MakiMaki- embeemb, on 03/10/2008, -27/+63Brilliant. Dugg! Thanks for sharing!
- Thing2, on 03/10/2008, -3/+27Sad and brilliant.
- Evolutuon, on 03/10/2008, -5/+9Not brilliant. Sad.
- jstohler, on 03/10/2008, -4/+8Every This Modern World is brilliant. This one is simply a higher grade of brilliance.
- TxPalmer, on 03/10/2008, -2/+13At first I started laughing at this comic, then I realized what was being said was either the truth or very close to it. FYI a trillion dollars is $1,000,000,000,000. and then I realized it's my money they are doing this with.
- ratbear, on 03/10/2008, -1/+4Your money, your kids money, your kids' kid's money, etc.......This war will mainly be financed by your children and grand children.
- yarayara, on 03/10/2008, -6/+3health for 50 years... u are so stupid...
I dont doubt you MIGHT even elect McCain.
Why is he even a candidate for gods sake?- BESTenemy, on 03/10/2008, -1/+15 If the war had to be paid for through taxes, you'd see a trillion dollar hike in taxation. That is not happening, because they're dissolving the monetary supply by printing more cash. The part of the comic that is upsetting to me is the one that lists benefits of other possible ways to spend the money.
We have to understand that when the money is produced out of nothing, for whatever cause, the result is inflation and an economic stagnation that we're experiencing. It's a hidden tax. Building schools or providing medical care for the next few decades at the expense of inflation is just as reckless as spending the money on war. It's spending something we don't have and getting into debt without realizing the true cost of the undertaking.
We're financing our future with a credit card. Doesn't matter what we do with the cash, it ends up as debt, but since we don't treat it as one, we never learn the lesson. The issue is not where the money is spent, but where it comes from - out of nowhere.- PirateFSM, on 03/10/2008, -0/+1http://digg.com/business_finance/Our_Debt_based_Mo ...
Reminds me of this. - ScottMitchell, on 03/10/2008, -1/+2Although if we borrow today to build things that will make us more prosperous tomorrow, then borrowing is a smart move. Now, borrowing money to blow up and then rebuild Iraq is foolish. But borrowing money to make tomorrow's workers smarter, more efficient, and longer living will pay for itself in the long run.
- yarayara, on 03/11/2008, -0/+1THAT explains why my comment has - 2 diggs and yours +2....
well, the US was not prosperous for borrowing money as much as today buddy...
and regarding war, after ww2 europe and asia was completely destroyed, so the US had nobody to compete with, and they got all the reconstruction thing and the world commerce going on... but now, with europe on its feet, and china and india rising, the environment is just some other thing. the amount of engineers and scientist is no longer exclusive of the americans.
keep borrowing... vote McCain.
- yarayara, on 03/11/2008, -0/+1THAT explains why my comment has - 2 diggs and yours +2....
- PirateFSM, on 03/10/2008, -0/+1http://digg.com/business_finance/Our_Debt_based_Mo ...
- BESTenemy, on 03/10/2008, -1/+15 If the war had to be paid for through taxes, you'd see a trillion dollar hike in taxation. That is not happening, because they're dissolving the monetary supply by printing more cash. The part of the comic that is upsetting to me is the one that lists benefits of other possible ways to spend the money.
- Taffe3000, on 03/10/2008, -7/+3I dont know why anyone will vote Bush into Office for 8 years and they want to use McCain to continue this madness...McCain know nothing about economy and if he wasnt a POW, he would be just a other policitcican in Washington.
Anthony,
Realbigsource Busienss Forum
http://realbigsource.com/forum- mm911, on 03/10/2008, -2/+2You know nothing about typing in English.
- mydigga, on 03/10/2008, -12/+138I read an article today that claims Iraq has generated over $100 billion in oil revenue since the beginning of 2007 and less than $4 billion of that has been spent on reconstruction and services to improve quality of life for it's citizens... so yes, the war will pay for itself if you're an Iraqi official.
- N3M3515, on 03/10/2008, -3/+37And more than likely pays US officials as well.
- ayeroxor, on 03/10/2008, -7/+1No, that's the crates and pallets of cash that have disappeared.
- CedEx, on 03/10/2008, -2/+5Do you mean Haliburton?
- cquinnd, on 03/10/2008, -1/+4Source?
- Gamer2k4, on 03/10/2008, -6/+9I wonder...does anyone have a source for us being told that the war would pay for itself? I don't remember hearing anything like that...
- regeya, on 03/10/2008, -4/+9Me neither. I just remember all the shouting about "no blood for oil!"
Well, there's been blood...now why does the price of crude keep going up? I thought this was all about cheap oil???- MarkOfTheDead, on 03/10/2008, -0/+5It's about cheap oil for the business friends of who are currently in power. They just choose not to pass those savings on down to us.
- LOCK3D, on 03/10/2008, -0/+5It was about control, not about making it cheap for consumers. They lowered production in order to create artificial scarcity so they could jack up prices to make record profits. Their plan worked beautifully.
- jezsik, on 03/10/2008, -1/+40Wolfowitz congressional testimony, March 27, 2003: "There's a lot of money to pay for this. It doesn't have to be U.S. taxpayer money. We are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon."
- SatansSpatula, on 03/10/2008, -4/+5Er, how is that saying that the war would pay for itself? "a country that can really finance its own reconstruction" != "the war will pay for itself." Reconstruction and war are two different things.
I'm not defending the Retardo-War here, I'm just questioning the claim that "pay for itself" was said. That reeks of the Bush-cabinet manipulative method of convincing the American public that Saddam was responsible for 9/11. - ryuujin, on 03/10/2008, -2/+8It all depends on what you define as 'war'. Technically the war is over, but US troops are still there. The US army is there right now to help with reconstruction, and that's what's costing the US money-- the whole, step up, stand down thing. The rhetoric is if Iraq's army could handle itself, then the US wouldn't have to be there and will pull out (this is what george bush said on multiple occasions). If the place was reconstructing itself (using its own money), then they'd have a new army and wouldn't need US money and forces. It's not. They don't. The US is still there, and that's why it's costing this much.
- zombies187, on 03/10/2008, -2/+10@SatansSpatula
I think you are splitting hairs here. All the repubs I talked to leading up to the war were convinced that it would cost us nothing and in fact make us rich via oil revenues. Wolfowitz certainly didn't try to dissuade America of these delusions.
- SatansSpatula, on 03/10/2008, -4/+5Er, how is that saying that the war would pay for itself? "a country that can really finance its own reconstruction" != "the war will pay for itself." Reconstruction and war are two different things.
- RCinBigD, on 03/10/2008, -0/+4“Iraq has oil,” Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told Fortune magazine in 2002, discussing the potential cost of an Iraq invasion and how it would be met. “They have financial resources.”
Paul Wolfowitz, formerly Rumsfeld’s deputy, was bolder: “The oil revenues of that country could bring in between $50 (billion) and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years,” he told Congress as the war began. “We are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction.” For his economic acumen, Wolfowitz was rewarded with the presidency of the World Bank.
http://www.cantonrep.com/index.php?ID=236508- MacSuxWindozSux, on 03/11/2008, -0/+1Which he was later fired from.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and ...
- MacSuxWindozSux, on 03/11/2008, -0/+1Which he was later fired from.
- regeya, on 03/10/2008, -4/+9Me neither. I just remember all the shouting about "no blood for oil!"
- scoobydoo84, on 03/10/2008, -1/+5At first there were people dumb enough to believe anything this administration said!! The awakening comes slow!!
- heystoopid, on 03/10/2008, -0/+2Well when you hire crooked bank embezzlers like Chalabi where else do you think all the money will end up first and foremost in his back pocket to be dispensed accordingly to his family first !
- N3M3515, on 03/10/2008, -3/+37And more than likely pays US officials as well.
- ThinkBox, on 03/10/2008, -24/+10To be perfectly honest, I remember hearing a lot of people on both sides of the isle criticizing the idea that the Iraqis should pay for their own liberation. Because in one sense, it seems like we invade, kill, and then use the sweat of their bones and rob them of oil money.
That stigma was pretty heavy and while it was definitely on the mind of a few people in power, it wasn't ever explicitly mentioned as a reason, or given as a positive for invasion.- swrostmore, on 03/10/2008, -3/+21It was explicitly mentioned by Donald Rumsfeld. That is the reference the comic is making.
- ayeroxor, on 03/10/2008, -2/+4That would be an aisle, chief...
- Velvolver, on 03/10/2008, -1/+2The sweat of my bones is used to make funhouses
- chris9902, on 03/10/2008, -46/+10Needs more text.
- Myonosken, on 03/10/2008, -8/+44Sorry if reading was too tricky for you. Garfield a better match for you?
- chris9902, on 03/10/2008, -19/+2At least that's a comic. This is an essay with colour.
- Cenobite, on 03/10/2008, -1/+9In that case try to avoid Ambrose Bierce, it'll probably read like Chaucer to you.
- andregriffin, on 03/10/2008, -1/+4Yeah, but at least you read this (I hope). Would you have read an actual essay? The country's problems have to be made easily digestible (just like a big mac) so that people like you will be even slightly informed.
- missannabella, on 03/10/2008, -1/+1if you don't like it, don't read it... no-one's forcing you. (moron.)
- chris9902, on 03/10/2008, -19/+2At least that's a comic. This is an essay with colour.
- Scira, on 03/10/2008, -3/+9text or it didnt happen.
- chadillak, on 03/10/2008, -1/+1I said "ughhh." when I first saw this cartoon. Then I thought, "well, it got over 3000 diggs. must be good!" Not only did I not laugh, I didn't learn anything shocking about the cost of the war (which i assume is why it's getting so many diggs).
- Myonosken, on 03/10/2008, -8/+44Sorry if reading was too tricky for you. Garfield a better match for you?
- jeremyduffy, on 03/10/2008, -7/+325That's not really fair. You have to consider the cost of the war versus the benefits it provided. First, there's.... uh....
- Antwan718, on 03/10/2008, -6/+87Halaburton Co. is much wealthier, the average American citizen is being robbed of their anything anda oh yea, i secretly CC every email i send to the NSA.
I love the place that I live, but I hate the people in charge... And the fact that most of the population is blindly beliving their *****.- hlampert, on 03/10/2008, -1/+8I don't think most people "blindly believe" any more. At this point though, it doesn't seem to make a difference WHAT you believe ("There's nothing to see here... move along...")
- Grimdotdotdot, on 03/10/2008, -4/+12There have been (and will be more) benefits for the people of Iraq. Saddam *did* need to be removed from power.
However, it's been done in such a god-awful, ham-fisted way that it has caused more problems than it has solved.
