8 Years of Iraq War Cost Less Than Stimulus Act....

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Lue C Fur, Aug 31, 2010.

  1. Lue C Fur

    Lue C Fur Evil member

    As President Obama prepares to tie a bow on U.S. combat operations in Iraq, Congressional Budget Office numbers show that the total cost of the eight-year war was less than the stimulus bill passed by the Democratic-led Congress in 2009.
    According to CBO numbers in its Budget and Economic Outlook published this month, the cost of Operation Iraqi Freedom was $709 billion for military and related activities, including training of Iraqi forces and diplomatic operations.
    The projected cost of the stimulus, which passed in February 2009, and is expected to have a shelf life of two years, was $862 billion.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/30/cbo-years-iraq-war-cost-stimulus-act/
     
  2. Monkey Butt

    Monkey Butt You can call me Chappy Staff Member

    I feel sorry for you Lue.
    Over 9 hours and no one replied. This never happens to wkmac.
    Now you can feel better.
     
  3. klein

    klein Für Meno :)

    Well great news, eh ?
    First of all Iraq isn't over.

    And secondly, tell me how you benefited from Iraq ! Lost over 4400 lives, found no weapons of mass destructrion.
    Al Queda wasn't there, either.
    And the Iraqis are unhappier there now, then they were under Saddam.
    He had rules. People went to jail when doing something wrong, like stealing or burglaries.
    Now it's more like a free for all.

    Wise money spent, Bush !
     
  4. Lue C Fur

    Lue C Fur Evil member

    Thanks Hoax...i appreciate it. I gave ya a rep point...kinda like a cookie.:wink2:
     
  5. Lue C Fur

    Lue C Fur Evil member


    You really should get a sponsor: http://www.canadadrugrehab.ca/Alber...ymous-Alcoholic-Anonymous-Meeting.html#alanon
     
  6. klein

    klein Für Meno :)

    You should really know how to defend yourself.

    Go to some sort of communication class !
     
  7. Lue C Fur

    Lue C Fur Evil member

    Whats to defend? Are you drunk again? :st_patrick:
     
  8. Jones

    Jones fILE A GRIEVE! Staff Member

    Klein is right in that it's way to soon to to say how much the Iraq venture will end up costing us as our commitment there is nowhere close to being over. In all fairness you could say the same thing about the stimulus. I don't really see the point of that article.
     
  9. av8torntn

    av8torntn Well-Known Member


    There I replied for you as it seemed you had your feelings hurt since you didn't get a reply.
     
  10. diesel96

    diesel96 New Member

    "So let’s recap. If it were true that the war and its costs had truly ended today, then Tapscott would be right. But he says that the stimulus will cost more than the "entire" war, and we are persuaded by the experts that with nearly 50,000 troops still in Iraq, it is premature to say the war is over. And when you make reasonable adjustments for inflation, the expected costs of the troops still there and the long-term cost of medical care and re-stocking the military for all the bullets and bombs, it appears likely the war costs will exceed the stimulus. So we find his claim Barely True."

    Source:

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ark-tapscott/did-stimulus-cost-more-war-iraq/

    AV8....Repeating it doesn't make it true...."weapons of mass destructrion. False"
    "Al Queda wasn't there, either.False"

    Having the capacity of having WMD's is not the same as having WMD's. That's called false pretenses.
    And Al Queda operatives of 9/11 also had nothing to do with Iraq.....the terroritory was blamed a breeding ground...

    Straight from the horse's mouth....
     
  11. browndevil

    browndevil Active Member

    Apples and Oranges! You are talking about human lives. Try applying that logic to the parents, spouses and children to our soldiers who gave their lives for Iraqi freedom not to mention the 100,000 innocent Iraqis who died during the past 8 years. So far I haven't heard of anyone being killed paving a new street with stimulas money
     
  12. Lue C Fur

    Lue C Fur Evil member

    CBO report...not mine. It is interesting that a war cost less cash (so far) then the stimulas package...i would have thought the war cost much more so i was suprised to see the numbers from the CBO. I agree., and even one life lost is to much.

    Im sure if you search hard enough, you could find a life lost while beinp paid with stimulas money...as far as actual jobs being "saved or created"...
     
