If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(MSNBC)   Welcome to the Trillion-Dollar War   (abcnews.go.com) divider line 473
    More: Scary  
•       •       •

30492 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Apr 2006 at 7:54 PM (8 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



473 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2006-04-20 09:17:42 PM  
StreetlightInTheGhetto
WRONG!

Please see link where they DID have weapons and decided at the last minute to destroy them!

And if you want healthcare please find a job that offers is instead of ranting. I did! =) Maybe you should join the military! My healthcare is awesome!
 
2006-04-20 09:17:59 PM  
Jesus f*cking Christ on a crutch. Remember the good old days when Honest Don Rumsfeld said that it would cost a mere $50 billion? Remember?

Ahhhhhh....good times. Good to know that the Decider has picked wisely.
 
2006-04-20 09:19:31 PM  
///'s are still free
 
2006-04-20 09:25:07 PM  
We traded New Orleans for Iraq. WE could have built levees made out of solid gold and if those failed we could have built the farking emerald city to replace the destroyed American city.

But hey- I am sure we can all feel good knowing that NYC still has a big ol' hole in the ground and New Orleans is molding while the Iraqis breathe the sweet sweet air of freedumb or something.
 
2006-04-20 09:25:12 PM  
Mmmmmmm...I wonder how many people have not yet made up their minds about whether to support this war or not.

For those two or ten undecided persons, or however many it is, do I think it's a whiz-bang idea for them to make up their minds based on how much it's cost? Support a war that has killed so many people because it's cheaper than the Great Society program? Oppose a war that has resulted in toppling Saddam Hussein, just because it cost more than was originally thought?

Both of those prospects are equally silly. When cockroaches are invading your home, you don't quibble about how you would rather spend the exterminator's fee at Blockbuster or Starbuck's or Gottschalk's, and you don't argue endlessly about whether the infestation had something to do with the kids getting sick last month. Cockroaches are bad. You take care o'business. Period.
 
2006-04-20 09:25:37 PM  
gonzo79: Please see link where they DID have weapons and decided at the last minute to destroy them!

Yeah - lets see that link.

And if you want healthcare please find a job that offers is instead of ranting. I did! =) Maybe you should join the military! My healthcare is awesome!

Join the military to get health-care. Nice thinking Einstein.
 
2006-04-20 09:26:21 PM  
That's $37336.58 per person in Iraq.

How much does it cost to kill someone?
 
2006-04-20 09:27:23 PM  
The main problem is that the average American can't do math. When the DC sniper was active, people were polled and "being killed by the sniper" was their third greatest fear. Not being in a car crash (1000 times more likely), but being sniped. Similarly, most people can't seem to grasp the fact that massive deficit spending has 100x the impact on their lives than terrorism does. Want a safe America? Stop mortgaging the future.
 
2006-04-20 09:32:09 PM  
Let's just sell Iraq to Iran for their nuclear program. Iran can just swoop in and take over Iraq, looking the other way while we leave. Iran gets more land, more oil. We don't have to spend any more money in Iraq. Iran looks like they have massive weeners to the rest of the world. Don't have to worry about Iranian nukes and another war. Terrorists get an oppressive Islamic government that the US didn't make. We "lose" (more like taking a dive really) a war to a nation with a legitimate military, instead of a bunch of zealots whose favorite weapon is exploding people (since everyone else seems to think we've lost already). Everybody wins!

/Except the Iraqis...
//But they're pretty farked no matter what
///This will be the plot line for 24 next season, yhihf!
 
2006-04-20 09:39:04 PM  
Teucer


"1 Trillion Dollars = Cost of Iraqi Freedom

Democracy is worth it."

The Iraqi "democracy" features a constitution that says "no law can contradict Islam."

That is not worth 1 cent of my tax money, or even 1 American life.
 
2006-04-20 09:40:01 PM  
Whose freedom are you paying for? Your own, dumbass. Bill Clinton's years of punting on this issue--especially after the first WTC bombing in 1993--led directly to the deaths of 3000+ people on American soil; that's far more deaths than Pearl Harbor. Since 9/11, there has been a grand total of zero attacks on American soil. We are fortunate enough to have a president who will take the fight to the enemy, instead of biting his lip and issuing tearful apologies for America's existence.

You don't want your tax money paying for a war? Well, I don't want mine paying for the National Wild Turkey Federation or the Waterfree Urinal Conservation Initiative, not to mention vast government bureaucracies that exercise powers not granted to the federal government by the Constitution. None of us gets what we want all the time. Didn't your mommy teach you that?

