PDA

View Full Version : The One Certainty About Iraq: Spiralling Costs for Americans


Pitt Gorilla
04-21-2006, 12:14 AM
http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=1866779&page=1

Poor Planning, Need for New Equipment Could Push War Costs to $1 Trillion
By KEITH GARVIN

April 20, 2006 ó - There are many uncertainties about the progress made by coalition forces and the future prospects for stability and democracy in Iraq, but there is at least one indisputable fact: The Bush administration vastly underestimated the costs of the Iraq war.

Not only in human lives, but in monetary terms as well, the costs of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq far exceed the administration's initial projection of a $50 billion tab. While the number of American casualties in Iraq has declined this year, the amount of money spent to fight the war and rebuild the country has spiralled upward.

The price is expected to almost double after lawmakers return to Capitol Hill next week when the Senate takes up a record $106.5 billion emergency spending bill that includes $72.4 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The House passed a $92 billion version of the bill last month that included $68 billion in war funding. That comes on top of $50 billion already allocated for the war this fiscal year.

Poor Planning Could Push War Costs to $1 Trillion

ABC analyst Tony Cordesman, who also holds the Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy for the Center for Strategic and International Studies, says the exorbitant costs come down to poor planning.

"When the administration submitted its original budget for the Iraq war, it didn't provide money for continuing the war this year or any other. We could end up spending up to $1 trillion in supplemental budgets for this war."

According to the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, the United States spent $48 billion for Iraq in 2003, $59 billion in 2004, and $81 billion in 2005. The center predicts the figure will balloon to $94 billion for 2006. That equates to a $1,205 bill for each of America's 78 million families, on top of taxes they already pay.

Bill Will Linger Long After Withdrawal

Analysts say the increases can be blamed on the rising cost of maintaining military equipment and developing new equipment. As the cost of military equipment escalates, the cost of the war escalates. In fact, developing state-of-the-art weapons to defeat insurgents and their roadside bombs will hit the wallets of American taxpayers for years to come.

"The Department of Defense has increased its investment in new equipment from $700 billion to $1.4 trillion in the coming years," Cordesman said.

Army Chief of Staff Peter Schoomaker recently warned lawmakers that the cost of upkeep and replacement of military equipment would continue even after U.S. forces withdrew from Iraq. To fully reequip and upgrade the U.S. Army after the war ends will cost $36 billion over six years, and that figure assumes U.S. forces will start withdrawing from Iraq in July, and be completely out of the country by the end of 2008.

Copyright © 2006 ABC News Internet Ventures

Boyceofsummer
04-21-2006, 01:29 AM
http://www.lovenstein.org/report/

The Presidential IQ Report

WASHINGTON --In a published report, the Lovenstein Institute of Scranton, Pennsylvania has detailed findings of a four month study of the intelligence quotient of President George W. Bush. Since 1973, the Lovenstein Institute has published its research to the education community on each new president, which includes the famous "IQ" report among others.

According to statements in the report, there have been twelve presidents over the past 60 years, from F. D. Roosevelt to G. W. Bush who were all rated based on scholarly achievements, writings that they alone produced without aid of staff, their ability to speak with clarity, and several other psychological factors which were then scored in the Swanson/Crain system of intelligence ranking. The study determined the following IQs of each president as accurate to within five percentage points:

147 Franklin D. Roosevelt (D)
132 Harry Truman (D)
122 Dwight D. Eisenhower (R)
174 John F. Kennedy (D)
126 Lyndon B. Johnson (D)
155 Richard M. Nixon (R)
121 Gerald R. Ford (R)
176 James E. Carter (D)
105 Ronald W. Reagan (R)
98 George H. W. Bush (R)
182 William J. Clinton (D)
91 George W. Bush (R)

patteeu
04-21-2006, 06:05 AM
I liked this part:

ABC analyst Tony Cordesman, who also holds the Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy for the Center for Strategic and International Studies, says the exorbitant costs come down to poor planning.

"When the administration submitted its original budget for the Iraq war, it didn't provide money for continuing the war this year or any other. We could end up spending up to $1 trillion in supplemental budgets for this war."

WTF? Is Cordsman saying that poor planning led to exorbitant costs? If so, why doesn't he back up his assertion with some explanation? Or is he just saying we need to use supplemental budgets instead of regular budgets because of poor planning? If so, who cares?

According to the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, the United States spent $48 billion for Iraq in 2003, $59 billion in 2004, and $81 billion in 2005. The center predicts the figure will balloon to $94 billion for 2006. That equates to a $1,205 bill for each of America's 78 million families, on top of taxes they already pay.

$1,205 per family over a 4 year period doesn't sound exorbitant if you are going to fight a war. That's barely over $300 per year. And why do we report expenses like these as though we have a flat tax? Poor families will pay $0 on top of the $0 they already pay in taxes. Rich families will pay a hell of a lot more than $1,205 per family because they are paying the freight for themselves and all those poor families who don't pay their fair share.