  13. av8torntn

    av8torntn Well-Known Member

    Try using something a little more current.
    But having WMD's is the same as having WMD's.

    I suppose if you keep repeating the same lie over and over you may one day even believe it yourself.


    Are you seriously saying now that it is the belief of you guys on the left that Al Queada had nothing to do with 9-11? I guess we all know there were and probably still are Al Queada members in Iraq so I am not really following what you are getting at with that. I think it is a fairly mainstream belief that Al Queada was responsible for 9-11 and even their members claim such responsibility.

    For the entire costs thing I find it very entertaining that you among others on the extreme left wing cited the costs of the Iraq war as a primary reason why we should not have undertaken it and yet you and others are making every excuse you can think of about this report on the comparison between the Iraq war and the goofy stimulus bill you supported.
     
  14. av8torntn

    av8torntn Well-Known Member

    Why no reply Diesel?

    Fox news reported two seperate attacks by the Iraqis with chemical weapons on our forces.
     
  15. klein

    klein Für Meno :)

    Didn't you read the article yourself ?

    Quote from it :
    However, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said the results were from a field test, which can be imperfect, and said more analysis was needed. If confirmed, it would be the first finding of a banned weapon upon which the United States based its case for war.

    Here is a BBC article wriiten months later, then your Fox news one:

    Thursday, 7 October, 2004, 03:22 GMT 04:22 UK [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    Report concludes no WMD in Iraq

    Iraq had no stockpiles of biological, chemical or nuclear weapons before last year's US-led invasion, the chief US weapons inspector has concluded.
     
  16. av8torntn

    av8torntn Well-Known Member

    Actually yes I did. Do you think that we carried labs around with us or we used field tests? I'll answer it for you because it was a stupid question that I asked. We have people trained to test this material in the field. From the article and i was just playing with the fox news part as hundreds of news sources reported this.

    "The Iraqi Survey Group confirmed today that a 155-millimeter artillery round containing sarin nerve agent had been found," Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt (search), the chief military spokesman in Iraq, told reporters in Baghdad."

    Uh-oh we've got a test.


    Then there is this which I guess you also missed.

    "Washington officials say the significance of the find is that some chemical shells do still exist in Iraq"

    There is so much more that has been found and also made the news. It is comical how you guys keep with the same lies just hoping that somebody will believe you.

    For a dollar why was this said in 2006? That would be years after your article.

    "But this says: Weapons have been discovered; more weapons exist. And they state that Iraq was not a WMD-free zone, that there are continuing threats from the materials that are or may still be in Iraq," he said

    Even the Polish find WMD's in Iraq.

    "Polish troops have found two warheads in Iraq believed to contain a deadly nerve agent"

    "There is no doubt that the warheads contain chemical weapons," Defense Minister Jerzy Szmajdzinski told TVN24"

    Yikes it's getting more and more difficult for you to keep up the lie.
     
  17. av8torntn

    av8torntn Well-Known Member

    Rumsfield said what????

    "He pointed out that his troops in Iraq had recently come across - I've forgotten the number, but something like 16 or 17 - warheads that contained sarin and mustard gas," Rumsfeld told Newradio 600 KOGO of San Diego, California in an interview on Wednesday.


    "Now these are weapons that we always knew Saddam Hussein had that he had not declared, and they have tested them," he said.
     
  18. av8torntn

    av8torntn Well-Known Member

    Klien I'll throw you a bone here. This is what you guys normally bring up.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24403-2004Jul2.html


    The argument from your side is normally yes we know there were chemical weapons found but we feel they were so degraded that they should not count.

    I will then just disagree with you and go about my way.


    See like this.

    "Yesterday's coalition release also said that two other 122-milimeter rounds, found by the Poles on June 16 with help from an Iraqi informer, tested positive for small quantities of sarin but were "so deteriorated" that they would have had "limited to no impact if used by insurgents against coalition forces."
     
  19. klein

    klein Für Meno :)

    You can argue with George Bush and Tony Blair about that.
    Both of them have publicly admitted Iraq had NO wmd's. It's even wriiten in Tony Blair's new released book.

    So, go argue with your political Idol, Bush. I have no patience for this.
     
  20. tieguy

    tieguy Banned

    tell that to the 30 million out of work. Unemployment rate back up to 9.6 percent. Bush probably did that too. :happy2: