How Do We Know That the War is Going Well?

[carpro]

How many noncombattents have been killed or forced to flee the country?

I suppose that is a rhetorical question?

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

How many noncombattents have been killed or forced to flee the country?

One thing for sure is that Iraqi's do not have a problem with our going in and overthrowing Saddam. meanwhile back at home a genocide is occuring daily through the dismembering of unborn children.

 

[Ed Edwards]

The war is going better, not necessarily "well." As Baptist in Richmond aptly noted:
...
5) The war has served as the single most successful
recruiting tool for terrorists in modern history.

It is good that the terrorists thus created are largely fighting
in Iraq.

BTW, the news (casualties are decreasing) shows that
there are less and less terrorists still alive in Iraq.

We should occupy Iraq for 60 years (4 are gone already)
like we have occupied bases in Germany & Japan
for 60 years /and some are still there/.

IMHO it is a lot better to spend lots of money on conventional
weapons than on nuclear weapons.

War insures a fuller economy.

The Democrats are conflicted. They favor more money
for the working voters. But those working people are building
stuff to drop in Iraq (or where ever needed) and other war
supplies. The Democrats tend to bring unemployment along
while saying they are for the working people.

 

[Ed Edwards]

WRONG pew

 

[Ivon Denosovich]

It is good that the terrorists thus created are largely fighting
in Iraq.

BTW, the news (casualties are decreasing) shows that
there are less and less terrorists still alive in Iraq.

How do you come to that conclusion? It's more plausible that for everyone killed someone else becomes infuriated and joins the cause.

We should occupy Iraq for 60 years (4 are gone already)
like we have occupied bases in Germany & Japan
for 60 years /and some are still there/.

Why? And how would we pay for it?

War insures a fuller economy.

No, it doesn't. When the govt. confiscastes wealth it hurts the economy regardless of where or how it spends it. As a conservative I shouldn't have to remind you of Rush's finest moment, "No nation has ever taxed itself into prosperity."

 

[Ed Edwards]

Ed Edwards: //We should occupy Iraq for 60 years (4 are gone already)
like we have occupied bases in Germany & Japan
for 60 years /and some are still there/. //

Ivon Denosovich: //Why? And how would we pay for it?//

Why? Bomber Planes in Iraq + the USA makes
the whole world within 8 hours of our WMD.

Let Iraq become the richest country in the
world 30 years after they 'surrender'.
(That is what happened to Germany & Japan,
well Japan only was the 2ed richest country
in the world). The 'enemy' will end up paying
for thier occupation.

Ed Edwards: //War insures a fuller economy.//

Ivon Denosovich: //No, it doesn't. When the govt.
confiscastes wealth it hurts the economy
regardless of where or how it spends it.
As a conservative I shouldn't have to remind
you of Rush's finest moment, "No nation
has ever taxed itself into prosperity."//

Rush was wrong.
Go find out about the Marshall Plan.
Wikipedia is good:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan

//The $13 billion compares to the U.S. gross domestic
product of $41 billion in 1949.//

In 4 years the US spent those
$13 Billion dollars to restore Europe.
This was an expendature of some 10% of the US
Gross Domestic Product to rebuild Europe.
Where did the USofA get the money?
They created money & jobs in the USofA.
Surely nobody still thinks that NASA spends it's
money in space? Every cent is spent on earth.
Was that $13 Billion spent in Europe? No, it was
spent making stuff in the USofA that was
needed to rebuild Western Europe. Why did
Western Europe need to be rebuilt?

1. US-made bombs (WMDs) destroyed
the axis places until they no longer could fight.

2. Somebody needed to defend the USofA
against Russia -- a strategy that worked
(Praise Regan!).

Surrender on the eve of VICTORY in Iraq
is DUMB

Even yet in Iraq, we can snatch DEFEAT from
the Very Jaws of Victory.

 

[JustChristian]

I suppose that is a rhetorical question?

Yes, I suppose it is because our military takes the perspective of they don't do body counts. In other words, they don't care. I thought Christians believed in the sanctity of human life. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be true if the person murdered is an adult who doesn't look like us or worship like us.

 

[Ivon Denosovich]

Let Iraq become the richest country in the
world 30 years after they 'surrender'.

They already have surrendered. Three years ago. Not only is their economy sluggish, but we're running massive deficits.

(That is what happened to Germany & Japan,
well Japan only was the 2ed richest country
in the world). The 'enemy' will end up paying
for thier occupation.

The last I checked, Republicans believe the people of Iraq are victims not enemies. This would bring in some ethical questions about making them pay. If you wanted to confiscate Saddam's assets (A/K/A the "enemy") so be it, but it won't cover all the costs.

Where did the USofA get the money?
They created money & jobs in the USofA.

