Bush's 'priceless' war

According to a report on the cost of the war in Iraq released last week by the Democratic staff of the House Budget Committee, the war and ongoing insurgency could cost the United States between US$461 billion and $646 billion by 2015, depending on the scope and duration of operations.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GB25Ak01.html

Because after all you didn't need that damned school in another couple weeks, we will be drafting those school children anyway ! The logic here must be crystal clear here for those who support the war and coupled with those massive tax cuts for the filthy rich it is YOU who loses out !

you should really turn that into a question, or this will turn into a yes no yes no yes no argument :p , and ye I agree but I dont see how that can be discussed.

Brian doesn't want a discussion. He just want to hammer, hammer on his agenda.

Well, if the title of this thread is America's never-ending war--that's the fate of all empires, isn't it, all throughout history? They get on top by force or guile, and to stay there they have to keep using it until they're toppled from their perch. 'King of the Castle' in the real world. :D

Well, if the title of this thread is America's never-ending war--that's the fate of all empires, isn't it, all throughout history? They get on top by force or guile, and to stay there they have to keep using it until they're toppled from their perch. 'King of the Castle' in the real world. :D
War is the last resort , it happens when the imperial power is fading in economic strength and to keep its imperial aquisitions it must do so by force . The object of my post is to demonstrate the lengths of looting the US government is doing to its own people .

They asked for it when they thought they would be free from whatever they are free from when they wiped out the indians. looting them is the most kind of all punishments. although i started to n otice is that people hate super powers... in the cold war it was the USSR now its america... it will always happen for a strange reason... my plan is to find what that reason is :)

i have no problem with superpowers as long as they dont try to impose their views because they have more power than the rest of us.
i have no problem with russia, china or india. only with the americans who abuse their power and start meaningless wars

i have no problem with superpowers as long as they dont try to impose their views because they have more power than the rest of us.
i have no problem with russia, china or india. only with the americans who abuse their power and start meaningless wars

Remember one thing! America is always RIGHT. We are the GOOD guys and rest of the WORDL is evil. So GOOD guys have to save the world and that is their Duty posted upon them By God Himself.

i sure hope whatever god you worship knows that you were being sarcastic, and if you werent, then i will personally deliver your statement to them for judgement

Deliver to them? I thought I only mentioned GOD not gods.

vslayer... the problem is propoganda everywhere.. our views are affected by others around us and by media.. media hates superpowers... and every superpower that ever existed has tried to force its views on others... so < there is somthing else to prove my point :)

other than that

who notices that lately all hollywood films are about great conquerors or empires? :::

1.Alexander.
2.Troy.
3.gladiator.
4. Attila the hun.
5. King arthur < contains the word freedom 43 times)
6. breaveheart

I know its slightly off topic , but i watched King arthur today and was really pissed off:

1. because the only thing it had in common with the classic story was the name...
2. it stole the neding from Alexander Nevsky.. an old russian film... together with the music (shostakovich)
3. spread a propogandist idea... which i managed to link with israel , america and iraq ( the saxxons in this case) ... who were big and nasty and had to be killed.

http://www.realnews247.com/who_rules_america_updated_2004.htm

"i have no problem with superpowers as long as they dont try to impose their views because they have more power than the rest of us."

Ahem *cough* *cough*
Thats what makes a super power a super power :)

Odin'Izm - that has a lot to do with LOTR and Epic films being in vogue . . . mind you, Olivar Stone said in an interview i read that he had political intentions in mind.

Man I left LOTR out.

The so-called "War On Terror" is analogous to the "War On Drugs" as neither have an objective that is well defined, nor an enemy that is easily targeted and destroyed.

Political leaders can continue to move the goalpost and extend the "war" as long as they feel like, because the scope of the "war" is arbitrarily defined only by them, and therefore it is infinitely flexible.

That is why you can easily say it is a never-ending "war". And I put quotes around the word because as a student of warfare throughout the ages it doesn't dovetail with any conventional definition of the word.

Edit: "neither" instead of "both" in the 1st paragraph there

I find the FOX chanel "terror alert"s and "terror level extended" things that come up during a report, and dont tell you why they are raised , where the terror is ... etc... funnyest thing iv seen in my life time...

http://www.realnews247.com/who_rule...pdated_2004.htm

What a blatantly anti-semitic article. Yes, the Jews have a large market on the media, but many different industries are contolled by unusually large amounts of ethnic groups, including WASPS. There are many non-jews who control important posts in many media organizations, and those heading there companies would find it impossible to micromanage.

