War on terror to cost 2.4 Trillion.

[benyl]

http://money.cnn.com/2007/10/24/news...ex.htm?cnn=yes

haha, Bush is amazing.

In the runup to the Iraq war in 2003, Bush administration officials said that forcibly changing regimes in Iraq should cost somewhere around $50 billion, and would be financed mostly through selling Iraqi oil.

So, the war was never about oil, eh?

"It's amazing to me that the President expects to be taken seriously when he says we cannot afford $20 billion in investments in education, health, law enforcement and science, but he doesn't blink an eye at asking to borrow $200 billion for a policy in Iraq that leaves us six months from now exactly where we were six months ago," House Appropriations Committee Chairman Dave Obey (D-WI), said in a statement Monday.

[Majestic12]

I've been getting the impression that Bush is like the stubborn little kid that won't admit that he's wrong.
So he keeps going on, hoping that somehow, it'll all work out in the end.

Can't wait till he's out of office.

[Toms-SC]

War on care

Can't wait hes out of office so office chair warriors will have to find something else to bitch about.l

[Majestic12]

I'd rather bitch about Bill Clinton having horrible taste in interns than Bush playing with people's lives

[Antonito]

Originally posted by Toms-SC
War on care

Can't wait hes out of office so office chair warriors will have to find something else to bitch about.l

I can't wait till Bush is out of office so that undercover Bush lovers can stop bitching about people bitching about Bush.

[mark4091]

COULD reach 2.4 trillion, lets see when that happens.

[Hakkola]

The majority of the money goes back into the American economy anyway. War spending is good for the economy.

[Team_BMW]

Well I heard this from a well known Canadian Journallist, and he asked the think tanks in USA what was the war really about?

And it's about USA invading Iraq to control their oil. Simple as that. But why? because China has a population of 1 billion and USA would like to control their pipe lines. Because the USA is scared of China... well no duh.

[Toma]

Originally posted by Hakkola
The majority of the money goes back into the American economy anyway. War spending is good for the economy.

Sort of....

2.4 trillion of taxpayer dollars, so that they can create a new $200 billion industry (amongst others) where the main profiteers are the insanely rich and insane

[Hakkola]

Originally posted by Toma

Sort of....

2.4 trillion of taxpayer dollars, so that they can create a new $200 billion industry (amongst others) where the main profiteers are the insanely rich and insane

Trickle down effect though, and all those workers get paid, and all the service men who see combat likely have war time increases in salary. However, to a point I do agree with your comment as well.

Government spending keeps the economy afloat when it is in a downturn.

[95EagleAWD]

Originally posted by Team_BMW
Well I heard this from a well known Canadian Journallist, and he asked the think tanks in USA what was the war really about?

And it's about USA invading Iraq to control their oil. Simple as that. But why? because China has a population of 1 billion and USA would like to control their pipe lines. Because the USA is scared of China... well no duh.

I don't know why the US is scared of China.

China lacks the amphibious capability to invade Taiwan, let alone mount an offensive against the USA.

Naval war? The US would own them. The US has 15 carrier Battle Groups available. China has none. They also lack the cruisers and destroyers, especially the AEGIS ships.

Air superiority? Sorry, but 2nd-rate MiG-29s and Su-27s don't hold up to F-15s and F-22s.

Army? It would never happen, and the US Army is the best trained in the world. Plus, because of American air dominance, the US would be flying BAI mission 24/7, chewing up armor and artillery.

[Hakkola]

Originally posted by 95EagleAWD

Army? It would never happen, and the US Army is the best trained in the world.

LOL, Where did you hear that? The regular American soldier has terrible training in comparison with a lot of other countries, their special forces are some of the best, but to say the US army is the best trained is silly.

The marines are trained to be of similar capability of most other Countries armies, the regular US army training is a joke.

[Weapon_R]

Originally posted by 95EagleAWD


I don't know why the US is scared of China.

China lacks the amphibious capability to invade Taiwan, let alone mount an offensive against the USA.

Naval war? The US would own them. The US has 15 carrier Battle Groups available. China has none. They also lack the cruisers and destroyers, especially the AEGIS ships.

Air superiority? Sorry, but 2nd-rate MiG-29s and Su-27s don't hold up to F-15s and F-22s.