See, this is where we differ. You were on the right track when you asked, "Where did the UsofA get the money?" But you should have answered the question by saying, "The USofA got the money from the USofA." Redistributed money isn't more money. It's just redistributed money. Somehow, you forgot to answer your own question and instead decided to speculate as to how the money was spent which is completely irrelevant as to its origins.

Surely nobody still thinks that NASA spends it's
money in space? Every cent is spent on earth.

If NASA takes $10 from every American then every American is $10 poorer unless:

1) NASA creates 300 million part time jobs to prosper each person precisely $10.

OR

2) NASA creates a few highly lucrative jobs to generate $3 billion and then divides those profits 300 million ways.

Both scenarios are absurd and pointless precisely because redistributed cash isn't more cash.

1. US-made bombs (WMDs) destroyed
the axis places until they no longer could fight.

2. Somebody needed to defend the USofA
against Russia -- a strategy that worked
(Praise Regan!).

So, by your understanding of economics, we make money when we rebuild stuff after destroying it?!? Which poses two problems:

1) Why not simply build additions to what is in prior existence? (If you wanted to build an extra room on your house it wouldn't be fiscally sound to demolish the whole thing first would it?)

2) Continual destruction and rebuilding cancel each other out.

Any day you want to pay me to whack your car and sell you a new one let me know. I'll gladly prosper you.

 

[Ed Edwards]

//any day you want to pay me to whack your car and sell you a new one let me know. I'll gladly prosper you.//

Good example.

1. If I pay from my savings in the bank,
it is recycling money.

2. But if I pay with my credit card,
it creates new money.

The following events all add to the Gross
National Product.

1. You die and a funeral home is paid some
$12,000 for a semi-fancy funeral

2. Your friend in Kentucky buys gas
to come over to my house and bang
my car with a 16# sledge hammer

3. I go to jail for 4 years for taking shots
at your friend (for the obvious reason) --
cost is the state of Oklahoma borrows
$34K x 4 = $ 136,000 to house me;
I borrow $80,000 of legal fees for
my defense

4. I get terminal cancer, stay in the
hospital for 8 months -- all charges run
up to $1,460,000. When I die my wife
spends the money also in #1 -
all credit stuff - all NEW MONEY.
(except for the hammer - it was bought
with recycled cash).

 

[carpro]

Yes, I suppose it is because our military takes the perspective of they don't do body counts. In other words, they don't care.

Wrong as usual. "Body counts" have been out of style for 35 years. The reasons are obvious to most reasonably educated people.

It has to be a rhetorical question because no one knows the answer.

That includes you.

 

[Ivon Denosovich]

Ed Edwards, your economic theory doesn't hold water for one simple reason: there isn't a marketable demand for intentional destruction. War helps only those employed by the govt. It drains everyone else. Hence: the deficits. There's a simple way to determine how economically beneficial the war is-- stop forcing people to pay for it. People will readily determine whether it's in their financial interests to invest.

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

The real question isn't should Americans pay for a war. When war is needed there is no question on this.

The real question is was this war necessary. Some will disagree with this but to those who do not the money is not in question. The cuts in spending should be made elsewhere. Of course thos with a politcal agenda want to use this a a tool to further their cause.

 

[Dagwood]

The real question isn't should Americans pay for a war. When war is needed there is no question on this.

The real question is was this war necessary. Some will disagree with this but to those who do not the money is not in question. The cuts in spending should be made elsewhere. Of course thos [should be those] with a politcal [should be political] agenda want to use this a a tool to further their cause.

This was one totally unnecessary war. The occupation of Iraq violates the things America was built upon. Those who do agree with this illegal war don't mind passing the costs on to future generations to pay for. Of course, they won't be here to suffer the costs, just their grandchildren.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Actually, there are many families who have sacrificed quite a bit, allready. There more worried about having a way of life protected, and it's obviously worth it, for them.

Perhaps you haven't sacrificed anything, but you can't hold the whole country to your standard.


And if the war is really illegal, then how's come you don't hold Kerry, Clinton, & Gore responsible ?

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

This was one totally unnecessary war. The occupation of Iraq violates the things America was built upon. Those who do agree with this illegal war don't mind passing the costs on to future generations to pay for. Of course, they won't be here to suffer the costs, just their grandchildren.

The costs will be passed on because of all the unnecessary spending in so many other areas.

 

[Ed Edwards]

This was one totally unnecessary war. The occupation of Iraq violates the things America was built upon. Those who do agree with this illegal war don't mind passing the costs on to future generations to pay for. Of course, they won't be here to suffer the costs, just their grandchildren.

Let the grandchildren pay for it.
The grandchildren won't have a country in their
times unless we spend the money now.

Care to get in on the investment?

-

BUY
WAR
BONDS!!!


​