Cost of US wars since 9/11? At least $3.7 trillion, study finds

The U.S. does not seek out conflict, but it will go to the ends of the earth to conquer the evil.

That's very commendable. Just curious, where did you serve?

This attempt to make me the focus rather than keep focused on the issue

No it isn't.

You seem very compassionate regarding this and I noted all the military stuff on your profile.

I was just curious what branch of the military you were in, and where you served?

What you do not understand, and what the vast majority of your fellow faux-conservatives do not understand, is that Obama is not the cause of this country's spending problem.

This country had a spending problem before Obama, and will have one after he is gone. The GOP, all the RINOs in it, and everyone who has ever voted for them, are just as much to blame for the deficit as liberals and Democrats. Bush inherited a $1.9 trillion budget, and increased it to $2.9 before he left office.

The party cheer leaders don't deal with the truth well.

Going back to the 2008 budget is not enough. Anyone who proposes it is a blind defender of President Bush and/or the GOP.

Cherry picking...Trying to jam round pegs into square holes. Lipstick on a pig.

The world is a safer place now that the cold war is over, and requires a strong adjustment of military spending away from large, heavy units and nuclear weapons and to a flexible force designed to deploy smaller elements.

Yep, all out nuclear war is basically off the table. Not a great option...The era of world wars are over.

#1) We can’t afford it.

#2) It’s not our job.

#3) It’s unconstitutional.

#4) We have better things to spend our money on here at home.

#5) You are not a conservative.

___________________________________________________________

I concur. This guy is a GOP drama queen.

Okay, then you're on the record with the idea that the world hasn't changed, it's not a more dangerous place today, and that we should go back to the rock solid plan of allowing our mililtary to decay between major conflicts. Is that about it? It's what you advocated for with that idiotic statement.

All talk, no content. Better yet, all sentient thought vs no comprehension skills whatsoever.

The world is a safer place now that the cold war is over, and requires a strong adjustment of military spending away from large, heavy units and nuclear weapons and to a flexible force designed to deploy smaller elements. Nope. Thanks for playing though. Our nuclear arsenal is still a deterent to places like China, North Korea, soon to be Iran, and other rogue states that may wish to slip something in.

As for military spending, force structure, and deployments, they'll morph over time. They always have and always will.

Lets take a look at the U.S. budget growth over the last 11 years. When George Bush came into office, the U.S. debt was pegged at about $5.9 trillion dollars. By the end of this year, it will be somewhere close to $15 trillion. That's nine trillion dollars in growth over 11 years.

You are regurgitating GOP talking points without even thinking about them. You can't measure the change in the budget by measuring the change in the debt. There was a recession; that reduces tax revenues and increases the size of the deficit even without budget increases. Obama's proposed 2012 budget is $800 billion more than Bush's 2008 budget. That's $3.7 trillion vs. $2.9 trillion, for hard numbers.

Adding up all the budgets 2009-2012, which is being less than fair to the administration because the 2009 budget was Bush's and the 2012 money hasn't been spent yet, Obama has spent $2.6 trillion more than if the country had stayed firm at the $2.9 trillion budget in 2008 for all the years since.

While I didn't use the proper terminology, "Let's take a look at the U.S. budget growth over the last eleven years..." vs "Let's take a look at the growth in our national debt over the last eleven years", it would seem to me that you could asterain my intent by the figures and descriptions that followed. I don't necessarily disagree with your comments, but I do kindof wonder why you would bother to address what clearly wasn't the area of my focus.

What you do not understand, and what the vast majority of your fellow faux-conservatives do not understand, is that Obama is not the cause of this country's spending problem. This country had a spending problem before Obama, and will have one after he is gone. The GOP, all the RINOs in it, and everyone who has ever voted for them, are just as much to blame for the deficit as liberals and Democrats. Bush inherited a $1.9 trillion budget, and increased it to $2.9 before he left office.

Well, I appreciate your take on things, but I railed on Bush constantly for his big Lefty spending, and particularly his Medicare Part-D nonsense. I refused to vote for him in 2000, and only reluctantly voted for him in 2004, to keep Kerry out. I disagreed with his 'not an amnesty' amnesty, and many other things he did. The BushBots will be more than happy to confirm this.

Going back to the 2008 budget is not enough. Anyone who proposes it is a blind defender of President Bush and/or the GOP. The government needs to trim spending to 2000 or 2001 levels at the very least in order to get national spending under control.

