Im still wondering what we get out of the deal,, besides broke that is.
Brad
wrote in message
...
On Mar 18, 9:28 am, wrote:
On Mar 18, 9:22 am, wrote:

On Mar 18, 9:11 am, wrote:

Boats are an expense, JimH.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...3/17/MNBVVL9GK...

When I see an article start with such a far fetched lie as this, "It
was supposed to be a quick war and a cheap one" Which of course was
never the case, I really must dismiss the rest of the article, sorry..

What do you say about the fact that in Jan 2003 the Pentagon and the
White House reported that the estimate would be $50 to $60 billion
dollars? What about Paul Wolfowitz stating uncatagorically that Iraq
would pay for it's reconstruction with increased oil revenues?

I dunno' without a lot of research, but it was never supposed to be
"cheap and easy".

On Mar 18, 9:46*am, "Brad Darnell" wrote:
Im still wondering what we get out of the deal,, besides broke that is.
wrote in message

...
On Mar 18, 9:28 am, wrote:





On Mar 18, 9:22 am, wrote:

On Mar 18, 9:11 am, wrote:

Boats are an expense, JimH.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...3/17/MNBVVL9GK...

When I see an article start with such a far fetched lie as this, "It
was supposed to be a quick war and a cheap one" Which of course was
never the case, I really must dismiss the rest of the article, sorry..

What do you say about the fact that in Jan 2003 the Pentagon and the
White House reported that the estimate would be $50 to $60 billion
dollars? What about Paul Wolfowitz stating uncatagorically that Iraq
would pay for it's reconstruction with increased oil revenues?

I dunno' without a lot of research, but it was never supposed to be
"cheap and easy".- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What did we gain when we freed Europe, Asia, and so many other
countries in the world? We did not go there to get paid.

Those countries were under attack and we only got in after we were attacked
as well. A very good reason to go to war. I do not remember Iraq being under
attack from a hostile country nor did Iraq attack us in anyway.
wrote in message
...
On Mar 18, 9:46 am, "Brad Darnell" wrote:
Im still wondering what we get out of the deal,, besides broke that is.
wrote in message

...
On Mar 18, 9:28 am, wrote:





On Mar 18, 9:22 am, wrote:

On Mar 18, 9:11 am, wrote:

Boats are an expense, JimH.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...3/17/MNBVVL9GK...

When I see an article start with such a far fetched lie as this, "It
was supposed to be a quick war and a cheap one" Which of course was
never the case, I really must dismiss the rest of the article, sorry..

What do you say about the fact that in Jan 2003 the Pentagon and the
White House reported that the estimate would be $50 to $60 billion
dollars? What about Paul Wolfowitz stating uncatagorically that Iraq
would pay for it's reconstruction with increased oil revenues?

I dunno' without a lot of research, but it was never supposed to be
"cheap and easy".- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What did we gain when we freed Europe, Asia, and so many other
countries in the world? We did not go there to get paid.

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 06:47:27 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

What did we gain when we freed Europe, Asia, and so many other
countries in the world? We did not go there to get paid.


WWII was started by Hitler to end the Depression and we all pitched
in. Since the US got most of the manufacturing jobs and none of the
bombings it was a win-win for us. GM, Boeing, Ford et all made lots of
money.
Plenty of money was made in this war too but, unfortunately we were
not building enough hardware here to invigorate our economy.
Some day, I suppose, economic historians will figure out who was
making all of that money we spent but I bert they were rich before and
just got a lot richer ... but isn't that always the way. Some of that
still "trickles down"
I suppose one reason they don't want to stop the war is that trillion
dollar economic engine would stop and a lot of people would be out of
work.


In between wars, we sell hardware to our enemies, like the Saudis.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 06:47:27 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

What did we gain when we freed Europe, Asia, and so many other
countries in the world? We did not go there to get paid.

WWII was started by Hitler to end the Depression and we all pitched
in. Since the US got most of the manufacturing jobs and none of the
bombings it was a win-win for us. GM, Boeing, Ford et all made lots of
money.
Plenty of money was made in this war too but, unfortunately we were
not building enough hardware here to invigorate our economy.
Some day, I suppose, economic historians will figure out who was
making all of that money we spent but I bert they were rich before and
just got a lot richer ... but isn't that always the way. Some of that
still "trickles down"
I suppose one reason they don't want to stop the war is that trillion
dollar economic engine would stop and a lot of people would be out of
work.


In between wars, we sell hardware to our enemies, like the Saudis.

