Our president has just told us that we need an additional $87 Billion dollars for Iraq. I don't think I can comprehend how much that is. I tried dividing $87 Billion by the number of U.S. citizens - roughly 300 Million. I got $290 for every man woman and child in the country. But I'm not sure my answer is right, as I am not used to doing math with so many zeros.

My questions for you are would you have supported this war if you knew ahead of time that it would cost so much? Do you think we could have better spent that money at home? How much salmon recovery could we buy with $87 Billion dollars?

Do U really need to go there?

I think you know the answer or are just looking for a 6 page thread on people arguing and bashing... :rolleyes:

Surely this can't be a serious question.
Surecatch, you don't honestly think that the money our president is asking for is going to be handed over to the Iraqis do you? Right here in our state there are companies that will benefit from this wartime budget as they work solely on defense conctacts.

I'm not professing to know even a little about where all of this money is going to be spent but I think it's pretty ignorant to blindly believe that none of the $87 Billion will be spent here in the US.

How much is 87 Billion? Probably about as much as we spent every year in our arms race wtih Russia. Of course now we can actually see what we are spending money on, not just "$500 toilet seats for the pentagon."

BTW, this relates to fishing how?

I think maybe I'll just make up a big batch of popcon and watch this from a distance.

Cast and Blast: The NFR in the title stands for Not Fishing Related.

Or looked at another way... $87 billion is only 4% of the federal budget..... the $2.2 trillion dollar budget amounts to $7,300 spent per man, woman and child and only $290 is going to clean up Iraq.

May end up being the best $290 our government has ever spent.

1. Rebuilding iraq: 87 billion

2. Cutting the french off from the oil supply: Priceless



seriously though I'm sure we'll get a sweet deal on oil once everything is in operation again.

would be good to see it back at a buck and change a gallon again....

surecatch-

Thanks for keeping this stuff in the public eye and for asking critical questions that most people seem to take for granted....

First, to the NFR bashers....why did you click? Why don't you do everyone that appreciates varying conversational topics a favor and go put your head back in the sand?

Here is my take for what its worth...

No, it's not worth the money or even more importantly, the cost in human lives both American and Iraqi. Did anyone see the images from the Mosque that was blown up during prayer services the other day?

For a party that is supposed to value 'fiscal responsibility' so highly, they sure keep asking congress for lots of money....seems we are already operating at a deficit as it is, now they want to spend more money we don't have?

The most galling part of the whole conversation, excuse my digression here, is that the party responsible for perpetrating this war on Iraq is supposedly based on Christian values...

...like turning the other cheek...

I think Dubya forgot to ask himself WWJD?

Either that or the truth is, he doesn't give a flying rat f*** what jesus would have done and he is using the power of christianity for pure politics and voter mobilization.

Nothing in my opinion is worse than some schmuck claiming to have religious values on the one hand and thumbing his nose at the same values with the other...

Wonder how much napalm we could buy for 87 billion

Surecatch

And you got the gonads to flame me!

That's exactly why you have such a low creditability on this board. At lease I am sincere in what I post. All you want to do is Pi$$ off people so that you can set back and rock your onwn boat!

Give us your name in home town if you really got the guts! and then start your usual BS!

First and last post on this issue for you baby! You're peeing in your own bed now! Maybe your mommy didn't tell you about dipper burn….you think?

It looks like all but a few know exactly where you are going (it's really hot down there) ....we here call it "nowhere"!

Cowlitzfisherman

cowfish,

Lay off. You're stepping over the line with the name and hometown bullsh!t.

If your opinion differs, then lay it down.

First off; CFM, what the heck was that all about? You're gonna pop a vein, man.

Next; From the AP news:
Yeah, a lot of it will indirectly go to companies in the US, mostly Halliburton. The only Washington company, that I know of, is one doing the stevedoring in that port over there.

As a side note to our local economy, the 3rd brigade (Stryker) from Ft. Lewis is headed over to Iraq in October. That's roughly 4,000 money-spenders leaving the area. Additionally, some of those troops will send their families to live with loved ones in other states.

As far as seeing gas come down in price, don't hold your breath. Iraqi crude will be traded on the world market and controlled by OPEC just as it was before the war. If you want gas prices to come down you need to do something to limit the American refineries gouging the US public.

Pmartin- the last Iraqi thread was 8 pages. I'm hoping we can get 9 out of this one.