I don't think that goes far enough. The government needs to extricate itself from every program not directly enumerated under the U.S. Constitution. Welfare, Social Security, Medicare, Health Care, the government has no business being involved. As for regulatory agencies, they need to go too. The EPA is a blight on this nation. The Department of Education needs to go. Public financing of public broadcasting needs to go. The federal government held lands should be turned over to the states. There's plenty more...

Oookay..., we've got another peace nimrod on our hands. Put daisies in our gun-barrels and swish on over and give our enemies a big fat wet one.

Yes. I'm such a big peacenik hippie that I'm on active duty right now. Keep talking, I could use a good laugh.

Oops, forgot to provide what I was responding to did ya? Well, here it is. "The only reason we have/"need" the current size of the military is so that we never have to declare war. That way, there's no draft, ever, and the President can just 'war powers' and 'limited kinetic action' all over the place. This keeps Joe Schmoe Average American from being pissed off because he can keep watching American Idol while his country's leadership pisses away his money, his children's money, his grandchildren's money, and his fellow Americans' lives into the sands of a sweltering desert on the other side of the planet."

Evidently you haven't heard of Saddam Hussein, a man that had attacked four different nations, and was responsible for the deaths of more than one million people. You are evidently not aware that Hussein had been shooting his mouth off supporting terrorists focused on the United States and Israel. You are evidently not aware that he was paying out $25,000.00 dollars to the families of suicide bombers against Israel. You are evidently not aware that he had used chemical weapons against his own populace. Your are evidently not aware that he was still refusing to abide by international requirements regarding this aircraft. You are evidently not aware that he was still targeting coalition aircraft who were enforcing the no-fly zone. You are evidently not aware that he was amassing his troops on his borders with other nations, causing consternation if he was going to cross those borders with a military action or not. You are evidently not aware that he refused to cooperate with U.N. nuclear facility and WMD focused interntional inspectors. You are evidently not aware that the U.S., the U.N., the E.U., N.A.T.O, and other entities were convinced he had something to hide. You are evidently not award that all these entities also thought he had extensive relationships with terrorist groups.

To describe a military action against this guy subsequent to 09/11/2001, as pissing away money and the lives of fellow Americans into the sands of the sands of a sweltering desert on the other side of the planet, is insulting to the men and women who are dedicated to this effort and want to see it through to it's conclusion.

As for the cost associated with this war, it has been relatively low. If we had our house in order as it relates to the economy and other bloated ill-advised spending, this effort would hardly be taxing our nation at all. And to let the over-spending, mis-management, and other dynamics here at home convince you the war is one of the major problems facing our nation, alligns you perfectly with the people on D.U., the DailyKOS, the Huffington Post, and the DNC.

It's rubish logic, and you would know that if you had half a clue.

Explain to us oh Mighty Kong, what would you have done after 09/11?

Invade Afghanistan, depose the Taliban, destroy them and Al-Qaeda, and leave Iraq the fuck alone because they had nothing to do with 9/11.

Was Al Qaeda operating within Iraq? Yes. I know this will come as a shock to you, but we met stiff resistance in Iraq. Who the hell did you think that was, paper-boys out of work? Do you merely think it was Iraqis who were angry we entered Iraq and took Hussein out? You are not aware that people were flocking into the nation from all points, to prevent a more Western style of government from taking root there? Who did you think those folks were, un-employed actors guild members?

It's rather shocking to see you try to game the dynamics in Iraq. You should know better. If you're on active duty, it's amazing you don't.

Just as with the budget, you're a GOP RINO Robot stuck in Bush-Protect-Mode. It's over. He's out of office. He's not running in 2012. It's okay to say that he made mistakes.

I was addressing the growth in U.S. indebtedness. I wasn't addressing the growth in the budget. Look at the numbers I provided. They were related to the national debt. You're trying to claim you're a savvy dude here, and yet you didn't pick up on those numbers and recognize them as debt figures instead of budget figures?

I have addressed the fact that under Bush the national debt went up over 90%. I didn't do it here, but I did provide figures that made that rather clear. Does that sound like a big defender of Bush? Even in the comments I made here, I addressed the national debt growth from 2000 through 2012. How is that defending Bush or covering for him?

Thomas Jefferson, as President, sent our military over to Africa to address the Barbary Pirates. You do know that Jefferson was a Founding Father, right?

Are you a sockpuppet of VeniVediVeci? Maybe you didn't see where I corrected him higher up in the thread... he didn't respond, and I'm sure you won't either:

Tripoli, and the other Barbary states, directly attacked American vessels, captured Americans, and kept them as slaves. They demanded (and were paid) enormous sums as tribute for the return of the sailors and to prevent further attacks. These attacks were directly endorsed and supported by each state's government. In 1795, 1/6th of the entire federal budget was paid in tribute and ransom to the Muslim states.

