Senate OKs $50 billion more for war

Which brings the total up to $350 billion.

Although aides might tell Bush to veto the bill because McCain added a statement in the bill that makes reference to humane treatment of detainees.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9619538/

.

 

According to this article, the cost of the Vietnam war in today's dollars was about $600 billion. I've seen similar figures from other sources.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/27/AR2005082700035_pf.html

"Speaking of money, the administration has never come clean about the massive debt it's piling up for us and our descendants. The nonpartisan Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments estimates that the Vietnam War cost the United States $600 billion in today's dollars. Iraq, according to the center, is costing between $5 billion and $8 billion a month -- $218 billion to date. That would mean $700 billion if the guns fall silent six years from now, a modest timetable according to numerous military analysts. Other estimates predict an eventual bottom line of over $1 trillion."

.

 

Ahhh yes I did hear about the humane treatment part and how most everyone is for it, however I didn't realize it was attached to more money for the war. So, what do you propose we do about it?

 

Well, it's up to Bush's advisors to make the decision for him. If they feel it's that important, let them veto it.

.

 

As far as money and troops go, Bush has always given us nice clear answers, such as:

"We'll leave as soon as possible but not a moment sooner."

"We'll spend as much as we need but not a dollar more."

When asked when he will become more concise on Iraq, Bush says, "As soon as possible but not a moment sooner."

.

 

They could just do that anyways. Stop the action and let things cool off until troops leave, then start it all up again.

 

That's the stock excuse Bush uses.

The insurgency already knows that the Bush adminstration hasn't carried this out intelligently. The administration's effort has been disjointed, ill-planned, and disorganized. The date of a pull-out doesn't really mean anything to the insurgency. Do you think they will act differently if the U.S. pulled out in 2006 compared with 2010? As if their hopes will be dashed and they will go home if the U.S. says it's leaving in 2010 compared with 2006.

And people keep talking as if the insurgency is the only problem the U.S. will ever have to deal with, as if there won't be any other problems with various groups in Iraq fighting with each other in the future. And no problems with parts of the trained army eventually branching off into factions and fighting with one another.

One has to take a serious look at how long the U.S. is prepared to stay in Iraq and at what point it's time to leave. If things keep going the way they are, eventually the Congress will stop appropriating money for it.

.

 

They haven't lay waiting yet, so maybe it would be nice for a change. BTW the insurgency is really trying to get the US out, that's their ralling point, so if the US leave, concievably the insurgency will loose most of it's strength...

 

Not true...

 

they have a jihad on all non believers...basically they have called a war on us...they will not stop if we just pack up and leave...islam, such a peaceful religion, huh?

 

Don't drag Islam down to the level of these scum..




WASHINGTON - In a letter to his top deputy in Iraq, al-Qaida’s No. 2 leader says the U.S. “ran and left” in Vietnam and the jihadists must have a plan ready to fill the void if the Americans suddenly leave Iraq.

“Things may develop faster than we imagine,” Ayman al-Zawahri wrote in a letter that U.S. intelligence believes to be addressed to his top deputy in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. “The aftermath of the collapse of American power in Vietnam — and how they ran and left their agents — is noteworthy. ... We must be ready starting now.”

In a wide-ranging letter spanning over 12 typed pages in the English translation, al-Zawahri also recommends a four-stage expansion of the war that would take the fighting to neighboring Muslim countries.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4335040.stm

Eugene you might be right

 

Others are claiming that letter was a hoax. Personally, it sounds like it's been tailored made for Bush.

It's hard to know what to believe anymore these days. That whole terror scare in NY last week turned out to be a hoax. Funny how it all materialized during the same week Tom DeLay was going through his troubles.

.

 

the religion in general seems pretty violent, but many aspects of almost all religions seem violent to me...so i will drag down islam for what it is, violent.

 

If we packed up and leave they will not stop. They will just bring the violence to us, to our homeland. Personally, I would rather fight them on thier territory than to fight them on ours.

 

We didn't have to fight them in Iraq until the U.S. invaded Iraq. I would have rather fought them someplace else.

.

 

Like where ???? Dark side of the moon ?.

What about the dozens of scares you never get too hear about..?

 

Maybe we should have fought them in your country then. Would you still support us if we decided to take it to England instead of Iraq?

 

It depends on who you mean ..... Al-Ziquari and his cohoots along with OBL knew they had no chance of taking the fight to America or England or Australia [for e.g].. So if they brought there fight over here ..then yeah i would still support you...if the other none foreign fighters came over here..i would wonder what would be the point and it would be somewhat hypocritical.

 

bin Laden and his ilk wanted to get the U.S. involved in a protracted conflict in the Middle East and smear its reputation around the world. The Bush administration fell right into the trap.

I don't know of many people who think it was a good choice to create a mess in Iraq so that al Qaeda and other terror groups could move it so that the U.S. could have a good place to fight them.

They were operating out of Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Saudi Arabia.

.