On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 23:24:27 +0000, Jack wrote:


Just what type of debt do you really think we're in? If you take the
entire monetary cost of the war, thus far; How many (federal only)tax
income days to the government do you think this war has consumed? And
by that question, lets make sure that we are talking about the entire war
all the way back to day one. I realize that I'm asking someone a
question that hasn't the information necessary to answer, therefore I will
answer it for you. If you take the entire war costs, it would take
approximately 6 days to pay for it.

Help me out here, I'm having a little trouble understanding your math.
According to the National Priorities Project, the cost of the Iraq War
stands at $180 billion. The federal budget has revenues of $1.862
trillion (2004 est.). Now, I'll admit all those zeros confuse me, but by
my calculations it would take over a month of revenues to pay, not under a
week. Of course, we are only talking dollars, not the 1,700 young
American lives this folly has cost.

War cost:
http://costofwar.com/

Federal budget:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/...k/geos/us.html


Now I will admit one thing, that
the Bush presidency has spent more than any presidency that I can recall,
but don't keep saying or eluding that this war is costing this country in
the fashion that you are, because someone will call you to the carpet
about it. Also, when you say that this is a "....scramble for
dollars..." please tell us what you mean. Its a cheap shot to throw
that statement out with out backing it up. Please tell us exactly what
type and amounts of money that Bush and Cheney have made from this? And
BTW, if your going to attempt to bring Haliburton into this conversation,
then you had better do your homework because I have and am prepared to
slam your slander with facts, it won't be pretty. You also say that
".... overall look of military strength has not looked so bleak....".
Just what do you want us to do to prove our strength? Shall we go in
and carpet bomb some area? Shall we use nukes? Shall we send in more
troops? Just what would your strategy be? You love to slam the current
thought processes, but offer none of your own. You love to tell of the
failures (in your eyes) but offer no change or charge of your own. Why
not participate in the progress of the nation rather than the sit on the
sidelines and yell at the referee. Since you want us to show our
strength, lets go, send in 250,000 more troops, that should add to the
confusion, I mean security.

250,000 more troops? Hmm, I don't think we can do it. Let's see, the
Army has 500,000 active duty troops, the Marines 176,000. We now have
@140,000 troops in Iraq. An additional 250,000 would bring the total to
390,000 out of 676,000 active duty troops. Nope, can't do it without
skimping on training or support.

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 23:24:27 +0000, Jack wrote:
Just what type of debt do you really think we're in? If you take the
entire monetary cost of the war, thus far....
.... If you take the entire war costs, it would take
approximately 6 days to pay for it.


thunder wrote:
Help me out here, I'm having a little trouble understanding your math.

That's because Jack's statements completely & totally seperated from
reality.


Jack wrote:
Just what do you want us to do to prove our strength?

Umm, how about fighting terrorists instead of creating more faster than
we can kill them?

How about Catching & punishing Osama Bin Laden and the remaining Sept
11th plotters, including the remaining officials of the Taliban gov't
that sheltered them?

How about *successfully* concluding the business of rebuilding
Afghanistan, and at least taking some more positive steps in Iraq?

... Shall we go in
and carpet bomb some area? Shall we use nukes?

Actually, if we have a credible deterrent and chose targets properly,
this would totally make sense. Given decent military & counter-terrorist
intelligence, the U.S. could say "The next terrorist act against
Americans will bring a devasting carpet bomb attack (or nuke) against
the home city of the terrorists." Of course, the problem here is that we
have to be able to pick the right target, or we're just terrorists, too.

President Bush's credibility is kind of an open question... nobody
doubts he's willing to use American military strength, it's his choice
of targets that is a bit off-kilter. And that's the whole key to success
here, otherwise it's like saying to unruly children 'Be good or I'll
spank the next door neighbor's kids.'


.... You love to slam the current
thought processes, but offer none of your own.

Wrong. Wrong twice, actually. I don't 'love' to slam anybody, but the
current administration has made a train wreck of pretty much every
single thing they've done... and the facts on the ground support that
conclusion. And I offer observations, facts, and possible solutions,
over & over.... but hey, if you don't insist that your opponent has
nothing to offer then you get kicked out of the Rush Limbaugh Hair Club
for Angry Stupid White Men. If you keep saying it over & over, people
start believing it.


thunder wrote:
250,000 more troops? Hmm, I don't think we can do it. Let's see, the
Army has 500,000 active duty troops, the Marines 176,000. We now have
@140,000 troops in Iraq. An additional 250,000 would bring the total to
390,000 out of 676,000 active duty troops. Nope, can't do it without
skimping on training or support.

Or a draft. One reason why we could afford to put 1/2 million men into
Viet Nam was that they were mostly draftees being pai almost nothing...
and feeding them was done by draftees, not expensive contractors.

One thing that is glaringly obvious to me is that the majority of young
people don't support Bush & Cheney, and very very few of them support
this war enough to volunteer for it. How many volunteered for Viet Nam?
A few, but nowhere near enough for an occupation force 500,000 strong.
Young people are voting with their feet, and Bush is losing this one.

Regards
Doug King