The financial cost of war

[KCConservative]

The cost of this war may be over 2 Trillion dollars. And for what? You tell me what the hell is worth spending 2 Trillion dollars on.

http://thestar.com.my/news/story.as...01_NOOTR_RTRJONC_0_-231204-1&sec=Worldupdates

It's subjective, of course. What is worth it to me is not worth it to you. That's life. For me and my family, it's worth it to secure peace in the middle east and ensure our national security. You'll disagree, I know. That's fine.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by KCConservative:
It's subjective, of course. What is worth it to me is not worth it to you. That's life. For me and my family, it's worth it to secure peace in the middle east and ensure our national security. You'll disagree, I know. That's fine.

I got no arguement with you here.

 

[KCConservative]

I got no arguement with you here.

Well in that case, I'll pony up the first trillion and you pay the other trillion.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by KCConservative:
Well in that case, I'll pony up the first trillion and you pay the other trillion.

No way. I've never considered Iraq a threat to this country in any way shape or form. And I certainly object to my tax dollars going overseas unless it is strictly for the protection and care of GI's. Not bombs. I would rather see my tax dollars going to curing the problem of homelessness in America.

 

[KCConservative]

No way. I've never considered Iraq a threat to this country in any way shape or form. And I certainly object to my tax dollars going overseas unless it is strictly for the protection and care of GI's. Not bombs. I would rather see my tax dollars going to curing the problem of homelessness in America.

I never considered Iraq a threat either. However, I did consider Saddam and his loyalists threats. Thankfully, our commander-in-chief and our military had the guts to remove him from power. Now we're fighting a previously unforseen insurgency and, to be sure, al-quida. All worth fighting and defeating, IMO.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by KCConservative:
I never considered Iraq a threat either. However, I did consider Saddam and his loyalists threats. Thankfully, our commander-in-chief and our military had the guts to remove him from power. Now we're fighting a previously unforseen insurgency and, to be sure, al-quida. All worth fighting and defeating, IMO.

Fair enough.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

I never considered Iraq a threat either. However, I did consider Saddam and his loyalists threats. Thankfully, our commander-in-chief and our military had the guts to remove him from power. Now we're fighting a previously unforseen insurgency and, to be sure, al-quida. All worth fighting and defeating, IMO.

Well the insurgency was just unforseen because you didn't want to listen to unamerican liberals and covardly foreigners.

 

[KCConservative]

Well the insurgency was just unforseen because you didn't want to listen to unamerican liberals and covardly foreigners.

Interesting. Let's follow this logic. So if we were to have forseen even the heaviest of insurgency, your answer would have been to do nothing? Let them continue to be slaughtered by Saddam? Sorry, that's not who we are as Americans. Your reasoning doesn't pan out. We help our neighbors. We always have. Those who gave their lives so that Iraq can live free thought it was worth it, even if you were too cowardly.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by KCConservative:
Interesting. Let's follow this logic. So if we were to have forseen even the heaviest of insurgency, your answer would have been to do nothing? Let them continue to be slaughtered by Saddam? Sorry, that's not who we are as Americans. Your reasoning doesn't pan out. We help our neighbors. We always have. Those who gave their lives so that Iraq can live free thought it was worth it, even if you were too cowardly.

We help our neighbors. Like the death squads in El Salvador, Nicaraqua and Chili set up by the CIA. The toppling of Democratically elected governments in South America. I for one don't think Americans stand for the breaking of laws and treaties like Article 51 of the UN Charter which our Congress ratified and is now just as much our law as the Constitution is. I don't know if you noticed, but we did not put a democratic government back in power in Kuwait. We put back a tyrannical monarchy. And as for Iraq, Islamic Fundamentalists are the ones in power. Islamic law is the law of their land. That's not democracy.

 

[scottyz]

Well the insurgency was just unforseen because you didn't want to listen to unamerican liberals and covardly foreigners.

It was forseen by our military and intelligency agencies and ignored by team Bush.

Military and civilian intelligence agencies repeatedly warned prior to the invasion that Iraqi insurgent forces were preparing to fight and that their ranks would grow as other Iraqis came to resent the U.S. occupation and organize guerrilla attacks.