All I know is that ever since the war my Ira and 401 has gone up almost 15%...


Mr. Bush shall I write my check out to you or Mr Powell...

Just hold on to it. The IRS will ask for it back, as well as your $400/child tax refund, when it's time to pay off the $87 billion.

The Feds giveth and they taketh away.........

Dan S

My boy was born in June...
I will be paying double since I didn't get the refund last year...

Piper; You must have loved Bill Clinton. Under his administration the stock market made it's all time best runup. In fact, all the recent decrease came under Bush. Truth is, presiodents have little to do with economic cycles. But they always take credit for the good and balme the bad on someone else.

I just saw on the news that more than 1/2 of the Washingtion congressional delegation are unsure if they will support the president's $87 Billion request. Interestingly two fo the undecideds are republicans.

One congressmen helped put it in perspective by saying the $87 Billion would pay for all veterans programs for a year and would cover all transportation programs for a year and a quarter. I think this debate is just starting.

Actually I thought he was a putz...

Dont forget He started the biggest decline of the stock market as well...

:p

WARNING

Before posting here go back and look at the last political thread and see the same names with the same opinions....Read the old before starting this all over again.

That's interesting, Surecatch. From what I've read today it sounded like Congress was going to approve it, but they were going to ask a lot more questions this time about where the money was going. I agree the debate has only started, and I don't think the money will be approved nearly as quickly as it was in April.

Hopefully the UN will get tired of saying, "I told you so" and start to pitch in.

On the bright side, no US soldier has been killed by hostile fire in the last 7 days. That could be mostly due to Rumfeld's order of no troop leaving the compound without a general officer's approval.

But it's so much fun watching them get all wriled up!

I think its funny that some people think that us being there is costing American and Iraqi lives, so we should leave.

I probably shouldnt go to far, as I'm really just dragging myself into this, but....

1) 3,000 people died in 9/11.
2) 9/11 was performed by Taliban/Al Quada.
3) Taliban/Al Quada are sponsered by who??

Gee, looks like Bush really screwed up there, going after the source and all... For anyone thinking that the Taliban/Al Quada were the specific terrorists that we should be targeting, here's a question... Who would Saddam sponser next? There is always someone else.

Just my $.02...

Curtis

P.S. h2o, there are plenty of nations going to war in the Bible.... Whats your point? Are you saying that going to war is unChristian?

terrorists are like seals.....to damn many of them

So we've spent 79 Billion to date and Dubwa is asking for another 80+ Billion 'cause it's what we need to rebuild...Let's see, 79 Billion in 6 months and another 80+ billion total? Didn't they say it was going to take 5 years to rebuild?

Does the Dubwa regime think we're so fricken stupid not to figure out that 80+billion is still not enough???

We have 73% of our military over in Iraq right now and the idiot still wants to take on Korea.

That same idiot who pissed off the rest of the world by saying "F-YOu! We'll go it alone" and now has the cahones to go back and say:

"oh, will you please join in the reconstruction 'cause it sure does cost alot to rebuild something that we destroyed..." What a fricken retard!!!

So to date:
1.Worst economy in at least 40 years
2.No WMD -never was and now they admit it. They lied about the WMD to gain approval.
3.Casualties now higher than after the war was declared over.

Last night they showed the innocent people in Iraq who were killed by Saddam in the early 90's for rising up against him...oh yea, the U.S. told those poor folks to do just that, but then we walked away from them and now they're dead...who's fault is that?

So are you still going to vote for him next election???

I'd pay whatever it takes to eliminate these folks who spread terrorism around the globe. We are the only real superpower left with the ability to project a presence anywhere in the world. We need to step up and be the world's policeman, because the UN doesn't have the stomach for it.

When an organization says that their main goal is the destruction of the US way of life, I say great. Thanks for making yourself a target.

I would personally be quite okay with the elimination (I mean killing) of anyone who is directly involved in any terrorist organization, anyone who supports a terrorist organization with monetary contributions, or anyone who supports their actions verbally.

It is us or them. It isn't pretty, but then again, war never is. Can you imagine people whining like this in World War 2, on December 4th 1943? (Three days before the second anniversary of a horrific sneak attack.)

Sorry for candy coating my feelings on this issue, but hopefully you can read between the lines and figure out how I really feel.

