Here's link to the cost of the Iraq war http://costofwar.com/

Actually, the number is higher.  Since most Republicans are simpletons, let's translate this number!

The cost of war in Iraq is about $1,000 per household per year, as far as the eye can see!  

It is over $100b/year, there are about 100 m households in the U.S., that makes it $1,000/year/household.

How many of these Republicans pay even half of this for a home security service per year!!!  Then buy the idea that a country which couldn't send a single aircraft up against us was a BIG threat!!!!


-- Modified on 9/28/2004 10:18:53 PM

Uh, here we go again, the left saying anyone that has a divergent view from them are idiots.

Must be nice to be able to speak out of both sides of one's mouth and not see the inherent flaw in that approach.

I guess you liberal nut jobs would prefer to wait till your gassed in your own homes before taking action. Think that can't happen, ask the Kurds. Me I have the same opinion as my grandfather, a WWII vet who said it was always in the country's best interest to fight the enemy in their country instead of ours. The thing most people against the war can't seem to grasp is the simple fact that we are at war with radical sects of Islam. They do not love us and will do whatever it takes to destroy us. They are not nation states but simple groups of people united against us. The don't need high tech weapons as they will hijack or steal what they need. We have a military that was for years geared up to fight the soviet style threat, Tanks, fighters,massive troops, conventional armies. This new terrorist style of war will take time to for us to adapt to. We must crush the uprisings in Iraq and allow time for a democracy to take hold. There has never been one in that region so lots of people want it to fail. In the long run that will be more cost effective than cutting and running like in Somalia, which only encoraged terrorists like Ossama. They felt we didn't have the heart to take losses. While they are willing to strap bombs to themselves just for the opportunity to kill some of us.
Its never just about the money, The men and women in Iraq and everywhere else who serve in the armed forces know just as I did what was at stake. Thats why we joined.

Let's revisit the obvious

1] Iraq was a lot more secular than Iran or Saudi Arabia. If we were to fight "Radical Sect of Islam" per your post, that was not the place.  And just watch to see a far more radical version of Islam, under the powerful Shia Ayatollah, to dominate Iraq, after the election is held.  And if President Bush is re-elected, see him declare victory, and we get out of Iraq.  

2] Iraq was NOT involved in Sep 11th, or any terrorism directed at U.S.

3] Are you nuts?  Iraq was going to attack and invade the U.S.?

By the way, liberal means:

- Health insurance for everyone

- Free education [a great gift for many of the Republican ilk]

- A robust safety net for the poor

- A community free of racism

Now, of course you guys don't believe in any of these, and so be it.  


-- Modified on 9/29/2004 8:20:54 PM

You know you really should try looking into this more thouroughly. Iraq absolutely has sponsered terrorists and U.S. attacks before. Check the link below. The guys name was Abu Nidal and he was state sponsored by Iraq.He was captured in Iraq.
As I said in my original post conventional armies have no chance against us. Terrorism is the option of choice now for those who oppose us. But we have put countries that sponsor terrorists on notice now. You don't hear much from Libya any more do you? Syria told the Khadaffi girls to be quiet when someone pointed out all the marines in Iraq could stop by and the 6'th fleet was in the Med.

As far as your definition of liberal you could more acurately call most of those ideals socialist.
If you like goverment housing your going to love goverment health care. It will never happen here as most republicans admit we don't want the goverment involved in healthcare. The dems fake support but have more to lose if it ever came to pass. Their 2 largest donor groups will never allow it. Trial lawyers will never give up the cash cow of sueing doctors and pharmacutical companies which would have to happen in a national healthcare system. AARP will never allow it, as health care to the elderly would be rationed. Sorry pops but your too old for that hip replacement or you have to go on a waiting list for that valve replacement as only 1 hospital in your state is authorized to perform that surgery. Yeah that will happen here...
Free education is a wonderfull thing. Now lets let the market work and give parents vouchers so we can put our kids in the schools of our choice.
Let the poor try working like the rest of us instead of sucking off the public teat for generations.
As far as racism in the republican party why would we appoint colin powell or conde rice if the party had a platform supporting racism.
My experience is that true liberals always have a perception that their smarter than everyone else, and therefore they should be running everyone's lives for them.
Most republicans I've met just want a smaller goverment and less goverment oversight.

soon you will hear about Canada's great health care system that is free to all.  What you won't hear about is those Canadians that can afford it coming to the USA for their specific needs such as complicated surgery.  Sure, they stay home for the sprained ankles and such, but when it is a critical situation, hello Mayo Clinic and Johns Hopkins.  Although those rats "learned in the law" are a major problem in health care, there are other issues such as the advancement of medical technology and drugs.  Yes, advancement is a issue, because it is costly.  How much research do you think is amortized into every bottle of Viagra or Albuterol?  One point about the elderly and the costly drugs to keep them alive;  Is spending 2k or 3k per year on drugs to stay alive too much?  Yes, but consider what the long term ramifications would be if drug companies found it was no longer in their best interest in advancement for medical issues of the elderly?  Should these companies do this for free?  Should they do this at the expense of their shareholders?

I would like the lefties to contemplate leaving all new discovery in the hands of the government with zero private participation.  Can you see the government lab workers waiting for the clock to go around so they can leave for the day trying to find the cure for cancer or AIDS?  They would be operating with the efficiency of the Department of Motor Vehicles.  You know, six weeks to get your license plates, take a number while we work as slow as we can, btw, your form isn't filled in correctly.  Go to the back of the line and fill in the last box that asks if you if your are a legal resident or not.

Not even the phucking french have socialized their system that bad...yet.

-- Modified on 9/30/2004 12:22:17 AM