The war plan put together by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Army Gen. Tommy Franks discounted these warnings. Rumsfeld and Franks anticipated surrender by Iraqi ground forces and a warm welcome from civilians.

The insurgency began not after the end of major combat in May 2003 but at the beginning of the war, yet Pentagon officials were slow to identify the enemy and to grasp how serious a threat the guerrilla attacks posed.

Rumsfeld, in an interview with Fox News Channel, said he had not anticipated the strength of the insurgency "because no one has a perfect view into the future."

Administration critics have offered a different explanation: "In the planning phase, officials played down potential postwar problems partly in order to garner support for launching the war," writes Dominic Johnson in a forthcoming book, Overconfidence and War. Anthony Cordesman, an Iraq expert with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, says U.S. policymakers weren't interested in intelligence warnings about postwar difficulties and "may sometimes have discouraged such analysis."

The intelligence warnings of guerrilla war in Iraq came as a result of questions being raised by analysts at the CIA, Defense Intelligence Agency, Army and National Ground Intelligence Center, according to Army documents and a senior U.S. intelligence official with access to the prewar warnings. The official declined to speak publicly because he was discussing classified material.

Two reports by the National Intelligence Council, a group of senior analysts that pools assessments from across the nation's intelligence community, warned Bush in January 2003, two months before the invasion, that the conflict could spark factional violence and an anti-U.S. insurgency, the official said. One of the reports said the U.S.-led occupation could "increase popular sympathy for terrorist objectives." Similarly sober warnings by the CIA went to senior administration officials and Congress as part of daily intelligence summaries, the intelligence official said.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-10-24-insurgence-intel_x.htm

 

[Bergslagstroll]

It was forseen by our military and intelligency agencies and ignored by team Bush.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-10-24-insurgence-intel_x.htm

Yep so it seems that most people except the Bush administration and "true patriotic american" was aware of the problem with invasion.

Also

Interesting. Let's follow this logic. So if we were to have forseen even the heaviest of insurgency, your answer would have been to do nothing? Let them continue to be slaughtered by Saddam? Sorry, that's not who we are as Americans. Your reasoning doesn't pan out. We help our neighbors. We always have. Those who gave their lives so that Iraq can live free thought it was worth it, even if you were too cowardly.

If you live in utopia and you only had one evil country left in the world I can understand you argument. But if you not hooked up on extremly bias information you would know that Iraq is not the most brutale country in the world and there is alot of country there it would be easier to implement democracy. Also before atacking countries beacuse there undemocratic you could for example think over the democratic level in the hundred countries you have a military precens in. Or what influence you coperations have for demorcracy that operates in almost any country in the world. No that discusion is just getting silly from the start...

 

[KCConservative]

If you live in utopia and you only had one evil country left in the world I can understand you argument. But if you not hooked up on extremly bias information you would know that Iraq is not the most brutale country in the world and there is alot of country there it would be easier to implement democracy. Also before atacking countries beacuse there undemocratic you could for example think over the democratic level in the hundred countries you have a military precens in. Or what influence you coperations have for demorcracy that operates in almost any country in the world. No that discusion is just getting silly from the start...

Yes, I must just be "hooked on extremely biased information". From now on, I'll only listen to you. :roll:

 

[Bergslagstroll]

Yes, I must just be "hooked on extremely biased information". From now on, I'll only listen to you. :roll:

I didn't say that you was hooked on extremely biased information or atleast it was not my intention. Because I hope you don't belive that Iraq had the most brutale regime in the world before the american invasion. But if you are yes you should start only listen to me because then even I is much better to listen to then the sources you have today. Also I think it pretty much a consensus on that many countries like for example Burma North Corea and even Iran and Saudarabia can be seens as more brutale then Iraq was before the invasion.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by KCConservative
Yes, I must just be "hooked on extremely biased information". From now on, I'll only listen to you

Since we already covered what you ignore (see below [pronounced billo]).