Andy

Republican Rep. Zach Wamp (news, bio, voting record) of Tennessee said, "It's a huge number, and Congress needs to step up to its constitutional responsibility to vet the request and put as many questions to the president as we can."

The first question should be...

"Are you sure that is enough?"

Twig...

How many have we lost to date? Is that more then the amount Saddam Houssein and his sons had a DIRECT part in killing?

Youre right, we should just sit back and watch people get killed... Hey, it's them, not us...

Ugh, you anti-bush guys are the same people who will be crying for help when the bombs are going off inside the US. The same people who said that 9/11 is all a conspiracy, that Bush saw it coming, right after you praised him for his noble actions concerning the aftermath of the attacks.

Curtis

BBVD: I am curious where you get your facts from? Can you post proof that Saddam and/or Iraq sponsored terrorism? The reason I ask is that you would be the very first person in the entire world to actually show some proof of that statement and it would be quite the scoop.

I just have one question: Where's the beef George? A 15 seceond sound bite wrapping yourself in motherhood doesn't justify asking for 200 billion. George needs to come clean and speak to the American people as though were not a bunch of mindless drones who will believe anything just because our commander and chief says so. Give your specifics with regards to links to Alqeda with Iraq..... I've given up on the the WMD....

During the Presidents speach, they showed the mass graves of people who rose up against Saddam and were killed back in the 90's. The problem is that the U.S. encouraged those people to stand up against Saddam and then we walked away...disgusting.

If the issue is that we're going to police the world, then we need to help out folks like Liberia and many of the countries in Africa. They are no worse than Saddam, but they don't have oil so you can do the math...

Third, there is still no connection to Al-Quieda so if we're trying to get rid of terrorists, we're still in the wrong place. So as for 9/11, I think the name of the guy who directed this was somebody name Osama Bin Laden. Yeah, that was it ;)_!

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I know a kid over there, he say the Iraqis love us..

the country is crawling with foreign terrorist and we are "weeding" them out.

God bless that kid and all that are by his side , at war as well as at home.

Damn, this is ugly.

These threads can actually be interesting if people post something new, or at least a well constructed argument. On the other hand, the juvenile sarcasm and statements of opinion as fact just make it annoying. C'mon, you guys, try using the internet as a tool for growth rather than a rock to hide behind while you throw stones.

My opinion? I'm reserving it for when I get the facts, which many of you seem to already have.

$87M would be a small price to pay for security, but seeing as how we haven't got proof that we've accomplished ONE of our professed goals of this campaign, I'm becoming a little jaded.

Whatever happens in the mean time, I'll certainly express my opinion come election time.

The way I see it, we dont know anything unless Bush wants us to. We could know less then 1% of the information against Iraq.

I'll hold out for that 1%... Either way, we got rid of a terrorist. Who can deny that the man was NOT a terrorist?

Next, who can possibly deny that he sponsered terrorism? His regime alone was self sponsered. And if Bush says he was sponsering Al Quada, I dont need to see proof. That's why we hired him in the first place. Judgement.

Curtis

Once again no facts coming forth.
We didn't hire him. The majority didn't vote for him. And we sure wouldn't have for his "judgement" based upon his resume.
Your argument seems to be if you can't prove he's not a terrorist or sponsored terrorism then he must be a terrorist. I for one will deny that he's a terrorist until I see proof otherwise. Bush needs to start sharing the facts which all of this is supposedly based upon. In fact he would be in a lot less hot water had he done so which tells me there are no facts to substantiate those claims and without that we have an unjust war. Plain and simple. In one single post you have lost all credibility on this subject BBVD.

I know how much that is.......it's 21,804,511,278 green / glow Grand Slam Bucktails! Man that's a lot of Bucktails!!

In one respect, Dubya has done a fine, fine job.....using the media to draw a connection between 'terrorism' and Iraq. I believe it was a CNN poll I saw the other day that said 70% of Americans believe Saddam Hussein was involved with the 9/11 attacks...

??...according to every shred of evidence gathered in that case, there is absolutely zero justification for such belief...

There is no political power in America greater than relying on the American people's complacency...seems to be working quite well for Dubya...

Sounds like each of us needs to make a little trip to the ole sandbox and ask a few of the locals if he was a terrorist or not...

Isn't it all hearsay if you dont hear it for your self??

"The way I see it, we dont know anything unless Bush wants us to. We could know less then 1% of the information against Iraq.

