"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. Bad estimates on WMDs, 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.

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

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?

"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.

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

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.

"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

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

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

"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

"Mark Browne" wrote in message
news:AO_7b.419011$uu5.75668@sccrnsc04...


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

Or an understanding of the issues involved.

You win. Dave doesn't read. History books are biased sources of information.

Mark Browne wrote:

"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.

There are many sides to the issues. Depending on which one of them is
your primary goal, determines your point of view with respect to the big
picure.






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 out 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.

WW2 created jobs, and those basically pulled us out of the great
depression. So while the government may spend X amount of money, there
is also an associated benefit to manufacturing related jobs, which
support the war effort. A boost to our economy at this time, would not
be an unwelcome thing.

To answer your second point, let me ask you the converse; If we hesitate
to commit to a war due to financial considerations, then what does that
tell the rest of the world (and particularly our enemies) about our
dedication and resolve? What good is having the world's finest military,
if we're afraid to use it?


You claim the war is necessary - why?

That should be plainly obvious to anyone who can see the big picture.

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.

I respectfully disagree. Saddam is like a festering sore, Loose interest
and leave him alone for a little while and he'll bounce back stronger
and more cunning than ever.



Even you must see that the claims
that Saddam could deploy WMDs was simply not true.

I do NOT see that at all. He has diverted money meant for his people
under the UN's oil-for-food program, for his own agenda. He kicked out
weapons inspectors in 1998. He's NEVER allowed unrestricted access for
weapons inspectors to look where they pleased. There is credible
evidence, lab notes, etc, that clearly show that he was still following
the WMD path. The only thing we don't have are the actual weapons. Since
Iraq is a pretty large country, even if you discount any dealings with
other countries like Syria, so they may still be there. If it turns out
that they really are not there, it may just be that we stopped him just
in time. Give it another 2 or three years, and who knows what he might
have done.


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.

Democracy is a new concept to people used to being subjugated. Again,
you are exhibiting that all too American trait of impatience, and
expectations of instant gratification. Rome wasn't built in a day.
Democracy will take a while to install in the middle east. But because
the road is long and difficult, should that be a reason to abandon the
effort?


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.

Again, you're making the case that because the problem is sizable, that
we should not try. Should we allow this terrorist mentality to
proliferate throughout the middle east and other places? Should we send
the message that we are unable to deal with this threat, thereby
emboldening our enemies to become even more aggressive?

Some people can empathize with the plight of such terorists as Hammas,
and the Palistinian people. But comitting horrible acts of violence in
order to affect societal change should never be given any validity,
otherwise the methods will spread to any group of people who feel
disenfranchised for any number of reasons. We have to send the message
that terrorism will not be tolerated, thereby removing it as an option.


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?

So the alternative is to do... Nothing? Give in and let them have their
way? Maybe we should put a large wall around our country and not let
anyone in, and let the rest of the world destroy itself?

You make valid points about the costs etc. But have you thought about
the alternatives? What about the cost of doing nothing? How many 9/11
type acts will it take before we finally do something? Assuming that
there is a point where we really will say "Alright, we've had it" and
set about to do some serious butt-kicking, wouldn't make more sense to
do it earlier rather than later, therby saving innocent American lives?


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?

Security, safety, respect, and the eventual realization by many people,
that the right to self determination should be universal.


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.

And again, had we been so concerned with our finacial situation, that we
failed to enter WWII, what would have been the likely result? Sometimes
true costs are measured in things other than simple dollars and cents.

Dave