Originally Posted by billo
We help our neighbors. Like the death squads in El Salvador, Nicaraqua and Chili set up by the CIA. The toppling of Democratically elected governments in South America. I for one don't think Americans stand for the breaking of laws and treaties like Article 51 of the UN Charter which our Congress ratified and is now just as much our law as the Constitution is. I don't know if you noticed, but we did not put a democratic government back in power in Kuwait. We put back a tyrannical monarchy. And as for Iraq, Islamic Fundamentalists are the ones in power. Islamic law is the law of their land. That's not democracy.

 

[KCConservative]

Since we already covered what you ignore (see below [pronounced billo]).

I ignored nothing, billo. I read your post. Was there a question you wanted answered?

 

[KCConservative]

I didn't say that you was hooked on extremely biased information or atleast it was not my intention. Because I hope you don't belive that Iraq had the most brutale regime in the world before the american invasion. But if you are yes you should start only listen to me because then even I is much better to listen to then the sources you have today. Also I think it pretty much a consensus on that many countries like for example Burma North Corea and even Iran and Saudarabia can be seens as more brutale then Iraq was before the invasion.

Interesting. I wasn't aware that we knew one another. What are the sources I listen to? And where is North Corea?

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by KCConservative
I ignored nothing, billo. I read your post. Was there a question you wanted answered?

Not a question, but maybe a comment if you wanted to debate my assertions.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

Interesting. I wasn't aware that we knew one another. What are the sources I listen to? And where is North Corea?

Simply very bad sources, but that is if you belived that Iraq was the most brutale country in the world. Because I think no real sources would argue that, because of all the other bad countries in the world.

I just know that you like C instead of K in the english language therefor I switch the letters to much sometimes. So if I practices remembering there are should use C and then to use K. You can start working on your imagination because you need practic on that if you don't know that north corea is north korea slightly spelled wrong.

 

[KCConservative]

Simply very bad sources

and so I'm still asking......what 'bad' sources do I listen to?

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by KCConservative
and so I'm still asking......what 'bad' sources do I listen to?

Possibly what's in the depths of an evil heart?

 

[KCConservative]

Possibly what's in the depths of an evil heart?

It seems Mr. Berg knows where I get my news. I just wish he'd answer. I'd like to see if his crystal ball is operating correctly.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by KCConservative
It seems Mr. Berg knows where I get my news. I just wish he'd answer. I'd like to see if his crystal ball is operating correctly.

What makes people so angry that they would want to give Nick the knife?

 

[KCConservative]

What makes people so angry that they would want to give Nick the knife?

No, no, I didn't mean THAT Berg. I meant Mr. Bergslagstroll. See above.
But to answer your question: Those who gave Nick Berg the knife are known as al-Quida. It's who we are fighting.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by KCConservative:
No, no, I didn't mean THAT Berg. I meant Mr. Bergslagstroll. See above.
But to answer your question: Those who gave Nick Berg the knife are known as al-Quida. It's who we are fighting.

But what makes them so angry?

 

[Bergslagstroll]

and so I'm still asking......what 'bad' sources do I listen to?

Ok I will try to make this very simple. If you say that we have polarbears on the street in Sweden I don't care that your sources is but I know there are really bad because we have never had polarbears on the street in Sweden.

The same is true if you belive that Iraq was the most brutale country in the world before the american invasion. That is because there are so many other countries in the world that could be considered much worse then Iraq. So therefor any sources that claims that Iraq had the most brutale regime in the world is not potraying the real world and therefor can be considering to be real bad. Because a first demand of any source is that it has some contact with the real world.

So yes I don't know that sources you exactly are listen to but because they clearly give you a wrong perception they most be bad. But of course my reasoning can have it faults. Because you sources can maybee be good but just get totally lost then it comes to Iraq. But I think the likelyhod that normal sources would do a big mistake like saying that Iraq is the most brutal country in the world is very slim. A bigger fault in my reasoning can be that you listen to ok sources, but you only pick up the thing you want to hear and make your own conclusions. That last thing can be the thing that totally ruins my argument. That you actually listen to ok sources but make your own misjudgemts. But then my advice is that you listen better to that your sources are saying.

Ok this was not a fun arguement but atleast it was a bit intresting. Take care.