Comparing Tripoli to Iraq or even Afghanistan is laughable at best.

Hmmm, then please point to where the Barbary Pirates destroyed significant monetary and human assets on U.S. soil. Thanks in advance.

Tell that to the people of Iraq, who are not being slaughtered by their own leader, his sons, and terrorist among them. Their daughters are going to school for the first time. There are women in the government. Tell me who didn't win there, I'd like to know.

Pure, unfiltered Neoconservative lunacy. Let's invade every nondemocratic country on the planet one by one to fix them and give them some FREEDOM and DEMOCRACY and AMERICAN WAY! We'll figure out how we'll afford it later, let's not stop until there's a McDonalds on every city block in every nation on earth! WOOO!

Well, now we have a brainwashed fourth grade level explanation of what took place. Let's not address what Hussein had been up to, or how that might have impacted the U.S. or it allies. We wouldn't want folks to know there was more to it than what you chose to address would we.

#1) We can't afford it. We could afford WWI, WWII, the Korean War, but today we can't afford it. Interesting... In WWI and WWII we had troops and assets all over the planet, in massive numbers compared to today's efforts. The loss of life then was astronomical. We can't afford it? We had operations in the Pacific, in Northern Europe, in Southern Europe... and now we can't afford our efforts in one region? That's your honest take on things? Wow...

#2) It's not our job. Whose job is it, to take out terrorists and brutal dictators whose actions appear to have impacted on our nation's safety? The U.N.? N.A.T.O.? The E.U.?

#3) It's unconstitutional. No it isn't. Have you been over on D.U., the DailyKos, and Huffington Post again? Whew! You sound just like them.

#4) We have better things to spend our money on here at home. I have better things to spend my money on than an electric bill. Unfortunately it's a cost associated with maintaining a home. Wars are part of the cost of maintaining a nation. The adults understand this.

#5) You are not a conservative. How would you know what a Conservative was? You come here spouting DNC, D.U., DailyKos, Huffington Post talking points, and want me to be crushed by your judgment? Seriously? ;^)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2741730/posts?page=84#84

The U.S. will go to the ends of the earth to conquer the evil.

No shortage of work there.

But ya better install a few more money printing machines, as the ones we have now are smoking hot.

Have you seen the U.S. military going to the ends of the earth in recent times to take on evil? Neither have I. If it involves a threat to us, our forces will respond. I honestly think most folks knew what I meant here.

If you want to talk Libya, you and I probably share the same view of that. We have no business there whatsoever.

Nope. Thanks for playing though. Our nuclear arsenal is still a deterent to places like China, North Korea, soon to be Iran, and other rogue states that may wish to slip something in.

No, it's really not. The nuclear requirements for deterring the USSR and for deterring rogue states are completely different. The reason we needed so many weapons was the fear that a first strike from the Soviets could destroy many of our nuclear capabilities before we would be able to retaliate. There's simply no such threat from the countries you list. We could easily downsize our arsenal to 250-300 warheads without sacrificing national security.

I don't necessarily disagree with your comments, but I do kindof wonder why you would bother to address what clearly wasn't the area of my focus.

Because framing the national debt as a temporary problem caused by Obama is a common tactic that disguises the true magnitude of the problem. We can't just elect some random Republican and suddenly everything will be fine. We need a major cultural shift to get federal spending on the right track.

Evidently you haven't heard of Saddam Hussein, a man that had attacked four different nations, and was responsible for the deaths of more than one million people.

I'm quite aware of his history. Are we going to invade all countries which kill more than X number of their own population, or have in the past invaded more than X number of countries? If so, there's quite a long list of nations we need to invade.

You are evidently not aware that the U.S., the U.N., the E.U., N.A.T.O, and other entities were convinced he had something to hide. You are evidently not award that all these entities also thought he had extensive relationships with terrorist groups.

You seem to be missing the fact that the U.S. is a key player in all of the entities that thought he had something to hide, and that it was our intelligence, in partnership with British intelligence, that convinced them. Trumped-up intelligence, I might add, which was considered suspect at best by our intelligence agencies. You, along with those international agencies, were conned into an unneccesary war.

To describe a military action against this guy subsequent to 09/11/2001, as pissing away money and the lives of fellow Americans into the sands of the sands of a sweltering desert on the other side of the planet, is insulting to the men and women who are dedicated to this effort and want to see it through to it's conclusion.

Typical GOP tactic of throwing the military into the argument to use it as a shield. It's also completely untrue; maybe you should spend some time talking to service members who've spent time in Iraq and ask them their opinion. Not to spoil your fun in doing that to prove me wrong, but I happen to be a member of the unit that's spent more time there than any other unit in the military, and I assure you that they would not agree with you.

Was Al Qaeda operating within Iraq? Yes. I know this will come as a shock to you, but we met stiff resistance in Iraq. Who the hell did you think that was, paper-boys out of work? Do you merely think it was Iraqis who were angry we entered Iraq and took Hussein out? You are not aware that people were flocking into the nation from all points, to prevent a more Western style of government from taking root there?

Did you not notice that you contradicted yourself in this paragraph? People were flocking into the nation from other nations to prevent a Western style of government from taking root there. That implies that those people came from somewhere else, and did so after the war had started. The insurgency in Iraq was primarily funded and run by foreigners, not Iraqis. Al Qaeda was not operating in any real way in Iraq prior to the invasion. We created that particular problem by removing a secular dictator.

Hmmm, then please point to where the Barbary Pirates destroyed significant monetary and human assets on U.S. soil. Thanks in advance.

Please point to where Iraq attacked American assets in the U.S. or elsewhere.

We could afford WWI, WWII, the Korean War, but today we can't afford it. Interesting... In WWI and WWII we had troops and assets all over the planet, in massive numbers compared to today's efforts.

Yes, with a draft, drastically higher taxes, strict government control over the economy, and a military that was paid peanuts in comparison to the private sector. Are you saying that we should re-enact all of those measures?

Nope. Thanks for playing though. Our nuclear arsenal is still a deterent to places like China, North Korea, soon to be Iran, and other rogue states that may wish to slip something in.

No, it's really not. The nuclear requirements for deterring the USSR and for deterring rogue states are completely different. The reason we needed so many weapons was the fear that a first strike from the Soviets could destroy many of our nuclear capabilities before we would be able to retaliate. There's simply no such threat from the countries you list. We could easily downsize our arsenal to 250-300 warheads without sacrificing national security.

Yes, it really is. There is still a first strike threat. You don't want to admit it, but the fact still remains that Russia or China could both initiate a devistating first strike that would render our mainland weapons nearly worthless in their silos. We are not privy to what exactly our off-shore armaments are these days either. How many warheads do our nuclear subs carry? Are our nuclar subs all armed all of the time? Are they fully armed?

What is the exact status of the Russian stockpile? Well, we don't precisely know. What is the status of the Chinese stockpile? Well, we don't exactly know. In a scenario where Russia, China, Pakistan, North Korea, and soon to be Iran each decide to take on the U.S., where does that leave the 200 to 300 warhead scenario? It leaves it woefully inadequate. You either know that and are lying, or you don't know that and are too stupid to be discussing this matter.

I don't necessarily disagree with your comments, but I do kindof wonder why you would bother to address what clearly wasn't the area of my focus.

Because framing the national debt as a temporary problem caused by Obama is a common tactic that disguises the true magnitude of the problem. Which I didn't do, so you're admitting this bull s--t introduction of information to shoot down something I didn't do, is wombat propagandist tactics and nothing more.

We can't just elect some random Republican and suddenly everything will be fine. We need a major cultural shift to get federal spending on the right track.

And what does that have to do with our efforts related to the War on Terrorism? Well nothing really, but you can't win that arguement on point so your spread out in a thousand directions hoping people won't notice. FAIL!

Evidently you haven't heard of Saddam Hussein, a man that had attacked four different nations, and was responsible for the deaths of more than one million people.

I'm quite aware of his history. Are we going to invade all countries which kill more than X number of their own population, or have in the past invaded more than X number of countries? If so, there's quite a long list of nations we need to invade.

Well evidently you aren't aware of his history after all, if you're going to make the premise there are a lot of other nations whose leaders have done the same things Hussein did. That's your premise, not mine. Here, "...if so, there's quite a long list of nations we need to invade." Oh really? In modern times, starting in roughly 1975, please list for me other nations whose leaders have (1) invaded four other nations (2) completely occupied and absorbed one of them (3) have been responsible for the deaths of over one millon people in one war with a neighbor state alone (4) have killed tens if not hundreds of thousands more of their own people through purges and downright torture and abuse (5) have attacked their own people with chemical weapons (6) have used WMDs against their international neighbors (7) have rewarded the families of terrorists who became suicide bombers (8) refused to let international inspectors in, or refused to cooperate with them when they did get in (9) remained at the constant doorstep of continued hostilities with entities trying to make sure they didn't repeat their past crimes (10) continued to make comments leading people to believe they did still have WMDs in their nation (11) continued to promise they would help the enemies of the United States to harm or destroy it.