If Bush and Blair (and now Brown) enjoy wars so much they should play with toy soldiers, not ***** real ones.- ryuujin, on 03/10/2008, -0/+13uh huh. Saddam needed removal, how about Al-Bashir? That'd be the guy in Sudan helping create that little 'genocide' of hundreds of thousands of people right now. He declared martial law and turned Sudan into a dictatorship. His army has liquidated more people than could be imagined by any standard reckoning - a person literally can't imagine so many bodies as this guy has made. Where the hell is the USA to stop that?
How about in Burma, where the government has participated in multiple ethnically and religiously fueled genocides? We've seen video evidence of them killing people in the streets and pictures of bodies dumped into swampland by their military. They cut off information flows to stop people even seeing it.
They're oppressing their people worse, I would argue, than Saddam ever did, their atrocities also worse. He got hung for having his military kill 200 people. The kurds he killed were in the hundreds. These people are killing hundreds of thousands -- actively, right now. So why, oh why, does the USA not go into those sovereign countries when they took out Saddam?
They have no legal right in those countries and they had no right in Iraq.- Grimdotdotdot, on 03/11/2008, -0/+1I quite agree.
- mooseofshadows, on 03/10/2008, -0/+2Saddam was the reason that the country was relatively stable. Dictators have that effect. That's why the US has put so many of them in power.
- Daz3, on 03/10/2008, -0/+1Why install a dictator that you will later need to invade the country to remove?
- grumpyrain, on 03/11/2008, -0/+1History has shown that the consequences of a power vacuum are much worse than the consequences of a brutal dictator. Saddam committed some terrible acts, but the suffering pales in comparison to the sectarian power struggle that now engulfs the country. A surgeon would not operate unless they feel, that given the empirical evidence, there is a reasonable expectation that the patient would be better off afterwards. Sadly, the same 'common sense' was not applied to the Iraq invasion.
And it seems that you may have inadvertently bought some of the 'regime change' talk. Iraq was not officially invaded to oust Saddam. It was invaded to find those (still illusive) WMDs, and when none can be found, the talk shifted from WMDs to regime change.
- ryuujin, on 03/10/2008, -0/+13uh huh. Saddam needed removal, how about Al-Bashir? That'd be the guy in Sudan helping create that little 'genocide' of hundreds of thousands of people right now. He declared martial law and turned Sudan into a dictatorship. His army has liquidated more people than could be imagined by any standard reckoning - a person literally can't imagine so many bodies as this guy has made. Where the hell is the USA to stop that?
- weeeezzll, on 03/10/2008, -4/+2Oh! There is also uhhhh...
- Velvolver, on 03/10/2008, -0/+5Whoh way to ride the popularity wave!
- heyblue, on 03/10/2008, -0/+8The question is: where does that $3 trillion go? A small percentage goes to soldier's salaries - which is cool by me, I think we should give them all raises - the majority of that money, however, is going to the companies that won gov't contracts for the "rebuilding of Iraq." The biggest is, of course, Halliburton. Which Dick Cheney, of course, has "no ties" to anymore.
- Velvolver, on 03/10/2008, -1/+4Bonuses for puppies chucked too
- webtroll, on 03/10/2008, -0/+1The only benefit I can see right now: There won't be such an awful administration for decades to come. Or so I hope...
- provost, on 03/11/2008, -0/+2even some people might say that, even though they are shifty, at least halliburton is benefitting as an american company and their tax dollars go back into the economy right?.. oh wait.. they moved their headquarters to dubai so they could dodge taxes.
- Antwan718, on 03/10/2008, -6/+87Halaburton Co. is much wealthier, the average American citizen is being robbed of their anything anda oh yea, i secretly CC every email i send to the NSA.
- nextTopModel, on 03/10/2008, -9/+37... so no weapons of mass destruction, what are you still fighting for?
- Apokalyps2547, on 03/10/2008, -5/+73"Regime Change"
Wait... there's now a Parlament. Can we leave now?
"To protect the Kurds"
Yeah, we're doing a bang-up job. We're letting TURKEY kill them instead.
"Stability"
In the middle-east? Aaahahahahaha! - Banelos, on 03/10/2008, -1/+16Beats me..
What scares me most is that it seems the plans to invade Iraq was made days after 9/11, check this interview with General Wesley Clark from Democracy Now:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebMbSyNwmMA
"We made the decison, we are going to war against IRAQ on September 20, 2001" -General Wesley Clark- Nevarius, on 03/10/2008, -0/+11I believe the plans to invade Iraq easily predates 9/11. Many in the bush administration were pushing for removal of Saddam as early as the first gulf war and they just happen to be members of PNAC "project for a new American century" (a Neo-con think-tank based in Washington). PNAC describes that a "pearl harbor event" is needed to gain support for such action, which 9/11 was a huge (convenient) gift for the Neo-cons to push their agenda through.
Kinda odd that the first time the neo-cons (aka known as the crazies by many in their own party) obtain office something occurs that gives them everything they want. Love to see the odds on that one, but its all speculation at this point with very little proof (Just a lot of weird little occurrences put together that just happens to allow 3 hijacked aircraft to hit their targets). - zombies187, on 03/10/2008, -0/+2I figured we would attack Iraq when Bush was elected. I know of not one single American who didn't say at least once about the first Gulf War that we should have finished what we started. As far as I can tell, America elected to go to war in 2000.
- RCinBigD, on 03/10/2008, -0/+2Does Dick Cheney count as an American?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I- zombies187, on 03/11/2008, -0/+1Yup.
- RCinBigD, on 03/10/2008, -0/+2Does Dick Cheney count as an American?
- Nevarius, on 03/10/2008, -0/+11I believe the plans to invade Iraq easily predates 9/11. Many in the bush administration were pushing for removal of Saddam as early as the first gulf war and they just happen to be members of PNAC "project for a new American century" (a Neo-con think-tank based in Washington). PNAC describes that a "pearl harbor event" is needed to gain support for such action, which 9/11 was a huge (convenient) gift for the Neo-cons to push their agenda through.
- DangerCollie, on 03/10/2008, -4/+11"...what are you still fighting for?"
Because if we don't the terrorists will win.
We're fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here.
To keep Iran from exerting influence in the area.
Insert other right wing platitudes here....- ch33sehead, on 03/10/2008, -1/+6Don't forget, "They hate us for our freedom!"
- AnarkeIncarnate, on 03/10/2008, -0/+7And we're ditching our freedoms faster than a prom dress at 11PM
- smashhell, on 03/10/2008, -0/+2Do you NOT know that there is NO terrorists in Iraq !
Saddam and Iraq have NOTHING to do with 911.
Sadly majority of the American doesn't understand this. =/
- ch33sehead, on 03/10/2008, -1/+6Don't forget, "They hate us for our freedom!"
- Murdats, on 03/10/2008, -1/+7it seems there wasnt a legitimate reason to go to war, and it seems there isnt a reason to stay.
isnt it great having a government that says "hey we are going to go invade this country" and when asked why mumbles some irrational non-factual excuses and walks off.- joebaloney, on 03/10/2008, -0/+0I think the reason to stay is something with maintaining what stability there is so it doesn't degenerate into a complete clusterfsck. However, we gotta leave sometime and I don't know if things are gonna be any different when we do... Wait, I do know. Bush will somehow think he escaped the blame for what happens.
- Memitim, on 03/10/2008, -0/+3They had stability before we got there. After we invaded, they still had a decent amount of stability, albeit a bit shaken. Then we decided to hang around for a few years and things got really unstable. The longer we stay, the worse it gets.
- joebaloney, on 03/10/2008, -0/+0I think the reason to stay is something with maintaining what stability there is so it doesn't degenerate into a complete clusterfsck. However, we gotta leave sometime and I don't know if things are gonna be any different when we do... Wait, I do know. Bush will somehow think he escaped the blame for what happens.
- freezeout, on 03/10/2008, -1/+15you're "fighting" to keep Iraqi oil being sold in dollars, something Saddam was going to change. you're also "fighting" so that companies like Exxon get first dibs on that sweet sweet oil. but don't expect any of the profits to trickle down to your pocket since your job is only to pay the bill, not reap the rewards.
- renski13, on 03/10/2008, -3/+0I think everyone here needs a little perspective. What do you think Exxon is? It's made of Americans. If they do happen to get first dibs on that oil and bring more oil to America it might just help our price of crude. If Iraq eventually fails to have a free economy you can say goodbye to driving your car and say hello to riding your bike.
- syd2007, on 03/10/2008, -0/+0I think you got it exactly right there, freezeout.
- Tommyhawk, on 03/10/2008, -0/+2Obviously when we leave Timothy McVeigh, the Unabomber, Osama bin Laden, Mahmoud Ahmadinijad, and every other terrorist known to man will use Iraq as a base of operations so you see we have no choice but to stay.
- lineweight, on 03/11/2008, -0/+1There was a graduate thesis written about the reasons for war. The student found that there were something like 23 or 27 excuses. I guess they really DO like the shotgun effect! (And i don't mean that literally Mr. Cheney)
- Apokalyps2547, on 03/10/2008, -5/+73"Regime Change"
- hamobu, on 03/10/2008, -40/+13In all fairness, we had war in Iraq long before the current president. During Clinton years, Half a million children died under sanctions, and those sanctions could have continued without an end.
- Apokalyps2547, on 03/10/2008, -5/+30Sanctions aren't war, sanctions are sanctions.
- hamobu, on 03/10/2008, -10/+2Children are dying - same difference.
- Chassit, on 03/10/2008, -0/+4Wow, just...wow.
- kinseyincanada, on 03/10/2008, -0/+1So what?!! so since Clinton put sanctions on Iraq it makes what Bush is doing now ok?
- jabberwolf, on 03/11/2008, -0/+1No, we should have gone in the 1st time in 1991 and done it right like Swartzkopf asked. But instead we listened to all the liberals and muslim nations that loved to see their neighbor's people suffer under sanctions while they get rich. And clinton did nothing to help and let a bomb sit and grow in the middle east for 8 years. And people died and suffered and Saddam had revenge on army that gave up so easily... murdering them and kurds and anyone else he wanted.
And yeah to refresh the stupid, we went in the first time because Saddam invaded Kuwait... read up on RECENT history. So please liberals, face it and take responsibility for the people you let suffer and die. All while you smiled and sipped lattes thinking you were so great.
- jabberwolf, on 03/11/2008, -1/+1Yeah sanctions are just like starviung people to death slowly, killing innocent women and children over a year,,, while Saddam gets rich making black market deals with UN members.
But WAR, that would be wrong now wouldn't it ?!?!
Good gawd when will liberal dumbasses take any responsibility for the deaths THEY caused ?!
- hamobu, on 03/10/2008, -10/+2Children are dying - same difference.