I don't remember the exact numbers, but this war is far cheaper on an annual basis than several wars in US history (e.g. the World Wars) as a percentage of GDP. The difference was dramatic. Something like 0.5% of GDP for the current war compared to something on the order of 30% of GDP for WWII. So all the hype about spiraling and record costs (in absolute terms) is a little misleading.

oldandslow
04-21-2006, 07:16 AM
Patteeu

1200 dollars over four years is way too much...especially for those of us who think we have no business over there in the first place.

Chiefs Express
04-21-2006, 07:44 AM
http://www.lovenstein.org/report/

The Presidential IQ Report

WASHINGTON --In a published report, the Lovenstein Institute of Scranton, Pennsylvania has detailed findings of a four month study of the intelligence quotient of President George W. Bush. Since 1973, the Lovenstein Institute has published its research to the education community on each new president, which includes the famous "IQ" report among others.

According to statements in the report, there have been twelve presidents over the past 60 years, from F. D. Roosevelt to G. W. Bush who were all rated based on scholarly achievements, writings that they alone produced without aid of staff, their ability to speak with clarity, and several other psychological factors which were then scored in the Swanson/Crain system of intelligence ranking. The study determined the following IQs of each president as accurate to within five percentage points:

147 Franklin D. Roosevelt (D)
132 Harry Truman (D)
122 Dwight D. Eisenhower (R)
174 John F. Kennedy (D)
126 Lyndon B. Johnson (D)
155 Richard M. Nixon (R)
121 Gerald R. Ford (R)
176 James E. Carter (D)
105 Ronald W. Reagan (R)
98 George H. W. Bush (R)
182 William J. Clinton (D)
91 George W. Bush (R)

I'm sure those numbers are as accurate as as they could be for someone that detests the Bush family.

I find it hard to believe that any of the numbers reflect the true IQ of any of those presidents listed.

You cannot judge a persons IQ without first hand testing. I don't believe that you actually posted this drivel.

patteeu
04-21-2006, 08:42 AM
I don't believe that you actually posted this drivel.

You must not be familiar with Boyceofsummer's posting history. ;)

patteeu
04-21-2006, 08:51 AM
Patteeu

1200 dollars over four years is way too much...especially for those of us who think we have no business over there in the first place.

I understand that for people who don't approve of the war, $1 would be too much. My point was that given the decision to go to war, $300 per year per family isn't an exorbitant cost. What is that, a little less than $0.15 per hour for a single-income family who's breadwinner works a nominal 40 hour work week and less than $0.08 per hour if the family relies on two incomes? That's not really a financially back-breaking sacrifice IMO.

Chiefs Express
04-21-2006, 08:57 AM
You must not be familiar with Boyceofsummer's posting history. ;)

Oh, I am but it just needed to be said again.

Ugly Duck
04-21-2006, 09:10 AM
I'm sure those numbers are as accurate as as they could be for someone that detests the Bush family.I don't detest Bush (one should feel sorry for people with low IQs), but I do agree with you that the test is flawed. 91 is way too high for Duhbya - its barely below average. If he were not born rich, you'd be chasing him and his squeegee away from your windshield at a stoplight somewhere. No way is he as high as 91.

Chiefs Express
04-21-2006, 09:15 AM
I don't detest Bush (one should feel sorry for people with low IQs), but I do agree with you that the test is flawed. 91 is way too high for Duhbya - its barely below average. If he were not born rich, you'd be chasing him and his squeegee away from your windshield at a stoplight somewhere. No way is he as high as 91.

I think your opinion is quite jaded. I would bet that the IQ's of all of the presidents are pretty much on an even keel. I'd bet that they are within 20 points of 150 across the board. That means low 130 ,high 170.

IQ does not measure the effectiveness of a person only their potential.

Bush might not use his intelligence as you want him to, but then if Clinton's IQ was so high why would he have sex with an intern in the oval office (on more than one occasion?)?

Remember the movie Rain Man? DH played an individual with an IQ off the charts, but his actions were less than socially acceptable.

Ugly Duck
04-21-2006, 10:54 AM
Bush might not use his intelligence as you want him to, but then if Clinton's IQ was so high why would he have sex with an intern ....Remember the movie Rain Man? Actually, it would be nice if he used his intelligence. Scary part is that he probably already is (shudder!). You may be right, though - maybe he's secretly smart like RainMan....


http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/multimedia/foolbush.mov

Chiefs Express
04-21-2006, 11:03 AM
Actually, it would be nice if he used his intelligence. Scary part is that he probably already is (shudder!). You may be right, though - maybe he's secretly smart like RainMan....


http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/multimedia/foolbush.mov

You are very confused. IQ doesn't really have any bearing on how you conduct yourself, it is your intelligence quotient.

IF the IQ's listed were correct and Bill Clinton would have weighed his situation he would not have diddled with Monica in the Oval office. What he did was very stupid and basically immoral.

What I"m saying is that your numbers don't jive.

DanT
04-21-2006, 11:19 AM
President Bush has degrees from Harvard and Yale and successfully completed jet fighter pilot training by the United States military. Obviously, that "Lovenstein Institute" report is nonsense. Here's the snopes.com report on it:

http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/hoaxes/presiq.htm

Here's the wikipedia.org entry on President Bush:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush#National_Guard_service

Ugly Duck
04-21-2006, 11:20 AM
IF the IQ's listed were correct and Bill Clinton would have weighed his situation he would not have diddled with Monica in the Oval office. What he did was very stupid and basically immoral.