Secondly, the problem I have with such articles is that it assumes that Jews are one single entity, who have the same exact political views and agenda. If you compare Neo-Cons and the Liberal Jew, you will see a distinctive difference. They do not get together in closed doors and promote their single agenda, it is a ridiculous concept. Even in Israel the difference of opinion and politics is sharp, and the American jew is not nearly as close to his religious ties as those who live in the middle east.

UPDATE :
House OKs $81.4 Billion on War Spending

Thursday March 17, 2005 5:31 AM


By LIZ SIDOTI

Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush got most of the money he wanted for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as the House approved a $81.4 billion measure Wednesday, pushing the total cost for fighting terrorism over $300 billion.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-4871585,00.html

If you don't like it we could always just carpet bomb whole cities and save the taxpayer some money.

If you don't like it we could always just carpet bomb whole cities and save the taxpayer some money.

This statement is clearly immature and dishonerable. Are you saying we should just blow everybody up, regardless of if they are combative of not? This kind of disreguard for human life shows a great deal of ignorance on your part. Further more if the US did not become involved in unnecessary wars they wouldn't have to shell out 300 billion, would they?

You should have been able to sense the sarcasm. I was absolutely slathering it on my post.

Anyway, you should note that wiping cities away has been common practice for a -very- long time. Wars used to be won by physically breaking the enemy's industry and population to the point they could no longer put up resistance. While I like the surgical method, there is no -right- way.

If you don't like it we could always just carpet bomb whole cities and save the taxpayer some money.
American cities have already been carpet bombed with policies courtesy of freemarket economics . How about spending the billions wasted on this quagmire of a war on American cities like inner city housing and releiving poverty ?

I am just tired of all these games. Why can't America just step on stage and dominate the world itself. When are they going to stop hiding behind other countries(britian, france, e.t.c). You notice America is quick to attack smaller mundane countries like little Iraq. Even that was a "coalition". I am sick of these "Coalitions" term also, isn't America strong enough to stand up for itself. The British did it alone, and so did the Romans. Be bold my bald eagle.

Brian: Well, we went surgical this time and for the last few wars. While we have very low casualty rates for our own soldiers, they are a bit too much for the weak hearted. We would lose almost nothing if we were willing to flatten cities at a time to get rid of insurgents.

Also, we found thatthe government can can only put its hands in civilian systems so much before things become dependant on it doing so year after year. Give too much help and you will be trapped doing the same year after year with no end in sight.

Chatha: Personally... I would like that. The problem is that it would be a little out of our league. We could certainly destroy civilization as we know it, but dominate is an entirely different thing. There are also the problems of Russia's and Kazakhstan's nukular weapons as well as the fact that most Americans do not wantto rule the world.

I would like at this time to offer an apology as I have difficulty translating human emotions, especially when there are so many opinoins, some of them extreme. Sarcasm was lost in translation.

Brian: Well, we went surgical this time and for the last few wars. While we have very low casualty rates for our own soldiers, they are a bit too much for the weak hearted.
And those surgical strike campaigns enabled the US to accurately obliterate the Iraqi public utility infrastructure an action which contravenes international law. Thereby killing in the slow process hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilian dependent on those targets .

Fine. We can go ahead and take out a hundred thousand people in an hour if you would prefer.
And please note that quite often the insurgents are blowing the hell out of their own utilities, as much sense as that makes.

And those surgical strike campaigns enabled the US to accurately obliterate the Iraqi public utility infrastructure an action which contravenes international law. Thereby killing in the slow process hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilian dependent on those targets .:rolleyes:

If you know of a better way to shut down a Soviet-bloc integrated air defense network, I'd like to hear it.

Also, what international law do you speak of?

Isn't this how ancient Greece collapsed? Constant war, infighting, polarization and balkanization of political groups, class war, outbreeding, hedonism?

GOODBYE AMERICA

(FLUSH)

Greece didn't die. It moved a few miles and renamed itself Rome.

Not quite - it had a long, prolonged death in which most of its culture and learning was lost.

"If you don't like it we could always just carpet bomb whole cities and save the taxpayer some money."

Ans nukes are even cheaper.

"American cities have already been carpet bombed with policies courtesy of freemarket economics . How about spending the billions wasted on this quagmire of a war on American cities like inner city housing and releiving poverty ?"

Ahhh the Closet Commie speaks.

Ahhh the Closet Commie speaks.

Comrade ! :)

damn I hate communists!