- mesostinky, on 03/10/2008, -6/+42Ah yes, a well know tactic. Blame the Clintons as if somehow it makes what Bush is doing OK.
You FAIL. - MWeather, on 03/10/2008, -2/+9So what you're saying is we need to invade Cuba?
- enclaved, on 03/10/2008, -1/+4IM WEARING YOUR UNDERWEAR?
- whodoes, on 03/10/2008, -0/+7To acknowledge that hamobu is correct doesnt make GWB any less culpable. We have been in Iraq since the first Bush and our sanctions (for better or worse) were indeed wrecking havoc on the civilian population, most especially the children. This isnt a polar argument as though the reality of Iraqi life over two decades can be distilled down to the positions of either the Democrat or Republican parties. That having been said i dont see any real correlation between the period of sanctions / "no fly zones" and our current occupation.
- hamobu, on 03/10/2008, -0/+5Even before the first gulf war, we were deeply involved in Iran-Iraq war that killed 8 million people. We sold weapons to both sides in that war. I would not be surprised that we had something to do with starting that war as well.
- Ladymongoose, on 03/10/2008, -0/+8Guess what else we had before this president? The largest surplus in history, the largest reduction of debt in history...oh and those nearly 10K American who would still be alive if it wasn't for Ol' Georgie, not to mention the millions of dead or displaced Iraq civilians.
- hamobu, on 03/10/2008, -7/+2That is not quite Accurate. Bill Clinton sat in office during a bubble economy, and that kind of helped the countries finances. But Bill himself did nothing to cause that (except maybe starting NAFTA and WTO)
- Ladymongoose, on 03/10/2008, -1/+7Clinton knew how to manage an economy- that is my point. All Bush knows how to do is destroy one.
- hamobu, on 03/10/2008, -1/+2You can't really manage economy. You can maybe prod it one way or another, but I would not call that managing. Economy moves in cycles, and Bill Clinton was in the white house during a good cycle. That's all!. Other than scandals, Clinton presidency was pretty unremarkable.
- Ladymongoose, on 03/11/2008, -1/+1'Prodding' it one way or the other IS managing it. Bush has not just prodded it, he has bulldozed it into the ground. Then spit on it.
- Ladymongoose, on 03/10/2008, -1/+7Clinton knew how to manage an economy- that is my point. All Bush knows how to do is destroy one.
- syd2007, on 03/10/2008, -0/+3Statistically during the last hundred years the GDP and the stock markets have grown significantly more during democratic presidents than republican presidents. The same goes for democrats in control of the Senate or Congress vs the republicans in control. The US national debt have grown significantly more during republican presidents, and/or when the republicans have been in control of the Senate or Congress.
- hamobu, on 03/10/2008, -7/+2That is not quite Accurate. Bill Clinton sat in office during a bubble economy, and that kind of helped the countries finances. But Bill himself did nothing to cause that (except maybe starting NAFTA and WTO)
- weeeezzll, on 03/10/2008, -0/+8Clinton being wrong doesn't automatically make Bush right.
- kreneskyp, on 03/10/2008, -1/+3To be fair saddam was taking the "oil-for-food" money and building lavash palaces. He also commited genocide against the kurds amongst other bad things.
To be even more fair, our involvement was started by Bush Senior. Clinton inherited the issue. Bush senior dealt with it the best way he could, by not invading. coincidentaly clinton used the same strategy. It must have something to do with cheneys advice that it would be a "quagmire"
To be fairest Saddam started the whole incident by invading kuwait.- zombies187, on 03/10/2008, -0/+5Saddam announced his intentions toward Kuwait to us and we told him we don't get involved in inter Arab disputes. He got the green light and that's when we turned on him. Before that he was our secular boy against Iran.
- bbart3d, on 03/10/2008, -0/+1In all fairness??? How much money had we spent to implement sanctions? How many American lives were sacrificed for sanctions? Saddam was contained. Al Qaida was the threat and they were in AFGHANISTAN.
- Apokalyps2547, on 03/10/2008, -5/+30Sanctions aren't war, sanctions are sanctions.
- mediaspree, on 03/10/2008, -9/+77What the hell are we still doing there?
- h4ppydotcom, on 03/10/2008, -28/+8Finishing the job we started.
Starting was a bad idea, but we've got to finish it now - leaving prematurely would be even more crazy than starting in the first place.- BarleyWind, on 03/10/2008, -1/+19Yes, if we leave before the job is done the Iraqis will swim across the Atlantic and massively assault us here. Credit to Zbig.
- mahler, on 03/10/2008, -13/+2No, they will turn on eachother. And the US will be blamed by the rest of the world...
- theaceoffire, on 03/10/2008, -1/+21We are ALREADY blamed by the rest of the world, and they are ALREADY turning on each other.
Lets get the hell out.
- theaceoffire, on 03/10/2008, -1/+21We are ALREADY blamed by the rest of the world, and they are ALREADY turning on each other.
- mahler, on 03/10/2008, -13/+2No, they will turn on eachother. And the US will be blamed by the rest of the world...
- mediaspree, on 03/10/2008, -0/+23And the job we started was....to get rid of the weapons of mass destruction? OK, check. now what.
- MWeather, on 03/10/2008, -1/+16Really? I'm not seeing much of a down side for the US if we leave.
- Murdats, on 03/10/2008, -3/+1i guess its the same upside the us got for going there.
- nycmac247, on 03/10/2008, -0/+14you know you're making us into Mexico by spending every last dime we have and then borrowing trillions from the chinese, right?
- asauterChicago, on 03/10/2008, -0/+2Well if that means we get Burritos and salsa, I'm all for it.
- bigfatpaulie, on 03/10/2008, -2/+2Do you even know what that talking point means at this point?
- DontGiveADamn, on 03/10/2008, -0/+17We heard this same crap during the Vietnam war. Well we left Vietnam, it fell, and it didn't affect Americans one bit. The sad thing is that we stayed so long and all those Americans had to die for nothing. We never learn.
- ayeroxor, on 03/10/2008, -0/+5What is there that wasn't there? What can we possibly "clean up" ?? Are you afraid of leaving the middle east full of ***** nutjobs? How would you tell?
- Chordinator, on 03/10/2008, -0/+4WTF! I hear people say this every day... "Finishing the job we started..", or "We can't just pull out now or the country would collapse." I'd like to at least hear a half decent reason WHY that makes any sense at all. The majority of violence there is directed at American forces, anyway!
Too many people are dying, and our economy is crashing. It's a desperate enough time to say that our problems are more important than Iraq's problems. If anyone were to disagree, then we need to further back shelf our country's issues, and send trillions in military aid to Burma, Sudan, Nigeria, etc. Places with serious problems like genocide.
- BarleyWind, on 03/10/2008, -1/+19Yes, if we leave before the job is done the Iraqis will swim across the Atlantic and massively assault us here. Credit to Zbig.
- wonderworm, on 03/10/2008, -1/+22This is why we are still there.
Without a war, the GOP cannot create enough fear to miantain their power hold over the country so they need this war and future wars to maintain political control.
Its really that simply. The Neo Conservatives have again figured out that wars and scary make believe terrorist networks ensure that granny and soccer mom vote for them. Unfortunately, fear is a stronger emotion than logic, but far more stupid.- diggduggDOOM, on 03/10/2008, -2/+1Logic is not an emotion.
- syd2007, on 03/10/2008, -0/+1The war gave Bush/Cheney one more term in office.
- Velvolver, on 03/10/2008, -1/+1Thanks for the update
- MacSuxWindozSux, on 03/11/2008, -0/+1Scape Goats. A Fascism identifies a common threat to the public as a justification for increasing the governments security powers over the population.
Hence Domestic Surveillance, Imprisonment without trial, Torture, War without credible threat.
- salinemist, on 03/10/2008, -8/+3Winning.
- SwedishNinja, on 03/10/2008, -1/+2Trying to prevent a civil war I guess. Power vacuums aren't the most peaceful of places to be in (See: Kosovo in the 90s)
- MacSuxWindozSux, on 03/11/2008, -0/+2(See: Africa any time)
- amishterrarium, on 03/10/2008, -3/+1Twiddling our thumbs, shooting civilians, killing young Americans off and stealing oil. Oh, and not catching Bin Laden, too. Did I leave anything out?
- hurt911gen, on 03/10/2008, -1/+1Bin Laden is not in Iraq, *****.
- amishterrarium, on 03/11/2008, -0/+1That was kind of my whole point.
- hurt911gen, on 03/10/2008, -1/+1Bin Laden is not in Iraq, *****.
- source1984, on 03/10/2008, -1/+6but but... they hate us for our freedom!!!
- MacSuxWindozSux, on 03/11/2008, -0/+1We're fighting them there so we don't have to fight them over here.
Stay the course.
Smoking Gun.
We don't want the next attack to come in the form of a mushroom cloud.
Mission Accomplished.
We'll be greeted as liberators.
Wanted dead or alive.
Fool me once shame on... shame on you. Fool Me... Can't be fooled again.
Enhanced Interrogation.
America where wings take dream.
We know Saddam has wmd's and he's used them before.
The invasion will cost about 80 billion dollars.
Without that bill it will cutoff our ability to track al qaeda and other extremeists.
I will veto any surveillance Bill that doesn't include retro-active immunity for phone companies.
(Litigation protection for phone companies is a higher priority than public safety)
Brownie you're doing a heck of a job.
I am commuting the portion of Mr. Libby's sentence that required him to spend 30 months in prison.
- MacSuxWindozSux, on 03/11/2008, -0/+1We're fighting them there so we don't have to fight them over here.
- JormiBoced, on 03/10/2008, -1/+6Don't forget throwing puppies off of cliffs.
- MASTERPL, on 03/10/2008, -0/+1I'm afraid Iran will take advantage of the situation if there is no one there to fight back.
I'm all for bringing the armed forces home, but unfortunately, the mess has to be cleaned up, and unfortunately it isn't going to happen. The only thing this war has done is give Iran a window to take over the resources next door.
I'm not saying they will do this, or ever planned it, but People are unpredictable. It wasn't that long ago that Trains were dropping millions of people off to die in camps. - Tommyhawk, on 03/10/2008, -0/+1I've asked myself that question almost every day for years.
- h4ppydotcom, on 03/10/2008, -28/+8Finishing the job we started.
- Thing2, on 03/10/2008, -6/+78What's worse is that people actually believed all the rhetoric they spewed - I mean, I remember talking to my neighbors and friends - and the administration during the leadup to the war could have told them that fluffy clouds will pop up all over Iraq and those people would have believed it.