Are we going to invade all countries which kill more than X number of their own population, or have in the past invaded more than X number of countries? If so, there's quite a long list of nations we need to invade.

Please by all means, provide the list of the nations that qualify under your idiotic test. It should be a long one... /s There isn't one such nation and you damn well know it.

You are evidently not aware that the U.S., the U.N., the E.U., N.A.T.O, and other entities were convinced he had something to hide. You are evidently not award that all these entities also thought he had extensive relationships with terrorist groups.

You seem to be missing the fact that the U.S. is a key player in all of the entities that thought he had something to hide, and that it was our intelligence, in partnership with British intelligence, that convinced them.

I've made the case before that you argue like a Leftist, using all the Leftist cliches. And here you make one of the most bombastic claims I've ever seen a person wanting to be seen as a Conservative make.

You seem to be missing the fact that the U.S. is a key player in all of the entities that thought he had something to hide, and that it was our intelligence, in partnership with British intelligence, that convinced them.

You're the first "Conservative" I've ever seen make the case that the U.N. follows the dictates of the United States. None the less, that's your argument. We told the U.N., a Globalist agency that hates our nation with a passion, that we should invade Iran, and the U.N. said, "Oh can we?" Where did the Left dig you up anyway?

I'm missing facts... brother. Look at the pot calling the kettle black.

Did Hussein cooperate with international inspectors? Yes or no. Did Hussein claim to be able to harm the United States? Yes or no. Had he used chemical weapons before? Yes or no. Was he known to have used those weapons against his neighbors? Yes or no. Did the U.N. inspectors state, "We can't find WMDs because he won't cooperate, but we are quite certain he has them? Yes or no. Was Hussein know that have been trying to develop WMD type weapons he could use against his neighbors? Yes or no. Had he been bragging about paying the families of suicide bombers in Israel $25k? Yes or no. Did Hussein violate the no fly zones, and areas where he was not supposed to move his armed forces near the border with his neighbors he attacked before? Yes or no. Had Hussein shown the willingness to use WMDs before? Yes or no. Did the U.S. actually find a stockpile of chemical weapons in their after hostility mop-up? Yes or no. Had Hussein promised to help the enemies of the United States? Yes or no. Were some Al Qaeda camps found in Iraq? Yes or no.

The answer to every one of those questions is YES. Once again, you should know this stuff. If you don't your not well enough informed to carry on this discsussion. If you do, you're obviously doing your best to propagandize this forum.

Trumped-up intelligence, I might add, which was considered suspect at best by our intelligence agencies. You, along with those international agencies, were conned into an unneccesary war.

No, you're just lying again to try to justify claims that are unjustifiable. If you're not lying, you're simly not playing with a full deck.

We did not control the U.N. inspectors. U.N. inspectors did not get cooperation from Hussein. He lied to them. He wouldn't provide the information they demanded. He kicked them out.

Did we have evidence of Hussein hiding weapons before this? Yes. He had burried part of his air force, in order to keep them from being destroyed. Why would it have been a stretch to think he was hiding chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons type materials? That's right, it wouldn't be.

There's only one person doing the conning associated with this issue, and that person is you, here.

To describe a military action against this guy subsequent to 09/11/2001, as pissing away money and the lives of fellow Americans into the sands of the sands of a sweltering desert on the other side of the planet, is insulting to the men and women who are dedicated to this effort and want to see it through to it's conclusion.

Typical GOP tactic of throwing the military into the argument to use it as a shield. So, you're not a Republican? Who knew?

You introduced the military into the equasion when you addressed, "...pissing away money and the lives of fellow Americans into the sands of the sands of a sweltering desert on the other side of the planet..." You do recall making that comment don't you? I guess this means you're part of the GOP, according to your definition. You really do need to think more before you make most of these bombastic comments.

It's also completely untrue; maybe you should spend some time talking to service members who've spent time in Iraq and ask them their opinion. Not to spoil your fun in doing that to prove me wrong, but I happen to be a member of the unit that's spent more time there than any other unit in the military, and I assure you that they would not agree with you.

