Find fields & stores near you!
Find fields and stores
Zipcode
PbNation News
PbNation News
Community Focus
Community Focus

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 03-19-2008, 11:46 AM #1
Rugrat
 
 
Rugrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Van by the river
 has been a member for 10 years
5 years in Iraq; "longer and harder and more costly than we anticipated"

Quote:
Bush: We can't jeopardize gains in Iraq
WASHINGTON - Five years after launching the invasion of Iraq, President Bush strongly signaled Wednesday that he won't order troop withdrawals beyond those already planned because he refuses to "jeopardize the hard-fought gains" of the past year.

As anti-war activists demonstrated around downtown Washington, the president spoke at the Pentagon to mark the anniversary of a war that has cost nearly 4,000 U.S. lives and roughly $500 billion. The president's address was part of a series of events the White House planned around the anniversary and next month's report from the top U.S. figures in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker. That report will be the basis for Bush's first troop-level decision in seven months.

"The battle in Iraq has been longer and harder and more costly than we anticipated," Bush said.

But, he added, before an audience of Pentagon brass, soldiers and diplomats: "The battle in Iraq is noble, it is necessary, and it is just. And with your courage, the battle in Iraq will end in victory."
I would just like to make a few comments about this....

1. No kidding the war has been longer and harder and more costly than you anticipated; You failled to even plan for it! You just sent in the troops and seriously expected the Iraqi people to throw us a party as liberators and the next day start up a fully functioning government.

2. Just what exactly are we defining as Victory in Iraq? A secure Iraq? That's not going to happen as you will still have Turkey invading to the North chasing Kurd rebels, Iran fueling Shia resistance in the South, and the Sunni's in the Center trying to re-establish their power. A unified Iraq led by an elected Government? That's not going to happen as te Kurdish PM has already stated he will not rejoin centeralized Iraqi rule and I don't believe the Shia and Sunnis will ever get their crap together.

3. Was the 500 Billion dollars spent, the 4,000 US soldiers killed, and the hundred of thousands of Iraqis lives lost truely been "necessary" just to rid the world of 1 dictator who had been under an embargo for close to 10 years? I think Not.
__________________
CPPA #2701
Rugrat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sponsored Links Remove Advertisement
Advertisement
Old 03-19-2008, 11:54 AM #2
SynTek
Big Brother With a Smile
 
SynTek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Nation of Joe
SynTek is a Supporting Member
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rugrat View Post
I would just like to make a few comments about this....

1. No kidding the war has been longer and harder and more costly than you anticipated; You failled to even plan for it! You just sent in the troops and seriously expected the Iraqi people to throw us a party as liberators and the next day start up a fully functioning government.

2. Just what exactly are we defining as Victory in Iraq? A secure Iraq? That's not going to happen as you will still have Turkey invading to the North chasing Kurd rebels, Iran fueling Shia resistance in the South, and the Sunni's in the Center trying to re-establish their power. A unified Iraq led by an elected Government? That's not going to happen as te Kurdish PM has already stated he will not rejoin centeralized Iraqi rule and I don't believe the Shia and Sunnis will ever get their crap together.

3. Was the 500 Billion dollars spent, the 4,000 US soldiers killed, and the hundred of thousands of Iraqis lives lost truely been "necessary" just to rid the world of 1 dictator who had been under an embargo for close to 10 years? I think Not.
Iraq, like Vietnam, has suffered from a key problem - We don't know why we're there. We "won" the war in a month, and within the first year we had almost everyone on our HVT list marked as captured or killed. We somehow couldn't leave it at that since we didn't find those "WMD's" and found that entirely new governments don't get built overnight. Thus we began our long road to rebuild Iraqi Security - a task that's entirely too vague to ever be a success. If we reduce the number of attacks to 1 a month we still won't have achieved victory under those circumstances.

Do I think the war is worth it? Perhaps the costs of the first few months were worth the gains but now we're just fighting for the sake of fighting. We are ineviably going to leave without accomplishing our impossible goals and it will be seen as a loss just as Vietnam was.
__________________
You can't buy happiness. So steal it.
SynTek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2008, 12:20 PM #3
PDXMark
flopy head and beedy eyes
 
PDXMark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Portland, Oregon
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rugrat View Post
I would just like to make a few comments about this....