Why should politicians garner that much trust? Why did people put so much trust in this administration? I never understood why anyone would trust a politician implicably....it's their job to lie to you and not tell you the truth - as they think you can't handle the truth.- drmangrum, on 03/10/2008, -1/+11At first it was feasible, especially when it was still relatively close to 9/11. The media sure didn't help to shed light on their ***** either. There is an implicit trust that goes with an elected position( one that is now in taters for the next few generation ), we really didn't have a reason to not trust what our government was telling us.
Now that all the secrets and lies have come to light, it's not being lied to that sickens me. It's the fact that congress has done NOTHING about it.- Thing2, on 03/10/2008, -0/+4Which is exactly why ya' don't trust them :)
I hear what you're saying I suppose I've just never been one to trust authority simply on the merit of their being authority. I never thought my boss was smarter or better than me simply because he/she was my boss - they had to earn my respect and trust by their deeds. Maybe it's just differences in mindset. I don't trust politicians on principle however - as you can practically always draw a line of deceit to the things they promised while running and actually did or tried to do.
- Thing2, on 03/10/2008, -0/+4Which is exactly why ya' don't trust them :)
- Dumbledorito, on 03/10/2008, -0/+23Well, one of Bush's delusions is that "freedom" is a natural state for people. He assumed that if you topple a dictator, you'd get "freedom" out of it, that democracy would gush from every corner. This led to about as much planning for the post-Saddam era by the White House as they devoted to my last birthday party.
Freedom, as it is defined in most cases, requires a massive amount of planning and energy to work, but that didn't seem to fit with the administration's ideology, and the result has been almost a case study in the application of fecal matter to air-flow devices.- CATSCEO, on 03/10/2008, -1/+4In other words, the ***** hit the fan.
- Picaroon, on 03/10/2008, -1/+3He's a political idealist. A lot of political scientists and foreign policy experts ascribe to the basic ideas of international idealism. Unfortunately, it does not take a whole lot of crazy jihadis to throw a wrench in the works and they were simply not smart enough to see that.
- Dumbledorito, on 03/10/2008, -0/+1You don't even need the jihadis. Any place without a history of democracy isn't going to start electing a representative government if their dictator vanishes. The people will fall into line behind whoever just takes power. If you whacked the leader of any repressive country in the world, you would have basically given the guy with the most followers a coup without the bother of getting his own hands bloody.
- nirav72, on 03/10/2008, -0/+6People fail to use common sense and do their due diligence. It keeps getting worse every year.
- Picaroon, on 03/10/2008, -1/+1When you have members of Congress from both sides of the aisle, past presidents (Clinton), and all sorts of people from Iraq and in our administration saying these things, why wouldn't people believe it?
This is more of a "elected officials had an unrealistic view of the implications and details of such an operation" issue than it is a "Bush lied people died blood oil Bushco lied" etc. issue.
- drmangrum, on 03/10/2008, -1/+11At first it was feasible, especially when it was still relatively close to 9/11. The media sure didn't help to shed light on their ***** either. There is an implicit trust that goes with an elected position( one that is now in taters for the next few generation ), we really didn't have a reason to not trust what our government was telling us.
- dontstaylong, on 03/10/2008, -4/+14in a word, infuriating.
- Rutje, on 03/10/2008, -5/+43they forgot the casualties...
- JEAH, on 03/10/2008, -1/+5you mean like that puppy that got thrown off the cliff?
- pakakapa, on 03/10/2008, -0/+3the only casualty that matters for those in power is money. Their money, that is.
- 1jaxstate1, on 03/10/2008, -6/+32Four grand a second. Wow....I mean....just wow.
- nbcaffeine, on 03/10/2008, -2/+25That'll be $12,000, please.
- mediaspree, on 03/10/2008, -2/+8They just pissed 8 grand while I was reading your comment
- Velvolver, on 03/10/2008, -0/+1bull, you don't read that fast
- d3lta, on 03/10/2008, -0/+6Actually its a bit more, $4630 per second. As this link shows, http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g8-DEMtAE9q4i4y ... that figure is actually $12 billion a month now.
- weeeezzll, on 03/10/2008, -0/+5Rougly $150 Billion a year. 3x more per year than the entire war was suppose to cost...and the Republican solution is the cut programs at home that benefit it's own citizens like Social Security, and Medicare...
- gothicform, on 03/10/2008, -0/+6Actually it's even more. What you guys are forgetting is the cost of the Iraq War is then being stuck into the US national debt and interest is being charged on that too. What's the interest of the cost of it over the time it has been spent too?
- ldailey06, on 03/10/2008, -0/+3And since somewhere around 30-40 US Soldiers and 500-600 Iraqis are dying every month, the cost is much higher than that.
- AnarkeIncarnate, on 03/10/2008, -0/+5The ones who die are not the unlucky ones. The ones who come back in pieces are worse off. The ones scarred for life inside and out, hobbled, crippled and abused are the saddest part of the war. When they come home, they are afforded horrible health care at the hands of mega corps who would rather they lie in their own urine than keep them clean.
- mrASSMAN, on 03/11/2008, -0/+1Of course, that's only the direct costs, it doesn't include all the other factors that will make it more like $30 Billion/month in the end.
- Hetman, on 03/10/2008, -17/+6In this day and age military equipment, military training, fuel, food costs etc. Far out weigh any type of money you could possible make. And it makes us sounds like we are looters or pillagers when we say something like Iraq will pay for itself..
- nirav72, on 03/10/2008, -0/+5well maybe not looters. But exclusive oil contracts have already been granted to U.S companies.
- Hetman, on 03/10/2008, -0/+1At what cost though. We have to build the infastructer. We have to pay to refine it etc. I think the cost is going to out weigh the benefits. And they are supposably and independent nation so they could theoritically give contracts to whoever they wish. Or nationalize the oil fields and use the profits for their own country,
- Nevarius, on 03/10/2008, -0/+1Its just the same old song and dance, it just didn't work out the way they wanted it too. They could give out contracts or even nationalize their oil, but that isn't in the US's interest. Just ask Iran about what occurred in 1943 when they tried to nationalize their oil. The CIA working with the minority religious fringe in Iran conducted activities to unstablize Iran (cafe fire bombings etc) in which allowed the overthrow of their democratically elected leader and put someone in that was more in line with our interests.
- Delphium226, on 03/10/2008, -0/+1So what's your point?
- Hetman, on 03/10/2008, -1/+4We should not start wars b/c we deem they may be profitable. Because wars are never profitable.
- Delphium226, on 03/10/2008, -0/+3I don't think the war was sold as a profitable undertaking, but rather as something that wouldn't cost the US taxpayer a lot of money and perhaps almost be self-financing. (bwahahahahaha!)
- Nevarius, on 03/10/2008, -0/+2Wars are profitable just not to the people, but for business.
- HarbingerZero, on 03/10/2008, -0/+6Actually, wars have been very profitable. It just depends who you're working for at the time. Look up the United Fruit Company, It's connection to Secretary of State John Foster Dulles and Allen Dulles. How about the Haliburton contracts, or them overcharging for services rendered in Iraq? How about Condeleezza Rice having a Chevron Oil tanker named after her and the importance of American oil companies getting first dibs on Iraqi oil fields? The facts are simple, people need to realize these wars, we're still in Afghanistan by the way, have been a cash grab for unscrupulous contractors, lobbyists, and political opportunists. It made me sick when Cheney commended his own work in El Salvador during the 1999 debates. "The Reagan and first Bush administrations gave the Salvadoran government $6 billion in economic and military aid during the war." - Boston Globe. Go look up what was done with that money. These people don't care about you and me, they care about the value of their stock, the return on investment, and whether they've maximized their profit potential using our tax dollars. Here were are deservedly crying over a few thousand American casualties, it's approximated that 1.2 million Iraqis are dead. God forbid we think about the Iraqis, they were probably all terrorists standing in the way of freedom anyway right? I'm glad my neighbors are finally waking up, unfortunately it's taken the devaluation of their homes and rising fuel prices rather than the thought of millions dead or the raping of our country to do it.
- Delphium226, on 03/10/2008, -0/+2True, the defence industry always scores big time.
- Delphium226, on 03/10/2008, -0/+3I don't think the war was sold as a profitable undertaking, but rather as something that wouldn't cost the US taxpayer a lot of money and perhaps almost be self-financing. (bwahahahahaha!)
- SiliconRain, on 03/10/2008, -7/+15Grrrr.
Dugg so that others will share my rage. - drmangrum, on 03/10/2008, -9/+248I really get tired of seeing "Things we could have done with the extra $1 trillion." IT WASN'T EXTRA. It's money we don't have. Bush has ROBBED the American people, for the next 4 or 5 decades at least, of their prosperity. Him spending money money we don't really have != having extra cash.
- KraftDinner101, on 03/10/2008, -1/+44It's to give perspective. Some people won't really listen to what you have to say unless you give them some sort of analogy for perspective.
- drmangrum, on 03/10/2008, -16/+7*****, if they wanted to give perspective they could have given numbers of things that already exist. Like the cost ( in todays dollars ) of the Hoover Dam, Golden Gate Bridge, the Boston big dig, the english channel "chunnel", the man made islands in Dubai, the Panama canal, the cost of rebuilding New Orleans.
Trying to say what "could have been done" is just a lame attempt to cause drama. People are already pissed, that pot doesn't need to be stirred anymore.- MWeather, on 03/10/2008, -2/+16"Like the cost ( in todays dollars ) of the Hoover Dam, Golden Gate Bridge, the Boston big dig, the english channel "chunnel", the man made islands in Dubai, the Panama canal, the cost of rebuilding New Orleans."
Of the cost of Social Security or Medicaid insurance. Oh wait, they did. - drmangrum, on 03/10/2008, -6/+1The "cost" of future social programs can be whatever you want them to be. You can look at various statistics and pretty much create any number you choose to. My point, which sailed ever so high above your head, was using a number that is concrete, well documented, and generally well known has more meaning.
Stop trying to be pithy, snarky, and generally catty. It makes you look very childish. - Murdats, on 03/10/2008, -2/+2right, so to give people a sense of perspective, lets compare saturn to jupiter, that will help people realise the scale.
comparing giant things to large things does not provide a sense of proportion. - runtheplacered, on 03/10/2008, -1/+8"People are already pissed, that pot doesn't need to be stirred anymore." That may be the craziest f'ing thing I've read all morning. Hey, let's try thinking before we speak!
If the problem still persists, and a big problem it is, then why would we not want to "stir the pot". We should stir it so hard that the contents of whatever we're stirring fly out of the bowl and fall smack onto reality.
- MWeather, on 03/10/2008, -2/+16"Like the cost ( in todays dollars ) of the Hoover Dam, Golden Gate Bridge, the Boston big dig, the english channel "chunnel", the man made islands in Dubai, the Panama canal, the cost of rebuilding New Orleans."
- Delphium226, on 03/10/2008, -0/+14The pot does need to be stirred until punitive and corrective action are taken.What kind of message does it send to future generations if we let people get away with such criminal behaviour? 'Oh, they let it go because they were sick of hearing about it' ?
- drmangrum, on 03/10/2008, -16/+7*****, if they wanted to give perspective they could have given numbers of things that already exist. Like the cost ( in todays dollars ) of the Hoover Dam, Golden Gate Bridge, the Boston big dig, the english channel "chunnel", the man made islands in Dubai, the Panama canal, the cost of rebuilding New Orleans.
- jpbitzer, on 03/10/2008, -1/+18And oddly enough, there's not a snowball's chance in Hell that Americans would have allowed the money to be "robbed" from them to put towards these causes.
- jstone, on 03/10/2008, -1/+20That's the sad part. A lot of people are fine when the government spends their money on weapons and war, but if the government tries to institute national healthcare or anything of that sort the population gets all up-in-arms and claims that the government is stealing their money.
- Nevarius, on 03/10/2008, -0/+3Got to love how that works. Government uses fear to keep the spending up for anything military related and if anything even, remotely seen goes to social programs they scream 'COMMIE' etc. Oddly enough socialism and communism is treated the same yet their different. To bad it seems many don't realize it.
- KraftDinner101, on 03/11/2008, -0/+1I still have the same kind of discussion here in Canada with some people. Their defense is always "I don't want to pay for some drug addict/alocholic/unsafe driver's bad habits". My response is always to ask them if they've ever had someone in their life terminally ill. Most of the time the answer is yes and they usually realise that getting sick or injured really can happen to anyone at any time. The problem is most people only think about the most recent events in their life and never really consider how their kinship uses the health care system. Wouldn't most of you take a percentage out of your pay to help with a family members medical bills? Since the US system is setup in a way that companies are making money off of the sick, most people start to get afraid at the idea of a government run system, but theres one huge difference between the two. The government won't be making money off of it. All they want to do is break even, and if they do turn a profit (which they won't) then it'll go towards the national surplus to be used for other programs.
- drmangrum, on 03/10/2008, -0/+3Not now, no. However, if Bush hadn't spent us into oblivion, people would be far more open-minded about a spending program. Despite what the rest of the world thinks of Americans, we're not all greedy, self-absorbed ass holes. Some, I would would even say most, are good salt-of-the-earth type people. They want to help those in need. They want to make sure the future of the country secure. They want the respect we used to have from the rest of the world. More people are selfish now because they're scared. You don't give away your coat when it's freezing outside.
- MWeather, on 03/10/2008, -0/+1They'd grumble, but they'd bend over and take it on April 15th, just like they always do.
- jstone, on 03/10/2008, -1/+20That's the sad part. A lot of people are fine when the government spends their money on weapons and war, but if the government tries to institute national healthcare or anything of that sort the population gets all up-in-arms and claims that the government is stealing their money.
- hlampert, on 03/10/2008, -0/+5It's true that the money spent on the war has not been budgeted and probably wouldn't have been spent if there was no war. However the simple truth is that money IS being spent (stolen or not), and since it IS being spent it's useful to compare all the things we are not getting to what we are getting. In other words, what's the opportunity cost? Only one of the things we are not getting is the benefit of not spending it in the first place.
- Daz3, on 03/10/2008, -0/+1"and probably wouldn't have been spent if there was no war."
A lot of that money is being borrowed from China.
- Daz3, on 03/10/2008, -0/+1"and probably wouldn't have been spent if there was no war."
- DangerCollie, on 03/10/2008, -1/+23Just by way of reminder, we had a budget surplus when the Supreme Court installed Bush. Job one for him was giving away the surplus to people who didn't need the money. Not funding social security, not providing health care to the poor and needy, not investing in renewable energy, none of that. The first official act of "compassionate conservatism" was lining the pockets of the wealthy.
Hypocrites one and all.- Delphium226, on 03/10/2008, -0/+6Hey! It's not called 'Corporate welfare' for nothing! Those poor corporates need to feel the love as well you know. THAT'S compassionate conservatism.
- Nevarius, on 03/10/2008, -1/+2And to think the Soviets may have been right about Capitalism. In this case anyway.
- carpespasm, on 03/11/2008, -0/+2nah, actually giving the people's money away to large industries is more socialistic than capitalistic.
- kreneskyp, on 03/10/2008, -0/+3Theres a big difference in deficit spending to help another country, and spending that helps our own. Investing money in our own country for eduction, infrastructure, etc will help us grow the economy down the road.
- seeyounorth, on 03/10/2008, -0/+1Everyone knows they just make this ***** up as they go along. "Need another 3 trillion, ok, lemmie just print that right out..."
- Daz3, on 03/10/2008, -0/+2Which is why your Dollar is worth almost nothing compared to what it used to be.
- KraftDinner101, on 03/10/2008, -1/+44It's to give perspective. Some people won't really listen to what you have to say unless you give them some sort of analogy for perspective.
- schure1, on 03/10/2008, -3/+47I love the part about being able to provide health care for half a billion kids or fund social security for the next 50 freakin years.
Just imagine all of the other things that we could have used that money for to bring economic stability and peace to the world ...- Spektr4, on 03/10/2008, -0/+22Just imagine, a fraction of that money could've been spent in investment and rebuilding of our energy infrastructure, to get us off foreign oil. And that would've reaped dividends for years to come.
You know what's ***** up? If a politician said, hey we're going to borrow a trillion bucks to feed and clothe and educate all of Africa, the American people wouldn't stand for it. But apparently we're fine spending that money, if it means blowing people to pieces. Sad reflection on humanity. - gcauthon, on 03/10/2008, -0/+2Health care for half a billion kids for a single year... Just imagine how many kids would be covered in that analogy if health care costs were actually reasonable.
- Spektr4, on 03/10/2008, -0/+22Just imagine, a fraction of that money could've been spent in investment and rebuilding of our energy infrastructure, to get us off foreign oil. And that would've reaped dividends for years to come.
- chrisryn64, on 03/10/2008, -49/+5do you people ever get tired of crying about the same stuff everyday?
- Acewrap, on 03/10/2008, -1/+24Do you ever get tired of trolling?
- chrisryn64, on 03/10/2008, -24/+2no, but I get tired of unoriginal insults
- theaceoffire, on 03/10/2008, -1/+19Your mother was a hamster, and your father smelt of Elderberries.
- ayeroxor, on 03/10/2008, -0/+9Then stop being unoriginal.
- mrgreenjeans, on 03/10/2008, -0/+3Hello pot, this is kettle. Here are some of your "original" insults:
"you are all huge *****..."
"You morons..."
"THIS IS NOT HIS FUNERAL YOU MORONS..."
"you are a dumbass..."
"wow, what an idiot..."
"Are you guys morons?"
"wow you people are morons"
- chrisryn64, on 03/10/2008, -24/+2no, but I get tired of unoriginal insults
- wigren, on 03/10/2008, -2/+11***** you, you apathetic twit!
- chrisryn64, on 03/10/2008, -9/+1alright!
- leftyslament, on 03/10/2008, -0/+14weak troll....1/10
- MWeather, on 03/10/2008, -1/+15I'm tired of it, but the cost of freedom is eternal vigilance. Pity you think freedom isn't worth it.
- JigoroKano, on 03/10/2008, -1/+6I hope you can be fortunate enough to step on a land mine today.
- Iconoclast314, on 03/10/2008, -0/+3Do you ever get tired of your government spending $4000 of your taxdollars a second on the war in Iraq?
- Homerr, on 03/10/2008, -0/+1On a positive note - with the weak dollar $4,000 isn't what it used to be...uh, wait...
- enki25, on 03/10/2008, -0/+5Yeah geez, the bankruptcy of our nation is so BORING. Isn't there another xkcd comic we can all read?
- Acewrap, on 03/10/2008, -1/+24Do you ever get tired of trolling?
- aaaleman, on 03/10/2008, -15/+10"How much do I know
To talk out of turn
You might say that I'm young
You might say I'm unlearned
But there's one thing I know
Though I'm younger than you
Even Jesus would never
Forgive what you do
Let me ask you one question
Is your money that good
Will it buy you forgiveness
Do you think that it could
I think you will find
When your death takes its toll
All the money you made
Will never buy back your soul"
-Bob Dylan "Masters of War''- aaaleman, on 03/10/2008, -0/+6Seems like this generation has stopped listening to Dylan. Odd, as the song I pointed out has powerful relevance to today's state of affairs. In fact, taken in today's context, "Masters of War" becomes an even darker song than it was in the 60's because it points out how evil does not change. Different war, same condemnable attitudes and goals from our chosen leaders.
If anyone hasn't heard this song, I suggest going to skreemr.com and searching for it. - voodoogork, on 03/10/2008, -0/+3Your absolutely right. Evil doesn't change it just shows its face in different forms. Dugg for the Dylan reference.
- aaaleman, on 03/10/2008, -0/+6Seems like this generation has stopped listening to Dylan. Odd, as the song I pointed out has powerful relevance to today's state of affairs. In fact, taken in today's context, "Masters of War" becomes an even darker song than it was in the 60's because it points out how evil does not change. Different war, same condemnable attitudes and goals from our chosen leaders.
- smacksaw, on 03/10/2008, -3/+237For 3 trillion dollars, I think Saddam would have just sold it to us.
- mesostinky, on 03/10/2008, -1/+38It's well known that Saddam was willing to deal his way out of going to war with us. The neodicks just had to have another foothold in the middle East. You know, just in case Israel gets obliterated or something.
This all could have been easily avoided.- smacksaw, on 03/10/2008, -0/+3And imagine the win-win. China could have been the debtholder making interest profit. France and Russia would have to go to the US to renegotiate the contracts for oil, for a fee of course. The outer provinces could have been sold to Turkey and Iran at a tidy profit, oil rights sold again to Halliburton ANYWAY...
- nirav72, on 03/10/2008, -1/+32For 3 trillion dollars, almost any enemy would have given up and went home to never bother us again.
- mediaspree, on 03/10/2008, -1/+26I'm on your side, but was Saddam really bothering us?
- nirav72, on 03/10/2008, -1/+14I agree. Saddam wasn't really bothering us. I was pointing to a hypothetical enemy.
- LokitheComplex, on 03/10/2008, -0/+3Actually there are plenty of fanatics that have no interest in money. I know that's a difficult thing to believe on Digg. Not that the war was a good idea. In many ways war is a breakdown in trade.
- Memitim, on 03/10/2008, -0/+4Saddam ain't that guy. We had him on the payroll previously, and for a hell of a lot less.
- LokitheComplex, on 03/10/2008, -0/+1Saddam would need to have paid the oil and military industrial complex not to invade.
- Memitim, on 03/10/2008, -0/+4Saddam ain't that guy. We had him on the payroll previously, and for a hell of a lot less.
- mediaspree, on 03/10/2008, -1/+26I'm on your side, but was Saddam really bothering us?
- Pritchard, on 03/10/2008, -0/+3That's a really good point... I never thought about that. Other than that, for less then 100 billion dollars, we could have easily taken over Iraq rather than played the "take over Iraq but pretend that's not what we're doing so let's use guerrilla tactics and small, local units even if we can blow the place to smithereens at less than 1% of the cost" strategy.
- brsmnky007, on 03/10/2008, -0/+1Ah, but then we could not have finance the American military-industrial complex for another several decades.
- boxybrzown, on 03/11/2008, -0/+1Sadaam actually had an asking price for leaving the country, only 1 billion:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/new ...
- mesostinky, on 03/10/2008, -1/+38It's well known that Saddam was willing to deal his way out of going to war with us. The neodicks just had to have another foothold in the middle East. You know, just in case Israel gets obliterated or something.
- planes, on 03/10/2008, -0/+31I wonder if there will be anything about the Iraq War in the new $500 million Bush Library? There should be room ... you know, right next to that copy of "My Pet Goat".
- AnarkeIncarnate, on 03/10/2008, -0/+4Maybe Curious George goes to War?
- CalvinLawson, on 03/10/2008, -0/+3"My Pet Goat" was the story being read when GWB heard about 9/11. He allowed the story to be finished before responding...
- frappe987, on 03/10/2008, -3/+96Couldn't we have just given Iraq all the fast food restaurants and fructose syrup and have them kill themselves? its working so well for us here at home.
- dontera, on 03/10/2008, -1/+7 I wish I could thumbs up more than once....
- fearlessfx, on 03/10/2008, -1/+5Your comment is even more depressing than the comic.
- Daz3, on 03/10/2008, -0/+1MMM... corn syrup...
- chrisinsocalif, on 03/10/2008, -1/+10Oh it will pay for itself in the year 2347.
- smacksaw, on 03/10/2008, -1/+5Not because oil will be valuable then (since we'll be able to teleport), but because due to inflation a loaf of bread will be 3 trillion credits (dollars). Someone will get bored one day at the market and see one of those cards "Pay off the War in Iraq. Your 1 trillion donation goes directly to paying this off" and someone with a nostalgic interest in history will do it. And then go get clear of Thetans, as L Ron Hubbard will have been proven to be right.
- mediaspree, on 03/10/2008, -1/+3We ain't making it that far.
- XxtraLarGe, on 03/10/2008, -23/+9Thank goodness we still have 3 warmongers (Clinton, McCain, Obama) running for President! If Iraq is paying for itself, just think how much money we'll make if McCain becomes president and keeps us there for 100 years!
- ronh, on 03/10/2008, -4/+2Why is he being dug down? All those canidates he listed stated they will stay in Iraq. All of them are complicint in this sham. Clinton the worst she voted on the senate bill to go in.
- Spektr4, on 03/10/2008, -1/+6Dug down, because there are definite differences between the three.
- wakananda, on 03/10/2008, -3/+2LOL! Diggers think Obama won't keep the US boot on the Middle East's throat! It took Nixon to go to China, and *it will take Obama to nuke Iran.* Brace yourself for some unfortunately necessary all-caps: THESE CANDIDATES ARE ALL WORKING FOR THE SAME GLOBAL MONEY SYNDICATE, INCLUDING OBAMA. Sorry about that - it's impossible to throw a bucket of cold water over the internet...
- computrius, on 03/10/2008, -6/+180So, they tried to impeach clinton for cheating on his wife... Bush robs the american people of their prosperity for 4 or 5 decades on a war in which he lied about constantly from the beginning.. But that DOESNT warrent impeachment? Have I missed something here?
- drmangrum, on 03/10/2008, -10/+13They tried to impeach clinton for perjury....
- computrius, on 03/10/2008, -1/+28Maybe so.. But that still doesnt even begin to compare to what bush has done and lied about.
- mithrasinvictus, on 03/10/2008, -1/+3Get him on the stand so he can perjure himself. But the democrats don't seem to want to do that...
- MWeather, on 03/10/2008, -2/+8Why was he on the stand if they weren't looking for impeachable offences?
- dddavid, on 03/10/2008, -1/+4They were looking for impeachable offenses (witch hunt), which he hadn't committed until he was foolish enough to perjure himself. Still though, nowhere near as bad as what Bush has done, but Congress doesn't have the balls to stand up to him for fear of facing accusations of being unpatriotic, and unfortunately the American people are not raising their voices as one and demanding it (impeachment).
- datdamonfoo, on 03/10/2008, -1/+10Technically, they didn't TRY to impeach Clinton, they DID impeach him. And he was acquitted.
- hierophantus, on 03/10/2008, -0/+5drmangrum is correct. The whole thing was obviously a political witchhunt, and Bush has done far worse things, but it was at least technically about perjury, not a BJ. If Paula Jones hadn't sued Clinton, and Clinton hadn't been deposed for that suit, the Republicans could not have tried to hang him just for a skin flute melody alone.
- HigherLogic, on 03/10/2008, -0/+2...yeah, about whether or not he GOT A BLOWJOB!
- computrius, on 03/10/2008, -1/+28Maybe so.. But that still doesnt even begin to compare to what bush has done and lied about.
- Yoblad, on 03/10/2008, -0/+17Technically I don't think Bush lied under oath. I'm pretty sure he would use his evil overlord powers to prevent a situation like that even happening in the first place. Bush is much better at being evil and getting a way with it than Clinton.
- LokitheComplex, on 03/10/2008, -0/+5He may have got off legally but he's pretty much the worst "leader of the free world" ever. People will speak badly of him for generations.
- hierophantus, on 03/10/2008, -0/+6The most infuriating thing about that is that he will go TO HIS GRAVE believing that he will be venerated as the second coming of Abraham Lincoln years down the road. No one will ever convince him otherwise. Frustrating, isn't it?
- dddavid, on 03/10/2008, -0/+4No he just would ignore a suppoena from Congress, so there's no danger of him perjuring himself. He believes he's above the law remember? (And unfortunately to many congressmembers seem to agree with the SOB).
- eLye, on 03/10/2008, -0/+6Don't threaten the evil overlord with impeachment, he will waterboard you for domestic terrorism.
- kreneskyp, on 03/10/2008, -0/+3Even if somehow bush were compelled to testify his only answers would be "i don't know" and "i can't recall".
- LokitheComplex, on 03/10/2008, -0/+5He may have got off legally but he's pretty much the worst "leader of the free world" ever. People will speak badly of him for generations.
- yohnstoppable, on 03/10/2008, -9/+14The answer is simple. For all their faults, the Republicans have something the Democrats will never have...
Balls- DangerCollie, on 03/10/2008, -1/+4Don't Digg people down for telling the truth, even if it's an unpleasant truth.
- ronh, on 03/10/2008, -1/+8Too bad they dont have a brain. Otherwise Ron Paul would be the likely republican candidate.
- datdamonfoo, on 03/10/2008, -1/+6Hitler had balls, doesn't mean he should be heralded for it.
- kreneskyp, on 03/10/2008, -0/+3agreed. imo the democrats in office are just as liable for everything that bush has done. They could have resisted everything with enough of a majority to filibuster or vote down every initiative. They also could have forced bush onto the stand and into the public spotlight.
They all insisted they couldn't waste time going after bush because they had important things to do. well it turns out the only thing they did was pass legislation bush wanted:
War spending authorization several times
wiretapping legality
wiretapping immunity
etc etc etc - extrememedium, on 03/10/2008, -0/+1Actually, Hitler is rumoured to have had only one testicle.
- kreneskyp, on 03/10/2008, -0/+3agreed. imo the democrats in office are just as liable for everything that bush has done. They could have resisted everything with enough of a majority to filibuster or vote down every initiative. They also could have forced bush onto the stand and into the public spotlight.
- yohnstoppable, on 03/10/2008, -0/+6I wasn't heralding them for it. I was criticizing the Democrats for not having the balls to do what they were elected for. You are blind if you can't see their lack of intestinal fortitude.
- hierophantus, on 03/10/2008, -0/+3Sad but true.
- slaizer, on 03/10/2008, -1/+5Goddamnit, someone go give George a damn blowjob already.
- kylejn, on 03/10/2008, -0/+1I don't think that's going to do it. Fox News reporters already take turns going to the White House weekly.
- ghank, on 03/10/2008, -0/+2I believe the American people already have.................
- seeyounorth, on 03/10/2008, -0/+4Sssshhhh! Keep talking like that and the terrorists win!
- drmangrum, on 03/10/2008, -10/+13They tried to impeach clinton for perjury....
- N3M3515, on 03/10/2008, -1/+22Sad part is your working 3 months out of every year for the government and that money you give them they spend on occupying Iraq. And the good Dr.mangrum has a very good point they are borrowing even more money forcing our children and our children's children into paying it back.
- hlampert, on 03/10/2008, -0/+5Dude, as far as I know most of the money to occupy Iraq is allocated in emergency spending measures and is therefore not budgeted, so you haven't even begun to see how much more than 3 months out of every year you will have to work to pay for the occupation.
- AnarkeIncarnate, on 03/10/2008, -0/+1you only have 3? I have to work more than that.
- Daz3, on 03/10/2008, -0/+1You do not legally have to pay income tax in America...
- Lanefair, on 03/10/2008, -3/+43$4000 a second. America, I feel sick for you.
- asauterChicago, on 03/10/2008, -0/+6Since you posted this, we just spent another $14,400,000!!
whoops, since my last edit we just spent another $240,000...
- asauterChicago, on 03/10/2008, -0/+6Since you posted this, we just spent another $14,400,000!!
- yohnstoppable, on 03/10/2008, -2/+21That's enough $1 bills to fill the grand canyon 2/5 of the way up
I know that doesn't sound very impressive, but keep in mind it is a VERY big canyon- mediaspree, on 03/10/2008, -0/+20one might call it "Grand"
- vagabondgr, on 03/10/2008, -0/+19The canyon is still 3/5 empty. Now it's our chance to fill it up. McCain for president.
- mrASSMAN, on 03/11/2008, -1/+1And that's only if the bills are completely perfectly flat with absolutely no space in between them.
In the real world, it would flow over the top.
- Svengalus, on 03/10/2008, -15/+1Who was stupid enough to think the Iraq war would pay for itself? I have never heard anyone say that.