I'll hold out for that 1%... Either way, we got rid of a terrorist. Who can deny that the man was NOT a terrorist?

Next, who can possibly deny that he sponsered terrorism? His regime alone was self sponsered. And if Bush says he was sponsering Al Quada, I dont need to see proof. That's why we hired him in the first place. Judgement."

I'm doing my best not to laugh here.

1) I'm thinking only an idiot would withhold information that would improve his standing with the voters. You can't seriously believe what you're saying....not without having actually given it some critical thought.

I agree Saddam is a terrorist, but as far as we KNOW, his terrorism has been limited primarily to his own people and his neighbors that we turned out backs on.

2) We don't know that we've gotten rid of anyone. For all we know Saddam is kickin' it with Osama. Or, he's running from Osama. Who knows? I haven't seen his corpse or any claims that we've identified his body.

3) You can believe what you believe, but don't tell me it's fact just because you believe it to be true. What's the proof that he's sponsored Al-Quaida?

4) You're one of those guys that believes everything an elected official tells you if you voted for them, and don't believe anything they tell you if you didn't, aren't you?

Grandpa and others - please get out the baseball bat and hit me repeatedly about the head and shoulders. I must be insane to get into this discussion again, but like a moth to the flame, I rise to the bait.

I am fervently against what our President is doing. He knew full well that the cost (approx. $150 Billion to date) would be immense. Yet, he still pushed through a tax cut thus leaving it to our kids and grandkids to pay the bill. And that does not begin to talk about the absolute lack of a coherent policy towards Iraq.

I have pasted an article here that addresses some of the issues brought up in this thread. It's important to note that the author of this piece supported our actions in Iraq - I believe this lends credibility to his arguement.

Mission Creep
Bush's perversion of the "war on terror."
By William Saletan
Posted Monday, September 8, 2003, at 1:54 PM PT



A $87 billion misrepresentation

For more than a year, President Bush has framed Iraq as part of the "war on terror." And for more than a year, he has produced no evidence for that claim. No evidence of a link between Iraq and 9/11. No evidence of an affinity between Saddam Hussein's secular tyranny and the fundamentalists of al-Qaida. No evidence of a terrorist presence in Iraq greater than in other Arab or Muslim countries. No evidence that Iraq offered weapons of mass destruction to terrorists.

In his address to the nation Sunday night, Bush offered two new arguments for declaring Iraq "the central front" in the war on terror. If you buy those arguments, he's right. But before you buy them, stop and think about how far afield they would take us from the war we embarked on two years ago.


Bush wants us to support his postwar Iraq policy as reflexively as we supported the war on al-Qaida in Afghanistan. That's why he delivered this speech just before the anniversary of 9/11. "Nearly two years ago, following deadly attacks on our country, we began a systematic campaign against terrorism," he recalled in his opening remarks. "America and a broad coalition acted first in Afghanistan … and we acted in Iraq."

How was our action in Iraq part of the campaign against terrorism? The old argument, which Bush repeated Sunday, was that Saddam "sponsored terrorism." But again, Bush offered no evidence that Saddam had done so in a way different from Iran, Syria, or even Saudi Arabia. Instead, Bush argued that regardless of whether terrorists in Iraq were at war with us two years ago, they are today. As Bush put it,

Five months after we liberated Iraq, a collection of killers is desperately trying to undermine Iraq's progress and throw the country into chaos. … Some of the attackers are foreign terrorists, who have come to Iraq to pursue their war on America and other free nations. … The terrorists have a strategic goal. They want us to leave Iraq before our work is done. They want to shake the will of the civilized world. In the past, the terrorists have cited the examples of Beirut and Somalia, claiming that if you inflict harm on Americans, we will run from a challenge. In this, they are mistaken. ... We will do what is necessary, we will spend what is necessary, to achieve this essential victory in the war on terror.

Second, Bush argued that ousting Arab tyrants is inherently necessary to the war on terror:

The Middle East will either become a place of progress and peace, or it will be an exporter of violence and terror that takes more lives in America and in other free nations. The triumph of democracy and tolerance in Iraq, in Afghanistan and beyond would be a grave setback for international terrorism. The terrorists thrive on the support of tyrants and the resentments of oppressed peoples. When tyrants fall and resentment gives way to hope, men and women in every culture reject the ideologies of terror and turn to the pursuits of peace.