1. No kidding the war has been longer and harder and more costly than you anticipated;
DuH!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rugrat View Post
2. Just what exactly are we defining as Victory in Iraq? A secure Iraq? That's not going to happen as you will still have Turkey invading to the North chasing Kurd rebels, Iran fueling Shia resistance in the South, and the Sunni's in the Center trying to re-establish their power. A unified Iraq led by an elected Government? That's not going to happen as te Kurdish PM has already stated he will not rejoin centeralized Iraqi rule and I don't believe the Shia and Sunnis will ever get their crap together.
Securing a valuble resource from those who don't believe in democracy!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rugrat View Post
3. Was the 500 Billion dollars spent, the 4,000 US soldiers killed, and the hundred of thousands of Iraqis lives lost truely been "necessary" just to rid the world of 1 dictator who had been under an embargo for close to 10 years? I think Not.
Around 1/3 of this $500bn defense fund went to contracts held by KBR, Halliburton and corporate security contractors like Blackwater.

Not to worry, with a failing dollar our country will not be able to host such parties for a while. The ****ed up part, "I see the clean-up being as costly on our souls and spirit"!
__________________
PDXMark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2008, 12:25 PM #4
Murph1329
 
 
Murph1329's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Hoover, AL
damn please stop bring up the cost of what was we put into defense spending PLZ

While we're putting the most money every into defense spending than we ever have in the past you need to remember that the US GDP is also higher than it's ever been in the past.
With that said we are currently spending about 4% of the GDP on defense spending. When Clinton was President that percentage was around 4.7 and that was during a time of peace. And when we fought in WW2 it was around 38%.
Only dedicating 4% of the GDP to defense spending during a time of war is next to nothing and you really shouldn't ***** about it.
__________________
'98 STO
10/14'' Dye Stainless | AKALMP tornado valve
Evolution bolt | Evolution Roller Sear
ANS Jackhammer | Rex Kit
STO RAM | Air America Black Ice | Shocktech LPC
pic
Forum defeat is admitted when one resorts to grammatical insults -me
We all live with a mark of sin, no man's is greater than another's in his own mind. -me
Murph1329 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2008, 12:31 PM #5
paintballpimp092
Si vis pacem, para bellum
 
paintballpimp092's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Florida
 has been a member for 10 years
paintballpimp092 owns a Planet Eclipse Ego
paintballpimp092 plays in the APPA D5 division
paintballpimp092 has achieved Level 3 in PbNation Pursuit
Quote:
Originally Posted by Murph1329 View Post
damn please stop bring up the cost of what was we put into defense spending PLZ

While we're putting the most money every into defense spending than we ever have in the past you need to remember that the US GDP is also higher than it's ever been in the past.
With that said we are currently spending about 4% of the GDP on defense spending. When Clinton was President that percentage was around 4.7 and that was during a time of peace. And when we fought in WW2 it was around 38%.
Only dedicating 4% of the GDP to defense spending during a time of war is next to nothing and you really shouldn't ***** about it.
And we're how many trillions of dollars in debt to the Chinese?
__________________
"Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called sons of God." - Matthew 5:9

FOR SALE: Mares Hybrid ProTec Scuba BCD
paintballpimp092 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2008, 12:34 PM #6
berserker19
 
 
berserker19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Rampart Range
berserker19 is an NCPA player
Someone has to pay for those 24,000 orders of shrimp lo mein and 6,000 crab rangoon that were delivered to the white house between 2003 and 2007. Not to mention the surcharge for all those extra soy sauce packets and almond cookies.
berserker19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2008, 12:34 PM #7
Rugrat
 
 
Rugrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Van by the river
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Murph1329 View Post
damn please stop bring up the cost of what was we put into defense spending PLZ

While we're putting the most money every into defense spending than we ever have in the past you need to remember that the US GDP is also higher than it's ever been in the past.
With that said we are currently spending about 4% of the GDP on defense spending. When Clinton was President that percentage was around 4.7 and that was during a time of peace. And when we fought in WW2 it was around 38%.
Only dedicating 4% of the GDP to defense spending during a time of war is next to nothing and you really shouldn't ***** about it.
[sarcasm]Which explains why we are able to fund the war in Iraq and still have our budget be in the black....[/sarcasm]