What I"m saying is that your numbers don't jive.Hey... those aren't my numbers. I agreed with you that the test is flawed - no way is Bush's IQ as high as 91. Not sure if I agree with your assessment that smart people cannot be sexually kinky. And folks don't need to consider what Bush does with his weenie to recognize that he's mentally deficient. I also agreed that maybe Bush is secretly smart like Rainman, but giving no possible way of detecting it. Maybe he just seems moronic, but somewhere deep down inside there actually is some intelligence that cannot be expressed through words, deeds, or any other means.

banyon
04-21-2006, 11:21 AM
I don't detest Bush (one should feel sorry for people with low IQs), but I do agree with you that the test is flawed. 91 is way too high for Duhbya - its barely below average. If he were not born rich, you'd be chasing him and his squeegee away from your windshield at a stoplight somewhere. No way is he as high as 91.

I think 91 is about right. He talks like a moron and has a rather limited grasp on our language, but does show savvy and intuitive abilities on occasion.

I think that if you pulled 100 people off the street, Bush wouldn't make the top 15, but he'd be in the next 16-30.

It's like Franken always says. "Bush is like the 3rd-funniest guy in your fraternity."

oldandslow
04-21-2006, 11:25 AM
President Bush has degrees from Harvard and Yale and successfully completed jet fighter pilot training by the United States military. Obviously, that "Lovenstein Institute" report is nonsense. Here's the snopes.com report on it:

http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/hoaxes/presiq.htm

Here's the wikipedia.org entry on President Bush:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush#National_Guard_service

DanT:

Always the calming voice of reason at the height of misinformation storms.

Thank you.

Chiefs Express
04-21-2006, 11:27 AM
Hey... those aren't my numbers. I agreed with you that the test is flawed - no way is Bush's IQ as high as 91. Not sure if I agree with your assessment that smart people cannot be sexually kinky. And folks don't need to consider what Bush does with his weenie to recognize that he's mentally deficient. I also agreed that maybe Bush is secretly smart like Rainman, but giving no possible way of detecting it. Maybe he just seems moronic, but somewhere deep down inside there actually is some intelligence that cannot be expressed through words, deeds, or any other means.
I'd bet that Bush's IQ is higher than 91.

Your hatred of Bush fuels quite a few non-facts, but that's your mode of operation.

Also considering that you might be lazy and not look at the link by DanT.

From Snopes:


Origins: No, this isn't a real news report, nor does it describe a real study. There isn't a "Lovenstein Institute" in Scranton, Pennsylvania (or anywhere else in the USA), nor do any of the people quoted in the story exist, because this is just another spoof that was taken too seriously. The article quoted above began circulating on the Internet during the summer of 2001. In furtherance of the hoax, later that year pranksters thought to register www.lovenstein.org (http://www.lovenstein.org/) and erecting a web site around it in an attempt to fool people into thinking there really was such an institute. The piece is simply a political jibe, made obvious by its ranking all the Democratic presidents of the last several decades as having high (even exceptionally high) IQs ó note that Bill Clinton's IQ is listed as being exactly twice George W. Bush's ó while ranking all the Republican presidents from the same time frame as average to moderate in intelligence, with the current president and his father assigned below-average figures placing them at the very bottom of the list. (President Nixon is the sole exception, presumably because his reputation is still so tarnished that not even a high IQ measurement can yet redeem him in the court of public opinion.) [Some noticeable errors: Although the study includes Franklin D. Roosevelt, who died in office in 1945, the report is described as covering presidents in office "over the past 50 years." Also not true is the claim that "all the Presidents prior to George W. Bush had a least one book under their belt" ó some of them authored no books until after becoming president, and George W. Bush did have a book to his credit before being elected president, 1999's A Charge to Keep (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0688174418/qid=995667789/sr=2-1/ref=aps_sr_b_1_1/102-4392188-9248133). Plus, if there's a "Swanson/Crain" system for ranking intelligence, nobody else seems to have heard of it.] In any case, IQ is a dodgy enough concept even when measured by tests designed for the purpose ó trying to guess not just relative rankings but specific IQ scores based solely on writings and speeches is bound to be error-prone. Based on President George H. Bush's extemporaneous speech-making, for example, he couldn't "speak with clarity" to save his life, but he was clearly far more intelligent than the insultingly low IQ assigned to him above. And a recent article (http://www.csbsju.edu/uspp/Election/bush011401.htm) reports President Kennedy's IQ as 119, far below the genius-level 174 ascribed to him here. Update: As obvious as this joke was, at least two publications were taken in by it: The [London] Guardian and the New Zealand Southland Times. Both ran the "Presidential I.Q." tale as a factual item (on 19 July and 7 August 2001 respectively). The Associated Press publicized The Guardian's error on 12 August, moving The Guardian to post a retraction on 14 August, and U.S. News & World Report clearly reported the I.Q. item as a hoax on 20 August, 2001. Gary Trudeau's 26 August 2001 Doonesbury (http://web.archive.org/web/20020630211835/http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index20010902.htm) comic strip features an invisible George W. Bush being told about his ranking on the presidential I.Q. ladder by an underling. (This strip appeared on the Doonesbury web site on 2 September 2001). Last updated: 15 July 2004

Ugly Duck
04-21-2006, 11:29 AM
I think 91 is about right. OK... we'll just have to agree to disagree. Sad part is that there is even a debate over whether the Leader of the Free World is just really slow or actually is a true moron. And the debate over whether he is the absolute worst president of all time, or if there is some other president was actually worse then Bush. Dang, this is America. We can do better than what we are stuck with now.

Chiefs Express
04-21-2006, 11:31 AM
I think 91 is about right. He talks like a moron and has a rather limited grasp on our language, but does show savvy and intuitive abilities on occasion.

I think that if you pulled 100 people off the street, Bush wouldn't make the top 15, but he'd be in the next 16-30.

It's like Franken always says. "Bush is like the 3rd-funniest guy in your fraternity."

As a lawyer I'd assume that you were smarter than this, but you might not be one of the top of the line lawyers and this could be very well expected.

Ugly Duck
04-21-2006, 11:36 AM
Your hatred of Bush fuels quite a few non-facts, but that's your mode of operation.Hey now... don't try to write dissent off as mere hatred. I don't hate the poor guy at all. I don't even hold him responsible for anything the neocon regime does. He may be a dimwitted tool, but he probably doesn't even think enough to be considered evil. Just a poor sap that got swept up into a situation that he cannot comprehend. I dunno how someone could conjure up hatred for the poor dufus.

Chiefs Express
04-21-2006, 12:00 PM
Hey now... don't try to write dissent off as mere hatred. I don't hate the poor guy at all. I don't even hold him responsible for anything the neocon regime does. He may be a dimwitted tool, but he probably doesn't even think enough to be considered evil. Just a poor sap that got swept up into a situation that he cannot comprehend. I dunno how someone could conjure up hatred for the poor dufus.

Dissent and hatred are very different, you writing methods concerning the president is one of hate, not dissent.

Too bad you don't see the difference.

Ugly Duck
04-21-2006, 12:22 PM
Dissent and hatred are very different, you writing methods concerning the president is one of hate, not dissent.

Too bad you don't see the difference.Sorry, but I know better than you what I feel, and it ain't hate. Profound disapointment, disgust, anger.... sure, my dissent is expressed as vicious cynacism. But I honestly do not hate Bush for I honestly do not even think he's smart enough to be the guy in charge. I truly believe that the neocon cabal tells him what to do, not the other way around. I also believe that the idea that the national tsunami of dissent against the neocon regime is generated by "hate" is a total copout. The polls show a majority of Americans believe our country is headed in the wrong direction. Faux News attempts to invalidate that by squealing that its driven by "hate," but the sentiment is real. America rejects the neocon regime not because we are hateful, but because we think they're a buncha fuggups.

<embed width="410" height="332" src="http://www.ifilm.com/efp" quality="high" bgcolor="000000" name="efp" align="middle" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" flashvars="flvBaseClip=2646755" />

Pitt Gorilla
04-21-2006, 12:24 PM
Dissent and hatred are very different, you writing methods concerning the president is one of hate, not dissent.

Too bad you don't see the difference.
Honestly, CE, I'm guessing that UD knows quite a bit more about his personal stances than you do.

Chiefs Express
04-21-2006, 12:31 PM
Sorry, but I know better than you what I feel, and it ain't hate. Profound disapointment, disgust, anger.... sure, my dissent is expressed as vicious cynacism. But I honestly do not hate Bush for I honestly do not even think he's smart enough to be the guy in charge. I truly believe that the neocon cabal tells him what to do, not the other way around. I also believe that the idea that the national tsunami of dissent against the neocon regime is generated by "hate" is a total copout. The polls show a majority of Americans believe our country is headed in the wrong direction. Faux News attempts to invalidate that by squealing that its driven by "hate," but the sentiment is real. America rejects the neocon regime not because we are hateful, but because we think they're a buncha fuggups.



What you feel and what you say must be two totally different things, you write hate. Check out the definitions below.

Main Entry: 1dis∑sent http://www.m-w.com/images/audio.gif (javascript:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?dissen03.wav=dissent'))
Pronunciation: di-'sent
Function: intransitive verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin dissentire, from dis- + sentire to feel -- more at SENSE (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/sense)
1 : to withhold assent
2 : to differ in opinion

dissent n. dissents < di'sÍnt > : 1. A (http://www.ultralingua.net/index.html?action=define&nv=0&text=A&service=&searchtype=stemmed&service=english2english) difference (http://www.ultralingua.net/index.html?action=define&nv=0&text=difference&service=&searchtype=stemmed&service=english2english) of (http://www.ultralingua.net/index.html?action=define&nv=0&text=of&service=&searchtype=stemmed&service=english2english) opinion (http://www.ultralingua.net/index.html?action=define&nv=0&text=opinion&service=&searchtype=stemmed&service=english2english). 2. The (http://www.ultralingua.net/index.html?action=define&nv=0&text=The&service=&searchtype=stemmed&service=english2english) difference (http://www.ultralingua.net/index.html?action=define&nv=0&text=difference&service=&searchtype=stemmed&service=english2english) of (http://www.ultralingua.net/index.html?action=define&nv=0&text=of&service=&searchtype=stemmed&service=english2english) one (http://www.ultralingua.net/index.html?action=define&nv=0&text=one&service=&searchtype=stemmed&service=english2english) judge's (http://www.ultralingua.net/index.html?action=define&nv=0&text=judge's&service=&searchtype=stemmed&service=english2english) opinion (http://www.ultralingua.net/index.html?action=define&nv=0&text=opinion&service=&searchtype=stemmed&service=english2english) from (http://www.ultralingua.net/index.html?action=define&nv=0&text=from&service=&searchtype=stemmed&service=english2english) that (http://www.ultralingua.net/index.html?action=define&nv=0&text=that&service=&searchtype=stemmed&service=english2english) of (http://www.ultralingua.net/index.html?action=define&nv=0&text=of&service=&searchtype=stemmed&service=english2english) the (http://www.ultralingua.net/index.html?action=define&nv=0&text=the&service=&searchtype=stemmed&service=english2english) majority (http://www.ultralingua.net/index.html?action=define&nv=0&text=majority&service=&searchtype=stemmed&service=english2english); "he (http://www.ultralingua.net/index.html?action=define&nv=0&text=he&service=&searchtype=stemmed&service=english2english) expressed (http://www.ultralingua.net/index.html?action=define&nv=0&text=expressed&service=&searchtype=stemmed&service=english2english) his (http://www.ultralingua.net/index.html?action=define&nv=0&text=his&service=&searchtype=stemmed&service=english2english) dissent (http://www.ultralingua.net/index.html?action=define&nv=0&text=dissent&service=&searchtype=stemmed&service=english2english) in (http://www.ultralingua.net/index.html?action=define&nv=0&text=in&service=&searchtype=stemmed&service=english2english) a (http://www.ultralingua.net/index.html?action=define&nv=0&text=a&service=&searchtype=stemmed&service=english2english) contrary (http://www.ultralingua.net/index.html?action=define&nv=0&text=contrary&service=&searchtype=stemmed&service=english2english) opinion (http://www.ultralingua.net/index.html?action=define&nv=0&text=opinion&service=&searchtype=stemmed&service=english2english)." [Law]
More results... (http://www.ultralingua.net/index.html?action=define&nv=0&searchtype=tempbrowse&text=dissent&service=english2english)dissent v. dissented ◊ dissenting ◊ dissents < di'sÍnt > : 1. To (http://www.ultralingua.net/index.html?action=define&nv=0&text=To&service=&searchtype=stemmed&service=english2english) withhold (http://www.ultralingua.net/index.html?action=define&nv=0&text=withhold&service=&searchtype=stemmed&service=english2english) assent (http://www.ultralingua.net/index.html?action=define&nv=0&text=assent&service=&searchtype=stemmed&service=english2english); "Several (http://www.ultralingua.net/index.html?action=define&nv=0&text=Several&service=&searchtype=stemmed&service=english2english) Republicans (http://www.ultralingua.net/index.html?action=define&nv=0&text=Republicans&service=&searchtype=stemmed&service=english2english) dissented (http://www.ultralingua.net/index.html?action=define&nv=0&text=dissented&service=&searchtype=stemmed&service=english2english)."



Dissent
(n.) Contrariety of nature; diversity in quality.
(n.) Separation from an established church, especially that of England; nonconformity.
(n.) The act of dissenting; difference of opinion; refusal to adopt something proposed; nonagreement, nonconcurrence, or disagreement.
(v. i.) To differ from an established church in regard to doctrines, rites, or government.
(v. i.) To differ in opinion; to be of unlike or contrary sentiment; to disagree; -- followed by from.
(v. i.) To differ; to be of a contrary nature.



hate
1 a : intense hostility and aversion usually deriving from fear, anger, or sense of injury b : extreme dislike or antipathy :

2hate
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): hat∑ed; hat∑ing
transitive senses
1 : to feel extreme enmity toward <hates his country's enemies>
2 : to have a strong aversion to : find very distasteful <hated to have to meet strangers> <hate hypocrisy>
intransitive senses : to express or feel extreme enmity or active hostility

Chiefs Express
04-21-2006, 12:32 PM
Honestly, CE, I'm guessing that UD knows quite a bit more about his personal stances than you do.

I don't remember you be invited into this discussion, but you need to read what he wrote and then check out the dictionary.

Ugly Duck
04-21-2006, 12:46 PM
What you feel and what you say must be two totally different things, you write hate. Check out the definitions below.Sorry, you are just wrong. I believe that Bush is so functionally inadequate that he is simply not responsible for what goes on in the government. I don't believe that he has made even one decision, but that the cabal tells him what to do and what to say. What they tell him to do makes me intensely angry. I cannot hate Bush himself because I don't believe he even has a clue about what his bosses are doing. He's just a bewildered tool - I cannot hold him responsible for what makes me angry. Hey, this discussion is going nowhere. Maybe you feel that I'm being disingenuous, but I dunno how to convince you that I am telling you the truth about how I feel. Lets drop it.

Chiefs Express
04-21-2006, 01:36 PM
Sorry, you are just wrong. I believe that Bush is so functionally inadequate that he is simply not responsible for what goes on in the government. I don't believe that he has made even one decision, but that the cabal tells him what to do and what to say. What they tell him to do makes me intensely angry. I cannot hate Bush himself because I don't believe he even has a clue about what his bosses are doing. He's just a bewildered tool - I cannot hold him responsible for what makes me angry. Hey, this discussion is going nowhere. Maybe you feel that I'm being disingenuous, but I dunno how to convince you that I am telling you the truth about how I feel. Lets drop it.

Everything you said makes my statement of hatred more viable. Read what you said, you hold him in disdain for what you say he cannot do.

At a bare minimum you are not dissenting because of the president.

You really need to check out how you write what you say and compare it to those that profess that they hate bush, like meme.

Pitt Gorilla
04-21-2006, 01:42 PM
I don't remember you be invited into this discussion, but you need to read what he wrote and then check out the dictionary.Interesting; does this mean that you will no longer speak unless spoken to? Seriously, that would be incredible.

Chiefs Express
04-21-2006, 02:23 PM
Interesting; does this mean that you will no longer speak unless spoken to? Seriously, that would be incredible.
If you are going to come into a discussion at least have the courtesy of being on topic. Your entry usually starts off with insults and is not anywhere inline with the active interchange.

Your comment about UD seems somewhat strange. I'd bet that you didn't read what he wrote, if you did you have some problem with comprehending how he stringed his words together. You can say that you are dissenting, but when you speak hatred it's hate.

Pitt Gorilla
04-21-2006, 02:29 PM
If you are going to come into a discussion at least have the courtesy of being on topic. Your entry usually starts off with insults and is not anywhere inline with the active interchange.

Your comment about UD seems somewhat strange. I'd bet that you didn't read what he wrote, if you did you have some problem with comprehending how he stringed his words together. You can say that you are dissenting, but when you speak hatred it's hate.1) I don't see how I was off topic. 2) I don't see the insults. In fact, I'd wager you've done much more insulting than me.

penchief
04-21-2006, 03:29 PM
Isn't it both telling and ironic how Retrocon bravado such as the "Axis of Evil," can become a self-fullfilling prophecy?

Maybe Cheneyburton didn't really want to protect us from the "Axis of Evil." Maybe they wanted us to fear the "Axis of Evil." After all, the "Axis of Evil" did not exist until the idiots in control decided it was in their favor to have an enemy with which they could use to rally the voters.

Isn't it odd how Korea, Iran, and Iraq have all become a bigger threat to our security than before the "Axis of Evil" speech?

Maybe diplomacy is a better alternative. Maybe sabre-rattling is what it is; bluster and political manipulation.

Thank you Moron Bush for making the world less safe for my descendents. Thank you for providing evidence to the rest of the world that the power-elite in this country wants to manipulate the world economy for it's own benefit at the expense of world progress and American integrity.

Thank you to those who have advocated, supported, and defended the idiocy of this "bought and paid for" presidency.

Who is really benefitting? When one answers that question it beomes obvious that it is not we Americans.

penchief
04-21-2006, 03:50 PM
Dissent and hatred are very different, you writing methods concerning the president is one of hate, not dissent.

Too bad you don't see the difference.

Too bad that you can't see the difference between dissent and contentment. Clinton was ten times the steward of American Government than Bush is.

Wait! I can't believe I said that.

Clinton was 100 times a better steward of America's government than the retrocons are.

Wake up!

Chiefs Express
04-21-2006, 03:53 PM
1) I don't see how I was off topic. 2) I don't see the insults. In fact, I'd wager you've done much more insulting than me.

In the past you are probably correct, but not of late and surely not today.

Clean up your act, it's actually pretty easy.

Chiefs Express
04-21-2006, 03:54 PM
Too bad that you can't see the difference between dissent and contentment. Clinton was ten times the steward of American Government than Bush is.

Wait! I can't believe I said that.

Clinton was 100 times a better steward of America's government than the retrocons are.

Wake up!
Where did I say I was content? I pointed out that a previous poster talked hatred while he was claiming dissent.

Maybe you better check out what the things Clinton did that might not fit your description. OOPS, I forgot, you wouldn't find anything, you are content, kind of like the cows that give good milk.

penchief
04-21-2006, 04:15 PM
Where did I say I was content? I pointed out that a previous poster talked hatred while he was claiming dissent.

Maybe you better check out what the things Clinton did that might not fit your description. OOPS, I forgot, you wouldn't find anything, you are content, kind of like the cows that give good milk.

Yeah, yeah, Clinton got a blow job. And then there was that Waco thing in which he masterminded the outcome. I hear ya'. I wrote a poem for you.


Clinton was a devious man who had a devious plan

His plan was sinister which could not be denied

When he proclamied, "I'm innocent, I'm only a man."

the righties said, "it doesn't matter...legally, you lied."

