costs, I
was
saying that we would have to pay large costs if we marched into a
needless
war. I listed financal costs, requirements for long term comitments,
loss
of life, failure of the Iraqis to embrace our vision for them, and
possible
myhem while our forces are engaged. Fortunately, the last item has not
come
to pass yet, but it is a very real possibility.

It will be a dark day in American history, when we back our of a just
cause because we're afraid of the costs. The former soviet union lost
the cold war, simply becasue they could not keep up with our technology,
from a finacial standpoint. They couldn't afford the war any more.

War is not cheap, war is not pretty, war in not fun. But sometimes war
is necessary. I believe that now is one of those times. The terrorists
belive (as you do evidently) that Americans will not go the long road,
becasue of financial worries. All they have to do to win this war, is to
outlast our resolve. Should we prove them right? What would the effect
of that do to our security in the long run?

snip
So which is it? In one breath you acknowledge that it is possible to
bankrupt a country on a fools errand, in the next you say that we should pay
any price to win.

You claim the war is necessary - why? You compare the roles Hitler and
Saddam. In one case we had German boots all over Europe and north Africa, in
the other we had Iraqi boots in - Iraq. The job of containment was completed
in '91 and no further warfare is needed. Even you must see that the claims
that Saddam could deploy WMDs was simply not true. That leave the claim that
we are bringing our values to the middle east. We have had a bit longer to
work in Afghanistan and I am having trouble seeing how that is working out
in our favor.

You are still claiming that Iraq is somehow related to the terrorists in a
meaningful way. If a connection, however slim is justification for dropping
80 billion a year, then the much stronger evidence in Pakistan and Saudi
Arabia is surly going to need a response. Think through what the outcome
will be from tackling the biggest energy suppler and a nuclear armed nation.
It is stretching our military to deal with two relatively insignificant
players.

Trying to change attitudes at the barrel of a gun are not working in the
tiny west bank - what could possible make you think it is going to work out
better elsewhere?

Pretend for a moment that you were actually a fiscal conservative and tell
me what we are getting for our 80 billion dollars a year? While you are
thinking this through, do remember that it *is* possible to spend a country
into ruin. As you noted, a country can be so enamored with its ideological
aspirations that it ignore economic realities.

Mark Browne