Seriously how stupid is your logic? We may have a higher GDP but we are still spending more money than the Federal Government is collecting thanks to this war which driving our counrty further in to debt. So yes I should be *****ing about it because I don't care if we are going further in to debt very quickly or very slowly all because of Bush's folly in Iraq.
__________________
CPPA #2701
Rugrat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2008, 12:36 PM #8
paintballpimp092
Si vis pacem, para bellum
 
paintballpimp092's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Florida
 has been a member for 10 years
paintballpimp092 owns a Planet Eclipse Ego
paintballpimp092 plays in the APPA D5 division
paintballpimp092 has achieved Level 3 in PbNation Pursuit
Quote:
Originally Posted by berserker19 View Post
Someone has to pay for those 24,000 orders of shrimp lo mein and 6,000 crab rangoon that were delivered to the white house between 2003 and 2007. Not to mention the surcharge for all those extra soy sauce packets and almond cookies.
I love crab rangoons...
__________________
"Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called sons of God." - Matthew 5:9

FOR SALE: Mares Hybrid ProTec Scuba BCD
paintballpimp092 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2008, 12:37 PM #9
Murph1329
 
 
Murph1329's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Hoover, AL
Quote:
Originally Posted by paintballpimp092 View Post
And we're how many trillions of dollars in debt to the Chinese?
omg do you really think 4% of the GDP on defense spending is too much?

comparing nominal dollar values of military spending over the course of decades fails to account for the impact of inflationary forces, for which military spending as a percentage of GDP does account

please don't act like your ignorant

4% IS NOTHING DURING A TIME OF WAR
during the Vietnam War it was close to 10%

while this is only 2005 you should defenitly take a look at it:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat.../2034rank.html
__________________
'98 STO
10/14'' Dye Stainless | AKALMP tornado valve
Evolution bolt | Evolution Roller Sear
ANS Jackhammer | Rex Kit
STO RAM | Air America Black Ice | Shocktech LPC
pic
Forum defeat is admitted when one resorts to grammatical insults -me
We all live with a mark of sin, no man's is greater than another's in his own mind. -me

Last edited by Murph1329 : 03-19-2008 at 12:39 PM.
Murph1329 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2008, 02:37 PM #10
timmyt (Banned)
relentless
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Murph1329 View Post
omg do you really think 4% of the GDP on defense spending is too much?

comparing nominal dollar values of military spending over the course of decades fails to account for the impact of inflationary forces, for which military spending as a percentage of GDP does account

please don't act like your ignorant

4% IS NOTHING DURING A TIME OF WAR
during the Vietnam War it was close to 10%

while this is only 2005 you should defenitly take a look at it:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat.../2034rank.html
Yah guys, we've figured out how to destroy on the cheap! And it's working!
timmyt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2008, 03:05 PM #11
Craigers
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Atlanta, GA
 has been a member for 10 years
If everyone is so worried about the cost of the war on our economy and debt, why don't we look at the $1.5 trillion a year we spend on social problems...
__________________
Feedback
Craigers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2008, 03:07 PM #12
timmyt (Banned)
relentless
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Craigers View Post
If everyone is so worried about the cost of the war on our economy and debt, why don't we look at the $1.5 trillion a year we spend on social problems...
I think the majority of people would rather spend money on social issues rather than war, but I could be mistaken.
timmyt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2008, 03:10 PM #13
cash pasos
 
 
cash pasos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
He's just being stubborn against the demonstrators, he's showing power and showing he will not withdrawl because of the people protesting in this speech.
cash pasos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2008, 03:10 PM #14
berserker19
 
 
berserker19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Rampart Range
berserker19 is an NCPA player
Quote:
Originally Posted by Murph1329 View Post
omg do you really think 4% of the GDP on defense spending is too much?

4% IS NOTHING DURING A TIME OF WAR
during the Vietnam War it was close to 10%
This is a cheap way of disguising the fact that it is an insane amount of money that is essentially being wasted for no benefit to the American taxpayer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Craigers View Post
If everyone is so worried about the cost of the war on our economy and debt, why don't we look at the $1.5 trillion a year we spend on social problems...
I know, jeez, wtf are we thinking of trying to help American citizens when we could just blow the money on ungrateful arabs...
berserker19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2008, 03:14 PM #15
JcKa
post-Hipster
 
JcKa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UVM/DC
Quote:
Originally Posted by Craigers View Post
If everyone is so worried about the cost of the war on our economy and debt, why don't we look at the $1.5 trillion a year we spend on social problems...
These "social problems" are the backbone of domestic spending.