- nirav72, on 03/10/2008, -1/+8I guess you were living under a rock then. I suggest you look it up. I believe it was one of the war hawks around GW that had said that.
- DooM, on 03/10/2008, -2/+14On March 27, 2003, Paul Wolfowitz told a Congressional panel that oil revenue earned by Iraq alone would pay for Iraq's reconstruction after the Iraq war; he testified: "The oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years. Now, there are a lot of claims on that money, but … We are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon.”
- Svengalus, on 03/10/2008, -6/+2What a stupid thing for him to say. I'm sure he never believed it was true.
- enki25, on 03/10/2008, -0/+5why are you so sure, because it seems obvious in hindsight? Guess what, if the admin had been honest about how expensive this adventure was going to be, we never would have gone in the first place.
- Chassit, on 03/10/2008, -3/+2Footing the bill for reconstruction is not footing the bill for the war...
- Svengalus, on 03/10/2008, -6/+2What a stupid thing for him to say. I'm sure he never believed it was true.
- MWeather, on 03/10/2008, -1/+10Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, George Bush, etc. Maybe if people like you paid more attention we wouldn't be in this mess.
- LokitheComplex, on 03/10/2008, -1/+8Do you have ears?
- ayeroxor, on 03/10/2008, -0/+7This discussion is for adults that pay attention. Run along.
- cmuwriter, on 03/10/2008, -6/+29***** Bush.
- jbird32275, on 03/10/2008, -0/+1Giggidy, giggidy .....Alright.
- wakananda, on 03/10/2008, -0/+1Jeff Gannon beat you to it.
- Memitim, on 03/10/2008, -0/+1And get in line behind all of the Saudis running a train on him? No thanks.
- uptwolait, on 03/10/2008, -2/+41I laughed till I cried. Then I just cried and cried.
- cherwilco, on 03/10/2008, -0/+3did you really cry? I just got pissed
- rficwizard, on 03/10/2008, -0/+3In the American or English sense of the word?
- cherwilco, on 03/10/2008, -0/+8First English then American
- rficwizard, on 03/10/2008, -0/+3In the American or English sense of the word?
- cherwilco, on 03/10/2008, -0/+3did you really cry? I just got pissed
- wiretapped, on 03/10/2008, -19/+1All Americans care about is themselves.
- nextTopModel, on 03/10/2008, -10/+0the most power and the most desastrous ...
- cherwilco, on 03/10/2008, -0/+1dude I'm prett disastrous, not so much desastrous though.
- cherwilco, on 03/10/2008, -1/+9all of us huh? ***** you
- whodoes, on 03/10/2008, -0/+3nothing useful to contribute?
- nextTopModel, on 03/10/2008, -10/+0the most power and the most desastrous ...
- markivey, on 03/10/2008, -1/+6Two words: Voodoo Economics
(George Bush Sr)- mediaspree, on 03/10/2008, -0/+6Something Something economics. (Ben Stein)
- RDinSB, on 03/10/2008, -0/+2LOL.....!!!! that was good.
- Fijster, on 03/10/2008, -0/+2*cue 'I Dream of Jeanie' music*
- Daz3, on 03/10/2008, -0/+1Gorilla math.
- mediaspree, on 03/10/2008, -0/+6Something Something economics. (Ben Stein)
- RRJackson, on 03/10/2008, -41/+4Remember 9/11? Yeah, I know. Mentioning that just shut off any ability to continue reading for some of you, but the reason most often given for the attacks was that we had a military base in Saudi Arabia that was WAY too close to Mecca for a lot of fundamentalists. Anyone else remember how we used to have to bribe Syria or Turkey for permission to cross their airspace when we needed to get military aircraft into the region? In the case of Turkey they used our support to ethnically cleanse their country of Kurds.
Now none of that is an issue anymore. We have a colony in the region that serves a vital tactical purpose. Yes, there were never any WMDs and Iraq posed no threat. Newsflash: Nobody ever thought he posed a threat. The United States is filled with too many whining politically-correct "activists" for the president to appear on television to tell the American people that we're going to topple another country because we like the real estate. Great real estate, though. It borders Syria, Turkey, Lebanon, Kuwait, Iran and Saudi Arabia. Our new neighbors are well aware that there are a quarter of a million heavily-armed members of the most advanced military machine in the history of the world staring at them from the other side of their privacy fence. Russia is aware that they have a new neighbor, as well. Yeah, it was an expensive land-grab and there have been casualties, but we lost 18,000 men in '68 alone during the Vietnamese conflict. We're losing 600 a year on the average in Iraq. We lose over 40,000 Americans a year to automobile accidents.
Last night I had dinner with a retired Marine major who served in WWII (in China), Korea and did two tours in Vietnam. He was talking about accepting the surrender of 350k Japanese in China and suggested that we should have gone ahead and taken both China and Russia right then, but the politicians wouldn't allow it. Now we've got a president who'll allow an aggressive foreign policy and the man-children can't stand it. Look at the frequency of Marine KIAs in Iraq. They go as much as a year or more between casualties. The highly-trained and motivated forces in Iraq are performing better than anyone could have expected given the hostile conditions. What we need to do is get the rest of our forces there trained and equipped to follow suit (as well as non-Marines can follow their excellent example).
You people should be proud of your country, but you just want to find more reasons to deride it.- nextTopModel, on 03/10/2008, -6/+9usa is pure shame ... you are just another proove of this.
How can you think sooo arrogant of your fairy tale world war phantasys and takeing other countrys ... war monger who cannot see the pain and suffering and most of all the results whioch throws EVERYBODY back for decades on this planet is absolutly ..dumb! Liek the ape!- RRJackson, on 03/10/2008, -2/+1Said a German chick wth the nickname, "nextTopModel"...
- nirav72, on 03/10/2008, -2/+16This is exactly why they ***** hate us and want kill us at every opportunity.
- leftyslament, on 03/10/2008, -2/+23You may be okay with imperialism, but I have a feeling there are a million dead Iraqis who might disagree with you.
- RRJackson, on 03/10/2008, -12/+1Dead people don't tend to be all that vocal in their disagreement.
- alex7575, on 03/10/2008, -1/+7what do you think his point is???
- RRJackson, on 03/10/2008, -10/+1That he prefers dead Americans to dead Iraqis.
- leftyslament, on 03/10/2008, -1/+10Please stop. You're embarrassing yourself.
- RRJackson, on 03/10/2008, -8/+1You'b be embarrassed by anyone who wasn't blaming America for all the things you think are wrong with the world.
- alex7575, on 03/10/2008, -1/+7what do you think his point is???
- RRJackson, on 03/10/2008, -12/+1Dead people don't tend to be all that vocal in their disagreement.
- chrisryn64, on 03/10/2008, -22/+3Hey look, a well thought out point that doesn't automatically bash America! Watch out, the digg liberals will not be happy about this!
- leftyslament, on 03/10/2008, -1/+13Yeah, his point is very well thought out. I was against the war before, but seeing as how we now have a secure foothold in the Middle East, i'm glad that we can start bombing other countries as well. It's not like it'll destabilize a powder keg of political unrest or anything. There is absolutely no downside to this war whatsoever, and the United states, no the world, is much safer because of the occupation of Iraq.
- nextTopModel, on 03/10/2008, -4/+2very good comment :)
- leftyslament, on 03/10/2008, -1/+13Yeah, his point is very well thought out. I was against the war before, but seeing as how we now have a secure foothold in the Middle East, i'm glad that we can start bombing other countries as well. It's not like it'll destabilize a powder keg of political unrest or anything. There is absolutely no downside to this war whatsoever, and the United states, no the world, is much safer because of the occupation of Iraq.
- alex7575, on 03/10/2008, -2/+14"We're losing 600 a year on the average in Iraq. We lose over 40,000 Americans a year to automobile accidents"
600/yr out of 150,000
40,000/yr out of 300,000,000
You're saying that only one US Marine is killed a year??? I won't even bother to comment on that one...
Stop watching Fox News and you may understand what really happens in the world a bit better. - mrjah, on 03/10/2008, -2/+37Let's see:
1) Pretend to connect 9/11 with Hussein in the first sentence. Check.
2) Hint at the idea of using Iraq to appease al Qaeda, without being brave enough to come out and say it. That worked out well. Check.
3) Pretend that Bush cared about the Kurds in Turkey. Iraq was a humanitarian venture for Turkey! Check.
4) Craft a fairy tale in which it's okay for the President to lie to the American public. Check.
5) Replace the phrase "sensible patriots" with "whining politically-correct 'activists'" whenever possible. Check.
6) Reduce the death and suffering of millions to rhetoric about "great real estate." Check.
7) Latch onto the incredibly poor idea of using Vietnam's carnage to make Iraq seem less senseless. Check.
8) Pretend our "new neighbors" are doing anything other than laughing as we waste our military resources in a pointless elective war. Check.
9) Use anecdotes to justify historical "what-ifs" that, to any sensible person, obviously would have been even more idiotic than Bush's War. Check.
10) Accidentally reveal the dangerous, thoughtless mindset of many (by no means all) military minds when it comes to war and its effects. Check.
11) Appeal to the incredible performance of Our Men Over There, accidentally underscoring just how impossible the task in Iraq actually is. Check.
12) Pretend that training (five years and counting, now) will win a war of ideology. Check.
13) Conclude by questioning the patriotism of people who don't blindly fall into line behind the most crooked President of modern times. Check.
Written like a genuine, dyed-in-the-wool shill. Well done, sir. You almost seem to believe the crap you have typed here.- RRJackson, on 03/10/2008, -14/+11) I don't think I ever mentioned Saddam Hussein.
2) No hint about it. I was pissed when I heard we were closing our base in Saudi Arabia, but the reasoning is obvious.
3) I don't see any reference to Bush's feelings about the Kurds one way or the other. I was just saying that our need to appease Turkey was helping them kill Kurds.
4) No fairy tale. You can't tell the American people the truth if that truth doesn't sound like the last segment of an episode of The Brady Bunch. Any hard realities will make the weak-kneed tremble with hatred for the red, white and blue.
5) "Sensible patriots" don't attack America's policy no matter what she does. You've confused dissent with sedition.
6) And you lessen the sacrifice made by real patriots to fit your blindered view of the world.
7) We're getting better at killing the enemy and keeping our own men alive. A patriot would be proud of our accomplishments.
8) Only traitors like you and those like you laugh at America's sacrifices.
9) Hard facts. We've had limp-wristed leadership that pulled our forces back in the past. Now that we have real leadership you traitors are appalled.
10) No accident about it. You need to understand how actual adult men of responsibility view the world. Maybe you'll learn a thing or two. Doubtful, but there's always the potential for advancement.
11) Excellent performance. Nothing impossible about it. We could kill them all tomorrow morning if we wanted to.