The simple fact is that the bad guys don't give a shiat whether you are a Democrat or a Republican, a liberal or a conservative. To them, Ralph Neas is the same as Ralph Reed; Ted Kennedy is the same as Rick Santorum. What they want is you--and me--dead, for the "crime" of being Americans. They want our society destroyed, and replaced with their own primitive, violent, sixth-century vision of how the world should be. And the best way to stop them is to kill them first, and kill them where they live.

So, how much money is too much to ensure that your daughters and your daughters' daughters won't be forced to wear a burqa, prohibited from learning to read, and flogged by the religious police if they have the temerity to drive a car or (heaven forbid) leave the house unaccompanied by a male relative? Because that's what we're fighting.

/In war, there is no substitute for victory.
//Douglas MacArthur
 
2006-04-20 09:41:27 PM  
mikep7777, Here 'ya go:

img86.imageshack.us
 
2006-04-20 09:42:21 PM  
I have a new Idol his name ......CYBERNETIC!
 
2006-04-20 09:44:09 PM  
Cybernetic

"So, how much money is too much to ensure that your daughters and your daughters' daughters won't be forced to wear a burqa,"

Like many women in Iraq today?

Iraq had no intention of invading America or any ability to do so.

You have swallowed the whole "this is just like ww2" propaganda.
 
2006-04-20 09:44:44 PM  
To me, there are two things about this number that deserve the scary tag.

First, we have a standing army with a huge budget, but no strategic cash reserve for fighting a war. Unless we go back to the ancient idea of war taxes, we have no way to pay for conflicts. And war taxes have a nasty way of never being revoked.

Second, for a piddly conflict in a minor country, this is way more expensive than it should be. Our reliance on highly advanced technology reduces casualties, but in a real war how would we afford the logistical cost, especially given the first point?
 
2006-04-20 09:44:51 PM  
Didn't Douglas MacArthur fade away or something? Yeah, instead of my daughter wearing a burqa, she'll be speaking Chinese -- Great, big improvement.
 
2006-04-20 09:45:06 PM  
Cybernetic: Bill Clinton's years of punting on this issue--especially after the first WTC bombing in 1993--led directly to the deaths of 3000+ people on American soil; that's far more deaths than Pearl Harbor. Since 9/11, there has been a grand total of zero attacks on American soil. We are fortunate enough to have a president who will take the fight to the enemy, instead of biting his lip and issuing tearful apologies for America's existence.

I think you forgot that Bush was president during 9/11.

Maybe he should have read his memo?

I personally remember a back-page news story on September 8th or 9th about Afghan officials saying something bad was about to happen to the US - and that was shortly after the Taliban killed the resistance leader - September 6th or so, if I recall.

But if you really think 9/11 is all Clinton's fault, don't worry, I don't have the motivation to argue with someone so blindly bound to a political faction.
 
2006-04-20 09:47:05 PM  
triphopping_man

http://www.sierrafoot.org/soapbox/Bush_lies_iraq_powell.html

since you were too lazy of an american to scroll.....

now read while I wait!


ok waited long enough.... I even quoted they did indeed have weapons as cited by various agencies. Now go ahead and tell me I am right. =)
 
2006-04-20 09:49:12 PM  
homepage.mac.com
 
2006-04-20 09:49:14 PM  
Gore may have been a little wooden, but at least he seemed competent.

Competent?!?! WTF? Smoke crack much?

/Republican.
//So suck it.
///Pissed at Bush.
////I want my GOP back from the fundies!
 
2006-04-20 09:50:03 PM  
I wonder how much of that went directly onto our burn pit out at FOB McHenry. New unneeded humvee parts, food and lots of other stuff. And who knows how much we waisted shooting artillery rounds at the side of mountain for no particular reason. They called H&I fires, but we all new it just so someone could have a good looking bullet on his Officer Evaluation Report.
 
2006-04-20 09:51:48 PM  
Moral of the story: dont trust politicians, and bomb the shiat out of everyone.

GOOD NIGHT FOLKS
 
2006-04-20 09:52:00 PM  
A nice little write up on the captain of the Freedom Boat.
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/profile/story/9961300/the_worst_president_in_ history?rnd=1145557728355&has-player=true
 
2006-04-20 09:55:07 PM  
Whose freedom are you paying for? Your own, dumbass. Bill Clinton's years of punting on this issue--especially after the first WTC bombing in 1993--led directly to the deaths of 3000+ people on American soil; that's far more deaths than Pearl Harbor.