I've got '06 numbers:

21% of the budget went to defense.
21% of the budget went to SS.
19% of the budget went to Medicare/Medicaid/SCHIP (3/5 going to Medicare).
9% of the budget went to debt interest.
9% of the budget went to "social safety nets" (your actual social problems).
21% of the budget went to everything else (infrastructure, etc).

[as quoted from here, I've yet to look into the source]
http://www.cbpp.org/4-10-07tax2.htm
JcKa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2008, 03:17 PM #16
jshaft37
 
 
jshaft37's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Murph1329 View Post
damn please stop bring up the cost of what was we put into defense spending PLZ

While we're putting the most money every into defense spending than we ever have in the past you need to remember that the US GDP is also higher than it's ever been in the past.
With that said we are currently spending about 4% of the GDP on defense spending. When Clinton was President that percentage was around 4.7 and that was during a time of peace. And when we fought in WW2 it was around 38%.
Only dedicating 4% of the GDP to defense spending during a time of war is next to nothing and you really shouldn't ***** about it.
"defense" was 19% of our budget in 2007 with 548.8 billion spent. the total requested military budget was 699 billion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...budget%2C_2007
jshaft37 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2008, 03:20 PM #17
Murph1329
 
 
Murph1329's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Hoover, AL
Quote:
Originally Posted by timmyt View Post
Yah guys, we've figured out how to destroy on the cheap! And it's working!
OHHHH ok so right now we're putting just enough into defense spending to put a minimal amount of pressure on terrorist. So, now we need to slowly decrease the amount until we're totally ineffective.

y'all think this would be a good idea?
__________________
'98 STO
10/14'' Dye Stainless | AKALMP tornado valve
Evolution bolt | Evolution Roller Sear
ANS Jackhammer | Rex Kit
STO RAM | Air America Black Ice | Shocktech LPC
pic
Forum defeat is admitted when one resorts to grammatical insults -me
We all live with a mark of sin, no man's is greater than another's in his own mind. -me
Murph1329 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2008, 03:28 PM #18
timmyt (Banned)
relentless
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Murph1329 View Post
OHHHH ok so right now we're putting just enough into defense spending to put a minimal amount of pressure on terrorist. So, now we need to slowly decrease the amount until we're totally ineffective.

y'all think this would be a good idea?
Well, I'm an all or nothing type of guy. In my view, we should have sent 500,000 troops into Iraq, or simply none.

But I'm no war planner. I'm just a guy who plays paintball on the weekends and the rest of the time sit in front of a computer.
timmyt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2008, 03:32 PM #19
Murph1329
 
 
Murph1329's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Hoover, AL
Quote:
Originally Posted by jshaft37 View Post
"defense" was 19% of our budget in 2007 with 548.8 billion spent. the total requested military budget was 699 billion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...budget%2C_2007
WRONG
For 2007 it was US$439.3 billion spent in defense spending
In 2006 the GDP was 13487.2 (billions of dollars). No idea what it was in 2007 but i know it's higher.

439.3/13487.2=3.3%
or with your number...
548.8/13487.2=4.1%

not even close to your 19% please show me your incorrect sources
__________________
'98 STO
10/14'' Dye Stainless | AKALMP tornado valve
Evolution bolt | Evolution Roller Sear
ANS Jackhammer | Rex Kit
STO RAM | Air America Black Ice | Shocktech LPC
pic
Forum defeat is admitted when one resorts to grammatical insults -me
We all live with a mark of sin, no man's is greater than another's in his own mind. -me
Murph1329 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2008, 03:35 PM #20
graysonp
Me = Awesome
 
graysonp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Southern KY
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Murph1329 View Post
WRONG
For 2007 it was US$439.3 billion spent in defense spending
In 2006 the GDP was 13487.2 (billions of dollars). No idea what it was in 2007 but i know it's higher.

439.3/13487.2=3.3%
or with your number...
548.8/13487.2=4.1%

not even close to your 19% please show me your incorrect sources
You're both talking about 2 different things. He's saying that defense was 19% of the Federal governments total budget. You're saying that defense is only about 3-4% of the GDP. Both are accurate numbers.
graysonp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2008, 03:40 PM #21
timmyt (Banned)
relentless
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
WRONG!

JK
timmyt is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
Forum Jump