Wars Cost $15 Billion a Month, GOP Senator Says

Washington Post ^ | Thursday, December 27, 2007 | Walter Pincus

[fortheDeclaration]

It should also be noted Saddam no longer fires at our pilots, like he did for 8 years under Mr. Clinton, a lousy commander who did little to nothing, like Blackhawk Down in Somalia, to protect Troops being attacked. Clinton, 8 years of Presidential Quackery. Satisfaction of getting even with Saddam, priceless.

I agree that Saddam need to go.

We can thank Bush Sr. and Clinton for allowing him to remain far longer then he should have.

And we can thank Bush Sr. for letting Saddam keep the helicopters he used to gas the Kurds with.

The same man that he denounced as being Hitler incarnate, Bush Sr. then believed when Saddam said he was going to use those helicopters for only medical purposes.

But I think we are talking about the consequences of a bad foreign policy, consequences that another later generation had to deal with.

Now, having accomplished the mission of removing Saddam, we need to let the Iraqis deal with their own internal problems and rebuild their nation without us.

[fortheDeclaration]

Finally, if you think that we are facing an enemy that is anywhere close to the short-term threat posed by the Axis of WWII, then I think you're wrong. If WWII had been prosecuted the way this war has, then the "Windsors" could have gone back to "Saxe-Coburg and Gotha."

Amen.

Because the purpose of this 'war' isn't defeating the terrorists, it is reshaping the world into the image that the neocons want it to be.

Even WW2 had these same consequences, with Eastern Europe being sold out by FDR at Yalta, thinking that he and the Soviets had the right to reshape the worlds map.

Wilson attempted the same thing after WW1.

Each attempt resulted in 'blowback' unintended consequences.

[okie01]

And how long is this going to go on?

As long as it takes.

Iraq still isn’t stable, neither is Afghanistan - and no end to this crap in sight.

You are unaware of the considerable security improvements in Iraq since, oh, June? Have you not been paying attention?

At $180 billion every year, how long before the US goes effectively bankrupt?

Sometime after Canada runs out of Moosehead.

And what goes it say about the enemy - yeah, those raghead camel-jockeys that we love to mock - that they can hold off what, 40,000 well-fed, well-armed, well-provisioned Western troops in Afghanistan?

There are several thousands fewer of those "raghead camel-jockeys" today than there were four years ago. Why don't you ask Achmed who is winning?

It’s been over 6 years now - and Bin Laden, Mullah Omar, and al-Zarkawi STILL aren’t dead/captured. Why?!

al-Zarqawi is quite dead. Perhaps, you didn't get the memo. There's a distinct possibility that Osama is, too. In any event, they've been driven back into their caves while the more dangerous targets are dealt with.

See, that wasn't so hard, was it?

[Conservativegreatgrandma]

None of their missles can reach the U.S., so the only way they can hit us is by getting their terrorists into the United States.

I think you're wrong about this. They are capable of hitting parts of the US.

[fortheDeclaration]

[None of their missles can reach the U.S., so the only way they can hit us is by getting their terrorists into the United States.]

I think you're wrong about this. They are capable of hitting parts of the US.

I think you are wrong about that.

I know the North Koreans were attempting to develop such a rocket capability but I don't believe they have.

But once again, any attack by a nation against us would result in total destruction of that nation.

And the leadership is not willing to die for Allah, it is only willing to send out others to do that.

[Conservativegreatgrandma]

You may be correct and you may be wrong since neither of us knows for sure but there are also submarines. It doesn’t matter, we can’t assume anything.

Just a couple of days ago, I heard someone on the radio (I don’t remember who) saying that Pakistan had the capability to hit about 60% of the US population, meaning the coasts. I don’t want the radical Muslims taking over Pakistan and their nukes.

[fortheDeclaration]

You may be correct and you may be wrong since neither of us knows for sure but there are also submarines. It doesn’t matter, we can’t assume anything.

I don't think any of those terrorist nations have nuke sub capability.

Just a couple of days ago, I heard someone on the radio (I don’t remember who) saying that Pakistan had the capability to hit about 60% of the US population, meaning the coasts. I don’t want the radical Muslims taking over Pakistan and their nukes.

Not much we can do about it.

As I said, the radical muslim leadership is not that radical that they want to be destroyed.

They want others to commit suicide for Allah.

We need to build a antimissile defense system.

We couldn't devise one to stop a massive Soviet attack, but I am sure we could stop a limited terrorist one.

Duncan Hunter recommended putting a missile defense system at sea around the terrorist nations such as North Korea to shoot the missiles down as they launch.