Think for a minute about what these two arguments entail. The first justifies any war in which, as a result of our actions, terrorists attack our troops. Imagine an invasion of Cuba, whose dictator has long rankled Bush and would be easier to topple than Saddam was. No doubt al-Qaida and other terrorist groups would send agents to try to kill the occupying troops. Bush could then defend the occupation as part of the "war on terror."

The second argument is equally fraught with implications. Yes, tyranny breeds terrorism. But if the "war on terror" requires us to overthrow tyrants just because they're tyrants, we'll be at war for the rest of your life.

If you opposed the Iraq war because you saw no connection to 9/11 or because you didn't trust Bush, his creepy redefinition of the "war on terror" vindicates your suspicions. But if, like me, you supported the Iraq war for other reasons, Bush's linguistic revisionism still matters. I supported the Iraq war because Saddam repeatedly violated the disarmament and inspection agreements that constituted his probation after the Persian Gulf War, and because the U.N. Security Council showed no willingness, even at the brink of a U.S. invasion, to embrace a serious timetable for enforcing those agreements. We did what had to be done. But it didn't have to be done to protect the United States from an imminent threat. It had to be done to preserve the credibility of international law enforcement, such as it is.

An invasion undertaken for that reason entails a postwar policy very different from the one Bush has pursued. Having done the part of the job others refused to do—ousting Saddam—we should return the rest of the job to the Security Council. That means surrendering authority as well as responsibility, which Bush has refused to do. Instead, he drags his heels on relinquishing to our allies the influence they demand in exchange for sending troops and other resources. In their absence, the burden falls to us, in the form of more dead soldiers and Bush's request for another $87 billion in deficit spending.

To justify this burden, Bush tells us it's still about 9/11. He tells us terrorists are trying to "inflict harm on Americans" to make us "run from a challenge" in Iraq. He tells us we must be "resolute in our own defense." He tells us we must "spend what is necessary to achieve this essential victory in the war on terror." He conflates enemies. He spins circular logic. He appeals to our pride. He continues to misrepresent the terrorist connections on the basis of which he justified the Iraq invasion, and he expands the definition of the "war on terror" so that Iraq can be crammed into it anyway, along with dozens of other countries. Two years after 9/11, he has so thoroughly twisted the meaning of what happened that day that, in effect, he has forgotten what it was.

That's exactly what the Bush Admin wants...they don't want you to think for yourself. They want you to believe whatever they say. If it makes you feel better to just believe in the almighty Dubya, then good.

One things for sure, Haliburton/Cheney and Bush have a nose for oil...but that's not what this is about... LOL!!!

Saudi Arabia. What's your point?

Curtis, I think it's fabulous that someone your age is interested in politics and takes notice of the geo-political scene. However, it's disconcernting that you sound so neoconservitive before you're even old enough to vote.

Stlhead made a good point. You need to have some kind of reference when making a statement that goes against what's already been reported. I have pages and pages of documentation dispelling the link between Saddam and al Queda.

And who's opinion would be in that documentation...

Piper, the documentation comes from various news sources around the world. So it's no one's single opinion, but most of the information is derived from the CIA, FBI, and State Department. Even the Pentagon has begrudgingly admitted that fact now.

That's what I thought... and we all know how biased the media is...

So Piper, which way is the media biased? To the left or to the right? There are arguements on both sides of that question.

I know what you're saying, but I don't think the newspapers are as biased as they used to be. Of course if a person only reads the opinion page and lives by what the liberal or conservative pundits write then, yes, that person will probably end up with the same opinion.

However, I read a lot from the Associated Press, Knight Ridders, and Rueters from Asia, Russia, England, Germany, as well as the US.

When I read the opinion page I take most of it with a grain of salt and can usually tell when they're just whining to hear themselves.

you are probably right go harley it isn't as bad as it used to be.

But still no matter what is published there is always the bias of the author(s) to be taken into consideration... I question if anything has ever been published that hasn't in some way been biased one way or another just by the fact that it is "people" doing the publishing and "people" are biased by nature...

the liberal media preaches to the left and the left believe its true

the conservative media preaches to the right and the right believes its true...

even the middle of the road guys are biased one way or another depending on there views...

This issue will be argued and argued and argued and I doubt anyone will change their views... that is the nature of arguing politics... kinda fun isn't it??

Anyway I'm just funnin with you guys...