When Bush came to hold power and sway

He manipulated the government to do his own way

When the people cried foul and wanted truth spread

He responded by stating that the truth is not reality

but a techinicality instead

Boyceofsummer
04-21-2006, 04:59 PM
President Bush has degrees from Harvard and Yale and successfully completed jet fighter pilot training by the United States military. Obviously, that "Lovenstein Institute" report is nonsense. Here's the snopes.com report on it:

http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/hoaxes/presiq.htm

Here's the wikipedia.org entry on President Bush:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush#National_Guard_service

It was all in fun, ya know? Why don't we check the information and evidence leading up to our nations present military involvement? We could feed the data into the snopes.com search engine. But then again, why bother. The only people that deny the lie are serious 'W' ass-kissers! But I digress.

Pitt Gorilla
04-21-2006, 05:03 PM
In the past you are probably correct, but not of late and surely not today.

Clean up your act, it's actually pretty easy.Once again, where is the name-calling?

Chiefs Express
04-21-2006, 06:16 PM
Yeah, yeah, Clinton got a blow job. And then there was that Waco thing in which he masterminded the outcome. I hear ya'. I wrote a poem for you.


Clinton was a devious man who had a devious plan

His plan was sinister which could not be denied

When he proclamied, "I'm innocent, I'm only a man."

the righties said, "it doesn't matter...legally, you lied."

When Bush came to hold power and sway

He manipulated the government to do his own way

When the people cried foul and wanted truth spread

He responded by stating that the truth is not reality

but a techinicality instead

You keep writing shit like that and your milk might sour.

Chiefs Express
04-21-2006, 06:16 PM
Once again, where is the name-calling?

Find one, I don't care anymore.

Pitt Gorilla
04-21-2006, 07:37 PM
Find one, I don't care anymore.
You brought it up. Maybe you should stop making up stuff?

Chiefs Express
04-21-2006, 07:40 PM
You brought it up. Maybe you should stop making up stuff?

I'm not spending time to prove or disprove the comment. You have engaged in name calling from time to time and you are fully aware of it. there are very few that have not participated.

patteeu
04-21-2006, 11:02 PM
...

Isn't it odd how Korea, Iran, and Iraq have all become a bigger threat to our security than before the "Axis of Evil" speech?

...

Leaving aside the arguable situation in Iraq, isn't it odd that you don't recognize the possibility that Iran and NK actually deserved the "axis of evil" label and as a result of the characteristics that make them deserve the label, the threat they represent has continued to grow because we haven't done anything effective to address it?

patteeu
04-21-2006, 11:04 PM
I'm kind of disappointed we got off the subject of how cheap this war really is.

DanT
04-22-2006, 06:54 AM
I'm not spending time to prove or disprove the comment. You have engaged in name calling from time to time and you are fully aware of it. there are very few that have not participated.

When has Pitt Gorilla ever engaged in name calling?

DanT
04-22-2006, 07:05 AM
I'm kind of disappointed we got off the subject of how cheap this war really is.

The costs of the war will be tallied over decades. Not only will there be Timothy McVeigh/John Allen Muhammad types who will return from the Gulf War and attack their fellow Americans, there will be all kinds of operations against our country and its interests from terrorists who learned their craft in an environment that we largely created.

It's not a great bargain to shake down the average American family for several hundred bucks in order to attack another country with no moral or legal justification and contribute to a culture that desecrates life while glorifying the state.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2005/06/22/iraq_is_a_terrorist_training_ground_cia_says?mode=PF

CIA says Iraq is now a terrorist training ground


June 22, 2005


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The CIA believes the Iraq insurgency poses an international threat and may produce better-trained Islamic terrorists than the 1980s Afghanistan war that gave rise to Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, officials said on Wednesday.


A classified report from the U.S. spy agency says Iraqi and foreign fighters are developing a broad range of skills, from car bombings and assassinations to coordinated conventional attacks on police and military targets, officials said.


Once the insurgency ends, Islamic militants are likely to disperse as highly organized battle-hardened combatants capable of operating throughout the Arab-speaking world and in other regions including Europe.


Fighters leaving Iraq would primarily pose a challenge for their countries of origin including Saudi Arabia and Jordan.


But the May report, which has been widely circulated in the intelligence community, also cites a potential threat to the United States.


"You have people coming to the action with anti-U.S. sentiment ... And since they're Iraqi or foreign Arabs or to some degree Kurds, they have more communities they can blend into outside Iraq," said a U.S. counterterrorism official, who spoke on condition of anonymity due to the report's classified status.


Canada also released an intelligence report saying the Sunni insurgency in Iraq posed a global problem given that most of the world's Sunni Muslims live outside the Middle East.


"The current war in Iraq is creating a whole new set of extremists," the Canadian Security Intelligence Service said in a briefing document obtained by Reuters.


Meanwhile, a Pentagon official said the CIA report appeared to be a synthesis of intelligence information already known to military commanders in the Gulf region.


Iraq has become a magnet for Islamic militants similar to Soviet-occupied Afghanistan two decades ago and Bosnia in the 1990s, U.S. officials say.


