The cost of the war in perspective
 

This link says it all............

http://costofwar.com


Watch how fast the meter is running and see what WE COULD BE DOING...........

MAKING HALIBURTON RICHER WITH TAXPAYER MONEY

Can't believe people support this man. He's driving our kids into bankruptcy and destroying any hope of rebuilding the infrastructure. To what end??????? So that Halliburton can own the world????????????????

How about US LIVES???????

http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~stephan/USfatalities.html

and that is just what has been "reported" and doesn't include the suicides, the men dying mysteriously in thier sleep........

Re: The cost of the war in perspective
 

Whenever I see this (not to mention a lot of ???? in a row) its time to turn ones brain off. You do know the history of Haliburton right?

Didn't think so.

Here's what the money could be spent for and if it were there would be no reason for war.

http://www.osearth.com/resources/wwwproject/index.shtml

Maybe it could buy every child in america a nice pony too!

Quit spamming your own thread, let others do it for you.

Of course this is all leftist propaganda and Bush is making the right decisions........ better say that don't want someone to turn me in as a non-patriot questioning the government under the Patriot Act and Homeland Security one cannot be too safe.

Not my thread. I have nothing to do with it but be an admirer.... so please don't attack me attack the facts......... sorry

Why don't you educate me on Haliburton and Carlysle, instead of attacking me?

Please stop posting. There is an edit button.

If only there was a smrt button too.

Thanks.

Re: The cost of the war in perspective
 

The national debt isn't new, and we do need to spend less. If the war in Iraq didn't happen we would still need to spend less. We do spend quite a bit more on social programs then the war is costing. Mind you I won't even try to get into the benifits a democracy in Iraq would be worth. Its going to take a long time and it won't be easy, but provided we don't have some short sighted idiot elected to the presidency the benifit will be enormous.

Pardon what infrastructure is 'the' infrastructure?

Look, did you ever think that Haliburton got the contract because they are GOOD at this sort of thing? That maybe they know how to handle these problems? That perhaps even democrats have given them awards for service to their country? That by contract, Haliburtons profit margin on such work is LIMITED and any excess MUST be returned?

Hears Vikings chanting in a diner

Infrastructure..... education, the environment, giving low interest loans and trying to figure out ways of rebuilding downtowns, making sure white collar criminals are tried and forced to repay investors, basically putting tax payer dollars to actual use for the taxpayer not for companies that overcharge the military on fuel.

Not for wars where the reason changes every time a new poll that shows disapproval numbers comes out.

If Haliburton is so good then why not open bidding for the competition? Yeah, it is a total coincidence that Cheney sat on thier board. And it is a total pipedream that Bush Sr. works for the Carlysle group now isn't it?

No one's disputing Haliburton's competence.

What we object to is that they get the contracts with no competition. No bid contracts, especially those awarded to a company the VP very recently resigned from, are rather suspicious.

Ummmm and they did EXTENSIVE work under the Clinton Admin because of Cheney too?

Sorry to get biblical on you but
http://community.nursingspectrum.com...andWashing.jpg

Have fun ranting.

Ustwo - please can you tell us by what standard you measure the current situation in Iraq and are able to describe it as a "democracy"?

Have, for example, the people in power at the moment been elected by the Iraqi people?

UStwo:

Infrastructure:

Roads, bridges, highways, railways, airports, sewers, water treatment plants, solid waste management facilities, hospitals, electricity dams

You know, the stuff people take for granted but people in the past really sacrificed to build.

I read in a technical journal that 1 in 5 bridges in the United States is in poor condition.

With each passing day it is becoming more clear that Iraq was NEVER a threat to the United States. They never attacked you.

You attacked them.

yes, yes, Saddam was a murdering prick, i am glad he is gone, but take your pick of hundreds of murdering pricks out there a lot worse than saddam.

You want to keep spending your hard earned tax dollars securing an oil supply for big oil, knock yourself out.

I laugh every time that Americans pat themselves on the back saying that they have cheap energy prices (gasoline) compared to the rest of the world. You just paid 100 billion for that "cheap gas" so it aint so cheap after all.