Apparently Cybernetic you're either historically challenged or suffering from right-wing selective memory loss. Why stop with Clinton? Why not go back to the failed oil deal Rumsfeld tried to arrange with Saddam in the 80's, or the abandonment of our "ally" Osama Bin Ladin in the 80's after we armed and trained his army to fight the Soviets. That all happened during REPUBLICAN administrations.

Clinton didn't do much, but he inherited the problem from the previous administrations. Then Dudya ignored the security report handed to him a month before 9/11. And here we are, 3 years and a trillion dollars later, still invading a country that had NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11.

It that makes you feel safer, congratulations. You've got a sibling born every minute.

/I say we make Haliburton pay for the war out of their record profits
 
2006-04-20 09:55:32 PM  
gonzo79 -- "WRONG! Please see link where they DID have weapons and decided at the last minute to destroy them!"

The Iraqi Survey Group's final report concluded that Saddam did not possess any stockpiles of WMD at the time of the 2003 U.S. invasion. Further, it found that Iraq did not contravene the sanctions regime by resuming these programs after 1991.

The Iraq Survey Group was established by the Bush administration in early 2003 to search for Saddam's suspected stockpiles of WMD. It consisted of a 1,400-member international team of inspectors led by U.S. scientist David Kay. Kay later resigned believing that no illicit weapons would ever be found in Iraq. He was succeeded by inspector Charles Duelfer who issued the ISG's final report in the fall of 2004.

Didn't Saddam use WMD against the Iranians?

It's a well-known fact that Saddam had WMD capability prior to the first gulf war. However, after Iraq's defeat in 1991, Saddam was compelled to destroy his WMD stockpiles and submit to a sanctions regime and stringent international inspections.

The Bush administration's rationale to go to war was that Saddam had resumed his pursuit of WMD in defiance of these sanctions and that he presented an imminent threat to the United States. Duelfer's report suggested that he did not.
 
2006-04-20 09:56:20 PM  
All I want to know is, WHERE THE FARK IS OSAMA?
 
2006-04-20 09:56:57 PM  
Aw shucks, folk. 911? Khobar Tower? Iraq? Afghanistan?

Heck, we ain't seen nothin' yet.


/Taking donations for bunker supplies.
 
2006-04-20 09:57:27 PM  
I sure wish someone would point out exactly how Hussein attacked our freedom. Anyone who falls for that would probably gone for all of Mao's slogans during the Great Cultural Revolution. It's propaganda, people. Even OBL didn't attack our freedom; he attacked our farking buildings.

Hussein was about as useful to the truly dangerous international terror groups as the appendix is to the digestive tract. Remove Hussein and you do what to terror? The whole idea is ludicrous.

Come to think of it, even if you did defeat actual real terrorists and terrorist organizations, how would you be "defending freedom?"

I'll tell you who is attacking freedom: persons who think it is OK to suspend due process. Persons who think it is OK for us to torture. Persons who think it is OK to spy on American citizens without warrants. And the list goes on. The treasonous, anti-American, freedom-hating Bush administration has done more damage to our freedom than any terrorist ever has. And certainly more damage than Hussein, who has done absolutely none.

.
 
2006-04-20 10:00:32 PM  
DPF

Wait, Kuwait isnt an American state? Oh screw this I'm moving to Iceland, at least THEY arent at war.
 
2006-04-20 10:00:51 PM  
Cybernetic: Because that's what we're fighting.

No, that's what the Iraqi's should be fighting -- wearing burqas is their issue, not mine. They need to mature as a culture and moke those value judgement on their own, they can't be force-fed.

I don't need security based upon someone else getting oppressed 5000 miles away. If that's the case we'll always be at war with somebody. It's not our job to Brillo-pad the Earth.

What do we have as a result of that folly? Death, debt, spent credibility, loss of allies, loss of credibility. Now that we've overextended ourselves, the nutjobs see it and come out of the woodwork: Iran, N Korea, et al.

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!
 
2006-04-20 10:01:09 PM  
I remember in the movie Contact (hated the ending, but that's beside the point), when all the nations came together and built the huge teleportation device, and there was so much drama when the 'news' program said that it cost "a quarter trillion dollars". Kinda makes me laugh now. And die a little inside.


/not looking foward to taxes in the next few decades
//where's your tax break now?!
 
2006-04-20 10:02:35 PM  
Guess what! As of today Australia owes nothing to nobody! Send your grandkids the bloody hell over here!

pop
 
2006-04-20 10:02:54 PM  
scothand: Anyone care to explain how so many smart people can be against this, but be completely incapable of fixing it?


Because the stupid people are in charge.


gonzo79: Would you rather pay more taxes or have your children fighting in the streets against angry muslims? Your choice.