Army? It would never happen, and the US Army is the best trained in the world. Plus, because of American air dominance, the US would be flying BAI mission 24/7, chewing up armor and artillery.

Err...most experts believe an invasion of Taiwan would take only a few hours, and the only thing stopping China is political pressure.

The United States has demonstrated it's obvious weaknesses in Iraq. Vietnam was a great example where the U.S. was technologically superior and took a shit kicking. A war with China would be an absolute nightmare of a loss for the U.S.

[95EagleAWD]

Originally posted by Hakkola


LOL, Where did you hear that? The regular American soldier has terrible training in comparison with a lot of other countries, their special forces are some of the best, but to say the US army is the best trained is silly.

The marines are trained to be of similar capability of most other Countries armies, the regular US army training is a joke.

Haha, you're kidding right?

Look at the casualty count in the first Gulf War.

The US lost 4 tanks in that war. 4. Iraq lost like 1,800.

Having the best equipment makes up a big difference in numbers.

[95EagleAWD]

Originally posted by Weapon_R


Err...most experts believe an invasion of Taiwan would take only a few hours, and the only thing stopping China is political pressure.

The United States has demonstrated it's obvious weaknesses in Iraq. Vietnam was a great example where the U.S. was technologically superior and took a shit kicking. A war with China would be an absolute nightmare of a loss for the U.S.

China doesn't have the shipping or airlift capacity to invade Taiwan.

You can have millions of troops. If you can't get 'em across the Taiwan Strait, then they're useless.

The only thing that Vietman is a good example of is when a war is run by political leaders that refuse to hit military targets of value, and that the target list is selected on a weekly basis with ABSOLUTELY no input from ANY military staff. The US could have won that war quickly, but the troops were held back by the White House, so as to not "anger" the Soviet Union.

[Hakkola]

Originally posted by 95EagleAWD


Haha, you're kidding right?

Look at the casualty count in the first Gulf War.

The US lost 4 tanks in that war. 4. Iraq lost like 1,800.

Having the best equipment makes up a big difference in numbers.

I never denied that they have the best equipment, I denied that they have the best training. Besides, Iraq didn't exactly have the most modern army.

[Super_Geo]

Originally posted by Hakkola
Trickle down effect though, and all those workers get paid, and all the service men who see combat likely have war time increases in salary. However, to a point I do agree with your comment as well.

Trickle down effect? Is that why the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer?

[Hakkola]

I actually take back the comment that they have the best equipment, some of the American equipment is pretty outdated, and not up to todays standards, though some of the technology they have is not matched by many other countries.

Originally posted by Super_Geo


Trickle down effect? Is that why the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer?

Do you have any evidence to back that up? Last I Checked, the poorest and biggest the lower class has ever been was during the great depression, and WW2 ended that depression due to increased government spending.

Besides, canada doesn't have much of a war based economy, but in the U.S it is HUGE. Most of these companies are publicly traded companies, so there certainly is a trickle down effect to military budgets.

[kertejud]

Originally posted by Hakkola

Do you have any evidence to back that up? Last I Checked, the poorest and biggest the lower class has ever been was during the great depression, and WW2 ended that depression due to increased government spending.

Of course it is government spending with money the government doesn't have.

[Toma]

Originally posted by Hakkola

Do you have any evidence to back that up? Last I Checked, the poorest and biggest the lower class has ever been was during the great depression, and WW2 ended that depression due to increased government spending.

Hmmm, not on me... but in 2002 I took several sociology classes and current at that time, the gaps had been widening for 30+ years....

Problem is, capitalism is a dream, just like communism, I suppose taken purely , either can work, but in practice we get neither. In the case of capitalism, we get rampant and corrupt 'corporatism' which is the furthest thing from a free market economy....closer to fascism then capitalism, but few see it (yet).

For instance, in terms of teh wealth gap... In Israel, a dozen tightly woven families OWN more then half of the value of all stocks traded on the Tel Aviv stock market.

The US is also similar.... 1% of the US populations controls 40% of the stock market, the top 10% controls 80%, and the REST OF THE 90% of the population controls just 20% of the market.

And the gap IS growing.... here are a quick couple google results.....
http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/rb/RB_796DRRB.pdf
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...56C0A96F948260
http://feeds.bignewsnetwork.com/?sid=222263