Well I think it helped that only American companies were allowed to bid.

I wonder if this war could be awoided by giving 10 billion $, amnesty and a house in California to Saddam Hussein. No lives lost, no infrastructure destroyed and still no WMD found.


But then again no photo-op in bad-ass looking flightsuit either.

They are good at this sort of thing, but they do have alot of competition in the world. I'm sure there were a hundred companies who could have handled the contract just as well.

When awarding government contracts there are measures in place to ensure that there is no insider edge to any companies. Not only were safeguards like this used, they were blatently ignored by the current US administration: Going so far as to limit company's bids for other contracts based on a "did you say yay! to us when we wanted to go to war?" list

Why on earth would any president do that? that's insane. He wouldn't need any more money, he'd rather have 30 palaces than one house in California, he hates America and wouldn't live there, and he's wanted for war crimes.

You don't say to Hitler 'look, we won't go to war with you if you come live in our country because we don't like people dying.'

It doesn't work.

Didn't Europe try something like that?

You guys are really something else. It's funny how right after 9/11 we were all willing to make sacrifices to ensure the safety of this country. Now, a few year later, we're arguing about who got the contract to rebuild Iraq or whether GWB should have invaded Iraq. I think you're all being short sighted.

The big picture here is that Saddam Hussein harbored and sponsored terrorist, and that made him a threat to America. The world, especially Iraq, is better off without him.

WMD?
Maybe they existed, maybe not, I don't really care. GWB did what he pledged to do after 9/11, strike pre-emptively to ensure homeland safety.

As far as the contract with Haliburton that seems popular on this thread:
Do I here griping that the contract was not awarded competitively? Well guess what, government never does anything efficiently. It's funny that you guys want a competitive, free market result here but that some of you argue against free markets and capitalism in other areas.

That's why we need smaller government. You liberals in here complaining about Haliburton on this thread don't have a leg to stand on. Do you think Democrats award contracts any differently? Let's be serious. Republicans and Democrats are basically the same party. They both have political favors to repay and palms to grease.

And what about the best interest of the Iraqis? What about your compassion and all the rest of those feelings that are so important? Aren't you all happy that Saddam Hussein isn't killing Iraqis any more? What price do you put on human suffering? James T Kirk, please name me one "murdering prick" that is worse than Saddam.

I'm just glad that GWB has the strength to stay the course and do unpopular things in order to keep the pledge that he made to Americans after 9/11. We live in such a fickle world and popular opinion can change in a day. Even if I disagree with some of the things GWB has done, I respect a man that says he's going to do something and has the balls to see it through even when half of America has lost interest in the cause.

Ok, most of this is in response to Dostoevsky, and all of it it IMHO:

Bush took advantage of the situation provided to him by 9/11, I know what he said before attacking Iraq, but there was never any solid tie between the terrorists that attacked the US, and what he wanted to do over there- he was just using America's collective fear of more attacks to run his own agenda.

Anyone remember the "they tried to kill my daddy" speech?

Iraq was a way for Bush to get more money for "defense", grease his pal's palms, and bulldoze The PATRIOT Act into action.

As far as him continuing with an unpopular act, he never should have invaded without having all the facts (as they're now calling it in the media- I prefer the term "lies") in order.

Fickle? Nah, I never supported his actions from the beginning, I haven't changed my mind, either.

Yeah but given the options of a house in CA or a hole in the ground he would probably choose the first one.

The man who's favorite movie is the Godfather hates america(that's probably just his gimmic)? Put the house in Cuba or whereever. And i thought i mentioned something about amnesty.

If it would have worked then itwould have been cheaper both in lives and money.


Anyway, I tried to make a semi-humourous post but I made the mistake of forgetting the :D :D


No, Europe tried the "He's no threat and has no WMD?"-approach, and as it seems it was the right choice.

I find this interesting. Since it has been shown that Iraq was not a threat, doesn't that compel you to ask a whole new series of questions? If there was no threat to homeland security from Saddam, then how did the pre-emptive strike protect you from anything? And if this war wasn't to protect you from an immediate danger, then what was it for?