12) Training and proper equipment will make excellent killers into excellent killers with a higher survival ratio.
13) I question the patriotism of all traitors. You included. Hopefully your names are being recorded for future action.- hawkspur, on 03/10/2008, -1/+5Why don't you just take a huge steamy dump on the Constitution while your at it.
- RonJon715, on 03/10/2008, -1/+5No *****, he really is ***** insane...I guess the fact that it's not about "killing them all" actually got past you, huh? Are you even in the military, or do you just like to talk like you are? After you've witnessed the horrors of war (and the outrageous power of America), people usually don't speak about indiscriminate killing like you do. You sound like a ***** armchair warrior who's spent to much time watching the history channel.
- RRJackson, on 03/10/2008, -4/+1These folk like to talk about how we're on the verge of "losing" the war and we're in an "impossible" situation. Nothing's impossible if you know that at the end of the day you have the power to completely and totally annihilate your enemy. That allows you a comfort zone in which you can make benevolent decisions without the pressure and urgency that is so often suggested.
- DoobieMan714, on 03/10/2008, -1/+3Wow you really are a ***** idiot. This war isn't about annihilating our enemy or killing them all. You seem like that's how you want things. They are people just like you and me, sure their beliefs may be different, but they are living breathing people. You are truly a sick ***** and you really need to get a soul. get your head out of your ass and see whats really going on here.
- RRJackson, on 03/10/2008, -4/+1You're missing the point entirely. Nothing is more dangerous than someone who's backed into a corner. If our armed forces were really in as hopeless a situation as people like to say they are then the Iraqi people would be in an equally precarious situation. Because desperate men do desperate things. But we're not in that kind of situation. The Zulu hordes aren't storming the walls. The entire nation of Iraq only has a population about equal to New York City. We could eradicate the population without really breaking a sweat and that's what allows our people to be a benevolent force in the region. They don't have their backs against a wall.
- alex7575, on 03/10/2008, -1/+2I hate to materialize Godwin's Law here, but the Nazis would be proud of you.
- alex7575, on 03/10/2008, -1/+2^ the above comment was meant for RRJackson of course
- RRJackson, on 03/10/2008, -1/+1If we'd had any sense we'd have left the Nazis alone until they killed a lot more Soviets. Hell, we *should* have kicked France out of the Netherlands to protect Germany's flank until Hitler could completely shoot his wad killing Soviets. Then we could have deposed him without giving half of Europe away for 50 years.
- Daz3, on 03/10/2008, -1/+1@RRjackson,
"until Hitler could completely shoot his wad killing Soviets"
That is pretty much what happened, the Soviets won world war II. - RRJackson, on 03/11/2008, -0/+1Nah, when Hitler took Poland we teamed up with France and England to flank Germany. Hitler had to grab the Netherlands and divide his troops to fight on multiple fronts. He still killed millions of Soviets, but the original German plan had been to use Poland as a staging area for an uninterrupted full-scale invasion of the Soviet Union. That's why they had all the big slave labor camps in Poland. Nobody could figure out how Germany was managing the level of war production that they were able to maintain, but of course later on we discovered that they were working their prisoners to death in forced labor camps. But if we'd left them alone they'd have toppled the Soviets. The Soviet Union only had a population of about 150 million people at the time and the Germans killed 25 million of them while simultaneously fighting the allied forces on other fronts. Left to their work, the Germans would have owned Russia.
- RatsWithHats, on 03/11/2008, -1/+0To RRjackson Please correct me if I am wrong but what you are saying, in your discussions about WWII strategy, is that the U.S. government (i.e. politicians, cabinet officials, generals, admirals) failed miserably in its policies and war strategies. Why do you presume the right to disparage a previous generation's successful war strategies, while condemning, as unpatriotic, those who criticize the proven ineptitude of the current administration and the pentagon for their failed strategies of the current U.S. war(s)? I have more respect for people I disagree with on current issues than I do for arm chair generals and revisionist historians. Good day.
- RRJackson, on 03/11/2008, -0/+1They didn't "fail" in their plans. A good example is WWI. WWI was a useless endeavor, IMO. It wasn't a "failure" in the sense that the people planning and executing it were morons. It was a "failure" in the sense that it showed the faulty nature of the ancient allegiances and the structured nature of deployment that came from those old feudal patterns. Basically one political assassination toppled a series of dominoes that put a whole continent at each other's throats and paved the way for another world war. Kind of like the stock market crash of 1987, it had just spiraled out of control. Black Monday led to trading curbs. WWI led to the League of Nations. This is how things work with humans. We see a ***** and when we have a second to breathe and think about it we try to prevent it from happening again. As is so often the case in human endeavor, sometimes the remedy is also faulty. We all stand on the shoulders of everyone who came before us. WWII went the way it did for a lot of political reasons, very few of which had anything to do with the public good. Which is often the case. Our current conflict is no different. There are plenty of examples of profiteering and politicking. But at least we grabbed the land.
- RRJackson, on 03/10/2008, -14/+11) I don't think I ever mentioned Saddam Hussein.
- bigfatpaulie, on 03/10/2008, -1/+8Yes, why resort to diplomacy when those trusted to be put in power can just lie to us and force a land grab?
- RRJackson, on 03/10/2008, -4/+1Exactly. Look at the results of the Mexican-American war for clarification on any points still outstanding.
- bigfatpaulie, on 03/10/2008, -1/+2Because nothing in world politics has changed over the last 160 years.
- RRJackson, on 03/10/2008, -4/+1Nothing about human nature has changed in thousands of years. That's why you still read Thucydides, Caesar and Xenophon at the War College.
- bigfatpaulie, on 03/10/2008, -1/+2Because nothing in world politics has changed over the last 160 years.
- RRJackson, on 03/10/2008, -4/+1Exactly. Look at the results of the Mexican-American war for clarification on any points still outstanding.
- jcastillo81, on 03/10/2008, -1/+13I read your comment and I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be proud of? Dead marines? Invading a country and threatening those around it? Also, a "country" is an abstract concept, it cannot DO anything. I'm assuming you mean I should be proud of the people that steal money from me under the treat of violence and kill innocent people in my name?
- hasslinthehoff, on 03/10/2008, -1/+9I don't even know where to begin... this is the craziest comment in the whole list. Bush TOLD us that Iraq was a threat. Bush TOLD us that Iraq had WMDs and funded terrorism. Those proved to be untrue. You can't argue that everyone knew this and it's really a war about real estate, b/c that wasn't the original justification for the war.
And... sure, we could have invaded China and Russia, but who the hell would want to and have to spend money on keeping security and bringing countries that massive up to speed? - LokitheComplex, on 03/10/2008, -1/+10Amazing post.
"The United States is filled with too many whining politically-correct "activists" for the president to appear on television to tell the American people that we're going to topple another country because we like the real estate."
Why not just shoot your weakest neighbour and take his car?
I love how you slipped in there that you regret not starting World War 3.- RRJackson, on 03/10/2008, -10/+1WWIII my ass. At that point it would have been easy to topple Mao's weak new army and Russia's battered forces.
- LokitheComplex, on 03/10/2008, -1/+4His army is weak? Let me guess the troops would be greeted with flowers? Where have I heard this before? You still haven't explained why you shouldn't rob your weak neighbours. Maybe you already have.
- RRJackson, on 03/10/2008, -4/+1Mao is dead, Sparky. In the 40's we were supporting Chiang Kai-shek's Kuomintang government in their efforts to overthrow Mao's Red Army. At that point Mao was relatively weak and could have been overthrown. We had Marines on the ground prepping to do it, but they were recalled.
And you rob your weak neighbors because they aren't strong enough to defend themselves against you. That's how we founded this nation.
- RRJackson, on 03/10/2008, -4/+1Mao is dead, Sparky. In the 40's we were supporting Chiang Kai-shek's Kuomintang government in their efforts to overthrow Mao's Red Army. At that point Mao was relatively weak and could have been overthrown. We had Marines on the ground prepping to do it, but they were recalled.
- LokitheComplex, on 03/10/2008, -1/+4His army is weak? Let me guess the troops would be greeted with flowers? Where have I heard this before? You still haven't explained why you shouldn't rob your weak neighbours. Maybe you already have.
- RRJackson, on 03/10/2008, -10/+1WWIII my ass. At that point it would have been easy to topple Mao's weak new army and Russia's battered forces.
- wakananda, on 03/10/2008, -1/+10You're an American neo-fascist. In the near future, when your tie-the-world-up-and-rape-it, constitution-trampling foreign policy plays out to it's inevitable conclusion, a wiser and much more radioactive United States of America will curse you and your arrogance unto the ages. Sunday congregations will locate you in the deepest caverns of hell, for as long as people subscribe to that mythology. Thanks for posting; it's good for the majority of decent Americans to see what's really going on behind the eyeballs of people like you.
- RRJackson, on 03/10/2008, -7/+1http://oism.org/nwss/s73p912.htm
Myths vs. Facts. Good stuff to know before you get all hysterical and piss on the carpet, Nancy.- RonJon715, on 03/10/2008, -1/+5Your a ***** lunatic....your posting garbage links about the non-danger of nuclear weapons? I think this person meant radioactive in a non-literal sense. I'm not sure, that's just my guess. Anyway, your response is ***** insane no matter what they meant.
- RRJackson, on 03/10/2008, -3/+1That link is to a document authored for the federal government by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. That "garbage" was researched by some of the most experienced men in our nuclear weapons industry. It's well worth reading and very informative. I've interviewed physicists from Oak Ridge who were there when Oak Ridge was a "secret city" that didn't appear on maps. You could learn a lot from the men who did that early research.
- RonJon715, on 03/17/2008, -0/+0Yeah, your right...all we'd have to do is live underground in perfectly constructed bomb shelters for a couple hundred years. Brilliant plan for civilization.
- RonJon715, on 03/17/2008, -0/+0BTW, nice profile photo...TOOL.
- RonJon715, on 03/10/2008, -1/+5Your a ***** lunatic....your posting garbage links about the non-danger of nuclear weapons? I think this person meant radioactive in a non-literal sense. I'm not sure, that's just my guess. Anyway, your response is ***** insane no matter what they meant.
- RRJackson, on 03/10/2008, -7/+1http://oism.org/nwss/s73p912.htm
- RonJon715, on 03/10/2008, -1/+8Whenever you hear this world-view spouted, it's to easy to realize why the architects of the constitution left matters of war and peace to civilians. I think you have read one to many Patton biographies. Don't get me wrong, I'm no lefty-"we are the world type," but what your saying is just Imperialist *****. I'
- nextTopModel, on 03/10/2008, -6/+9usa is pure shame ... you are just another proove of this.