And of course, those are the only choices.

Please see link where they DID have weapons and decided at the last minute to destroy them!

Why? They were about to be invaded. If your camp was about to be overrun by the enemy, would you destroy your weapons? What would be the advantage?

This kind of stuff is moronic. I don't know how anyone smart enough to find the ON button of their computer could still be believing this crap.
 
2006-04-20 10:05:49 PM  
knobmaster

Why? They were about to be invaded. If your camp was about to be overrun by the enemy, would you destroy your weapons? What would be the advantage?

Saving face in to the rest of the world. If we invaded and found nothing, we look like the assh- oh wait, never mind.
 
2006-04-20 10:07:43 PM  
Ny-QuilDriver

You just got a free month of TF. Enjoy.
 
2006-04-20 10:08:21 PM  
Republicans still remember the Bad Ol' Days

punistation.fuyucorp.biz

"God bless fiscal conservatives. They spend our money Right."
 
2006-04-20 10:09:41 PM  
"We're fighting them over THERE so we don't have to fight them HERE" - American.

Is that what it means to be a US Soldier these days? BAIT?
 
2006-04-20 10:10:00 PM  
Saving face in to the rest of the world. If we invaded and found nothing, we look like the assh- oh wait, never mind.

So, you think Saddam was more concerned with making America look stupid than with personal survival?

WTF?
 
2006-04-20 10:12:12 PM  
Sympathy against the Evil Americans? I mean the dude did need all the help he could get.
 
2006-04-20 10:12:31 PM  
Sir Vanderhoot
I remember in the movie Contact (hated the ending, but that's beside the point)

Oh I see, you're one of those people..the kind that completely missed the point of that movie.

/sorry for threadjack
//had to be said though
 
2006-04-20 10:16:17 PM  
Its all part of the white man's burden.
 
2006-04-20 10:17:52 PM  

Saddam did NOT have WMDs.

Iraq was NOT responsible for 9/11.

We STILL don't have Osama Bin Laden.


Wasn't the latest excuse something about freeing the Iraqi people from Hussein's iron fist? Or some shiat like that.
 
2006-04-20 10:22:03 PM  
I think we can all agree he is succeeding where his father failed. If it means the deaths of thousands of his countrymen, so be it, we'll just slap the "Hero" tag on them and make it all better.
 
2006-04-20 10:22:25 PM  
just stopping by to remind everyone that it's going to be time soon that we start holding our government accountable for its actions in the past 6 years. i ask you all; how shall we begin and when do we start?
 
2006-04-20 10:22:31 PM  
knobmaker: Why? They were about to be invaded. If your camp was about to be overrun by the enemy, would you destroy your weapons? What would be the advantage?

Imagine this: an overwhelmingly powerful force demands you get rid of your weapons or it will invade. You know that the weapons won't actually save you, but destroying them will keep you from getting invaded. Wouldn't you destroy the weapons?
Of course, Bush wouldn't even believe the evidence of his own weapon inspection teams. He wanted Iraq sucking his dick and he did what he had to do to get that.
Frankly, I'm glad Saddam is gone. He and his family were some of the worst human beings that ever existed. He murdered his opponents, he gassed civilians, he committed mass-murder against Shiites and Kurds. In my opinion, there is no punishment that is too painful to be inflicted on him. Bush could have been a hero, but he's too fricking incompetent to take over Iraq from a tin-pot dictator, 80% of whose population hated him with every breath they took.
 
2006-04-20 10:24:43 PM  
In my opinion, there is no punishment that is too painful to be inflicted on him.

So... what punishment have we given him?
 
2006-04-20 10:25:04 PM  
" Lightswitch Rave

Sir Vanderhoot
I remember in the movie Contact (hated the ending, but that's beside the point)

Oh I see, you're one of those people..the kind that completely missed the point of that movie.

/sorry for threadjack
//had to be said though"

Not that I didn't 'get' the ending, I didn't like it.
 
2006-04-20 10:25:59 PM  
Cybernetic

Who are we at war with?
Please reply, I, and many others, are DIEING to know.
 
2006-04-20 10:27:09 PM  
MisterBill: Frankly, I'm glad Saddam is gone. He and his family were some of the worst human beings that ever existed.

Where was your outrage when 800,000 Rwandans were being slaughtered -- why not invate and "save" them too?

Seletive outrage.

Saddam was a two-bit dictator in a world of $100 despots doing as much or worse.
 
2006-04-20 10:28:31 PM  
Looks like someone shouldn't have handed over a certain trillion dollar bill to Cuba.
 
Displayed 50 of 473 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report