It keeps the manufacturing lines staffed and operating until we need
them in the next war.

"BAR" wrote in message
news
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 06:47:27 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

What did we gain when we freed Europe, Asia, and so many other
countries in the world? We did not go there to get paid.

WWII was started by Hitler to end the Depression and we all pitched
in. Since the US got most of the manufacturing jobs and none of the
bombings it was a win-win for us. GM, Boeing, Ford et all made lots of
money.
Plenty of money was made in this war too but, unfortunately we were
not building enough hardware here to invigorate our economy.
Some day, I suppose, economic historians will figure out who was
making all of that money we spent but I bert they were rich before and
just got a lot richer ... but isn't that always the way. Some of that
still "trickles down"
I suppose one reason they don't want to stop the war is that trillion
dollar economic engine would stop and a lot of people would be out of
work.


In between wars, we sell hardware to our enemies, like the Saudis.

It keeps the manufacturing lines staffed and operating until we need them
in the next war.


I assume you're being saracastic or stupid, since there is NEVER a good
reason to sell weapons to our enemies.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"BAR" wrote in message
news
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 06:47:27 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

What did we gain when we freed Europe, Asia, and so many other
countries in the world? We did not go there to get paid.
WWII was started by Hitler to end the Depression and we all pitched
in. Since the US got most of the manufacturing jobs and none of the
bombings it was a win-win for us. GM, Boeing, Ford et all made lots of
money.
Plenty of money was made in this war too but, unfortunately we were
not building enough hardware here to invigorate our economy.
Some day, I suppose, economic historians will figure out who was
making all of that money we spent but I bert they were rich before and
just got a lot richer ... but isn't that always the way. Some of that
still "trickles down"
I suppose one reason they don't want to stop the war is that trillion
dollar economic engine would stop and a lot of people would be out of
work.

In between wars, we sell hardware to our enemies, like the Saudis.
It keeps the manufacturing lines staffed and operating until we need them
in the next war.


I assume you're being saracastic or stupid, since there is NEVER a good
reason to sell weapons to our enemies.

Every country that is not named the United States of America is our
enemy. Nations have no friends just agreements of convenience.

"BAR" wrote in message
news
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"BAR" wrote in message
news
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 06:47:27 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

What did we gain when we freed Europe, Asia, and so many other
countries in the world? We did not go there to get paid.
WWII was started by Hitler to end the Depression and we all pitched
in. Since the US got most of the manufacturing jobs and none of the
bombings it was a win-win for us. GM, Boeing, Ford et all made lots of
money.
Plenty of money was made in this war too but, unfortunately we were
not building enough hardware here to invigorate our economy.
Some day, I suppose, economic historians will figure out who was
making all of that money we spent but I bert they were rich before and
just got a lot richer ... but isn't that always the way. Some of that
still "trickles down"
I suppose one reason they don't want to stop the war is that trillion
dollar economic engine would stop and a lot of people would be out of
work.

In between wars, we sell hardware to our enemies, like the Saudis.
It keeps the manufacturing lines staffed and operating until we need
them in the next war.


I assume you're being saracastic or stupid, since there is NEVER a good
reason to sell weapons to our enemies.

Every country that is not named the United States of America is our enemy.
Nations have no friends just agreements of convenience.


Idiot 3. There is NEVER a good reason to sell weapons to our enemies.

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 01:38:31 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

It keeps the manufacturing lines staffed and operating until we need
them
in the next war.


I assume you're being saracastic or stupid, since there is NEVER a good
reason to sell weapons to our enemies.


FDR sold a lot of stuff to the Soviets in the early 40s. I guess it
never occured to him that they would ever be our enemy. I suppose the
same thing hapened to Reagan when he was selling stingers to the
Afghans or most of Western Europe when they were selling all sorts of
weapons and technology to Saddam.

Political alliances come and go but business goes on forever.

The only problem with this war is we are employing more people in Iraq
than we are here.


We know the Saudis are our enemies, and we still sell them weapons. Not a
good comparison to FDR.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/22/wo...2fighters.html

The Saudi royal families provide direct financial support to clerics and
schools which train these fighters. We pay them to do this through
"commissions" the royals demand for allowing us to sell them weapons.

On Mar 18, 12:57*pm, wrote:

I suppose one reason they don't want to stop the war is that trillion
dollar economic engine would stop and a lot of people would be out of
work.

Well, I do have problems with some of the reasons, but that is not one
of them..