Bin Laden won prominence as a U.S. ally in the war against Soviet troops in Afghanistan. He later used Afghanistan as the training center for his al Qaeda network, which is blamed for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on Washington and New York.


President Bush justified the invasion of Iraq in part by charging that Saddam Hussein was supporting al Qaeda. A U.S. inquiry later found no collaboration between prewar Iraq and the bin Laden network.


But since the invasion, Jordanian-born militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi has emerged as a key insurgent figure and pledged his allegiance to bin Laden.


While the Afghan war against the Soviets was largely fought on a rural battlefield, the CIA report said Iraq is providing extremists with more comprehensive skills including training in operations devised for populated urban areas.


"You have everything from bombings and assassinations to more or less conventional attacks," the counterterrorism official said.


"The urban warfare experience, for people facing fairly tight police and military activity at close quarters, should enable them to operate in a wider range of settings."


Vice President Dick Cheney has argued that the insurgency is in its last throes, despite reports that the guerrillas have grown more deadly.


CIA Director Porter Goss told Time magazine that the insurgency was not quite in its last throes, "but I think they are very close to it."

DanT
04-22-2006, 07:13 AM
If you are going to come into a discussion at least have the courtesy of being on topic. Your entry usually starts off with insults and is not anywhere inline with the active interchange.

...


The above remark was made to Pitt Gorilla. If the remark were true, it should be very easy to provide an example of Pitt Gorilla starting off a post with insults by using the Search engine on this board to query Pitt Gorilla's posts.

For example, usually implies that more than 50% of his posts have such insults. Hence, the chance that 10 randomly-chosen posts from Pitt Gorilla were all free of such insults would be less than 1 in a 1,000.

patteeu
04-22-2006, 07:58 AM
The costs of the war will be tallied over decades. Not only will there be Timothy McVeigh/John Allen Muhammad types who will return from the Gulf War and attack their fellow Americans, there will be all kinds of operations against our country and its interests from terrorists who learned their craft in an environment that we largely created.

It's not a great bargain to shake down the average American family for several hundred bucks in order to attack another country with no moral or legal justification and contribute to a culture that desecrates life while glorifying the state.



You make good points and the total cost of the war will definitely include things like this and the cost in terms American soldiers who lose their lives or their health, and the cost of the amount of political attention that has been focused on Iraq instead of on other issues, etc. But in terms of the financial costs discussed in the OP article, this has been a relatively cheap war even if you don't agree that the cost was worth it or justified.

Chiefs Express
04-22-2006, 08:10 AM
The above remark was made to Pitt Gorilla. If the remark were true, it should be very easy to provide an example of Pitt Gorilla starting off a post with insults by using the Search engine on this board to query Pitt Gorilla's posts.

For example, usually implies that more than 50% of his posts have such insults. Hence, the chance that 10 randomly-chosen posts from Pitt Gorilla were all free of such insults would be less than 1 in a 1,000.I think you are mistaken, but then I don't really care.

DanT
04-22-2006, 08:28 AM
You make good points and the total cost of the war will definitely include things like this and the cost in terms American soldiers who lose their lives or their health, and the cost of the amount of political attention that has been focused on Iraq instead of on other issues, etc. But in terms of the financial costs discussed in the OP article, this has been a relatively cheap war even if you don't agree that the cost was worth it or justified.

Yep, as a percentage of GDP the costs of this war (so far) to the government have been relatively small compared to other wars:
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_buzzcharts/buzzcharts200601230854.asp

Ugly Duck
04-22-2006, 09:20 AM
I'm kind of disappointed we got off the subject of how cheap this war really is.And the cheapest part it.... we don't even have to pay for it! The neocons are just putting the tab on the bill for future generations to pay off (plus interest). We're going into debt to Communist China to free the Iraqi people. Boy, you think this Iraqi nation-building fiasco is unpopular now, just think how low the neocon ratings would go if they told us we had to actually ante up and pay for it!

stevieray
04-22-2006, 10:04 AM
And the cheapest part it.... we don't even have to pay for it! just putting the tab on the bill for future generations to pay off (plus interest)

ROFL Like this is ever going to change, or is something new...don't you ever get tired of playing the broken record of victimization?

banyon
04-22-2006, 10:13 AM
ROFL Like this is ever going to change, or is something new...don't you ever get tired of playing the broken record of victimization?

At some point it has to. The debt ratio vs. the GDP at least has to stabilize, or we will have to repudiate the debt.

Chiefs Express
04-22-2006, 03:11 PM
And the cheapest part it.... we don't even have to pay for it! The neocons are just putting the tab on the bill for future generations to pay off (plus interest).

Just like the generations before us. There has been a national debt for a very long time. With cost escallation we are building a deeper debt, but probably very similar in comparison to what we had left to us. Those generations you speak of will surely be digging a debt exponentially higher than what is current due to the same type cost escallation.

It's a no win situation as long as we have a federal government.

Chiefs Express
04-22-2006, 03:12 PM
At some point it has to. The debt ratio vs. the GDP at least has to stabilize, or we will have to repudiate the debt.

Show us all the data you have from the past that substantiates your calim of debt repudiation.