Why be a lemming?

SLM3

SLM3- Saddam was a threat, now that GWB whipped his ass, he's not a threat any longer. Sorry to ruffle your liberal feathers, but your arguement is baseless. Just because we haven't turned up any WMDs yet doesn't mean that he wasn't harboring and supporting terrorism.

Why be an immature name caller?

Prove it.


SLM3

How come people are afraid to let people make money?

More gov spending is the democratic way.

First off, I don't mind companies that make money PROVIDED that they do so in a competitive way. To allow a company a no-bid contract and then say, "oops they overcharged us in gas, shame on them, but somehow it's all good." is NOT competitive. That IMHO is ripping off the taxpayers and illegal in private practice.

We allow jobs to be shipped overseas, we have allowed companies to not offer benefits, bring in illegals, hire through temp agencies, our educational system to be in total disarray and so on. While we turn blind eyes, say we need to do something but don't and have one party, in almost total control, actually laughing and making up reasons why this is all acceptable. The other party is too busy trying to figure out how to get back into power and defend thier policies to be effective.

Secondly, the tax money we pay SHOULD go to making sure our country stays the greatest. NOT TO PROMOTE HATRED by being in illegal wars, flexing our muscle and intimidating the rest of the world to do what we say.

After 9/11 we had every major country in the world supporting us, offering help and assistance. Today we are the most reviled hated country in the world. Something is wrong here very very wrong. We have destroyed our credibilty and mortgaged our children's future for what? A war that proved nothing? If we were truly after WMDs, imminent threats, evil dictators, why have we not done anything to North Korea? Hell, the Chinese have even said they won't do anything if we did. No, Iraq was, is and always will be about 3 things, OIL, making money and W seeking revenge on Saddam for his daddy.

If we took even 1/10th of what this war is costing us and put it into education and healthcare we would be a much better country. Instead we have Dr.s that are leaving states because they can't afford the malpractice insurance. We have veterans that our president, Little Boy Who Would Be King, saying he will do anything for being denied access to what benefits are rightfully thiers, VA Hospitals closing and those vets thrown out onto the streets.

Within 10 years, I predict that we'll become one of the poorest, most crime ridden countries in the industrialized nations unless we start spending domestically and and rebuild a decent paying job system here.

In regards to Saddam harboring terrorists? Your ignorance is distrubing. It is well documented and known that he has ties to several Palestinian based terrorists organizations, not to mention groups such as Ansar Al-Islam.

Yes, Ansar Al Islam's clashes with the Kurds in Northern Iraq was indeed a stepping stone to massive attacks against the US, due at any moment. Ansar Al Islam, an incredibly well funded terrorist organization, did make it well known that they were hell bent on destroying the US.

And those Palestinian resistance fighters (or terrorists, whatever suits your agenda) were right behind them, planning massive attacks against the US as well. It's a good thing the US invaded Iraq, now the Palestinians are no longer resisting and Ansar Al Islam is merely a shell of the supremely powerful organization it once was.

Stick with Uranium from Africa and big aluminum tubes, it's much more convincing.


SLM3

That is all grate, i'm also glad that saddam is out of power, he was a bad man. But the fact that he was supporting the groups you mentioned above was never told to the american people. We were led to believe that saddam and al quida (remember them, the group that bombed the world trade centers) were together on the whole thing. Bush and his administration build the reasons to go to war on the idea that saddam had something to do with 9/11 and that he had WMD's that were a threat to the US.
Well lets see, no WMD's have been found and there is not been a connection to al quida that has been established with saddam and iraq. Lets see, oh yeah, that other guy Osama bin laden, is still roaming 'the hills' as well.
GW played on our fears to get the american public to back him to invade a country....For what???

Mr b

Why split hairs? Terrorism is terrorism. Bush struck pre-emptively. Many Americans, myself included, think it's awesome. I wonder what we can clean up around the world in his next tenure as president. GO GWB!!

Sure we haven't found no smoking gun, but we have found precusors for WMD's and active programs, yet again putting him in material breach of resolutions.