What makes you and your fellow troops more important than any of our troops who ever served in a combat zone? Every person who ever died in defense of our nation could have come up with great reasons why not to fight. They could have justified to themselves that their participation wasn't required. They could have said it wasn't any of our business. Isn't that just what you are doing?

I don't know you from Timothy Leary on this forum. You come on here spouting Leftist cliches and I'm supposed to all of a sudden extend respect to you. I do respect your service to our nation, if you did in fact serve. I cannot just shut up and allow you to spew this level of nonsense and unmistakable propaganda.

Was Al Qaeda operating within Iraq? Yes. I know this will come as a shock to you, but we met stiff resistance in Iraq. Who the hell did you think that was, paper-boys out of work? Do you merely think it was Iraqis who were angry we entered Iraq and took Hussein out? You are not aware that people were flocking into the nation from all points, to prevent a more Western style of government from taking root there?

Did you not notice that you contradicted yourself in this paragraph? People were flocking into the nation from other nations to prevent a Western style of government from taking root there. That implies that those people came from somewhere else, and did so after the war had started. The insurgency in Iraq was primarily funded and run by foreigners, not Iraqis. Al Qaeda was not operating in any real way in Iraq prior to the invasion. We created that particular problem by removing a secular dictator.

Did I say that all terrorist activity was conducted by foreigners? Oh, that's right, I didn't. Did I contradict myself? Oh, that's right, I didn't.

Did I say this up front? "Was Al Qaeda operating within Iraq? Yes. I know this will come as a shock to you, but we met stiff resistance in Iraq. Who the hell did you think that was, paper-boys out of work? Do you merely think it was Iraqis who were angry we entered Iraq and took Hussein out?." Oh that's right, I did. The insinuation was that Al Qaeda operatives were in Iraq from the get-go. The insinuation wasn't that there were no other players that might not have wanted the U.S. there. Hense, some of the Iraqis may have been angry we took out Hussein, but it's preposterous to think those were the only people who went postal.

It was in part friends of Hussein. It as in part people who didn't want the U.S. there. It was in part Al Qaeda operatives. I submit the worst of it was outsiders, but that doesn't mean that we shoulcn't have taken out the Al Qaeda members that were there.

Was it a good thing that Al Qaeda did flock to Iraq so we could liquidate them? Yes. Did Al Qaeda find haven in Iraq? Oh yes, that's right, they did. Did they find haven in places that had never seen Al Qaeda representation there before? We have no proof of that whatsoever.

Hmmm, then please point to where the Barbary Pirates destroyed significant monetary and human assets on U.S. soil. Thanks in advance.

Please point to where Iraq attacked American assets in the U.S. or elsewhere.

This is not an important point. It doesn't matter. Here's why. Hussein had made two comments that rendered it so. He stated he would help the enemies of the United States to destroy it. He stated that he would reward the families of terrorists. Third, previously unaddressed, he actually paid $25,000.00 to the families of suicide bombers. This guy made promises regarding terrorists. He followed through on those promises. Why should we think he was lying with regard to other promises to terrorists. Despite this, you're still trying to make the case that there was no reason at all to consider Hussein, his affiliates, or his potential proxies to be a threat to the United States.

You don't have to be honest with me, but it would be nice to see you expressing some level of honesty with yourself.

We could afford WWI, WWII, the Korean War, but today we can't afford it. Interesting... In WWI and WWII we had troops and assets all over the planet, in massive numbers compared to today's efforts.

Yes, with a draft, drastically higher taxes, strict government control over the economy, and a military that was paid peanuts in comparison to the private sector. Are you saying that we should re-enact all of those measures?

LOL, can't face the reality of your lunacy can you. We lauched much grander operatons at at time when our population base was probably less than 25% of what it is today, certainly less than half.

No matter how you try to difuse the issue by bringing in other topics to muddy the waters, you're firing blanks here.

If we could put five or more times the troops on the ground all over the planet, with equipment, and supply lines back in the day with that populace and revenue stream, we can handle what we're doing today.

Discussing issues with you is like playing Whack-a-Mole. I confront you on one issue, you duck down and pop up from another hole with a new set of issues that fail to address the actual point I made.

If you were to show the desire and ability to be honest and discuss this matter on point, it could be beneficial to address this. Since you display no willingness to do that, you're really not advancing any idiology other than to be a propagandist and a disrupter. Why should I continue to project the false impression that are are worthy of debate on this issue? Well, I shouldn't.

If I’d known that you were one of those “conservatives” that think facts and accurate history are liberally biased, I wouldn’t have even bothered arguing with you.

You drank the kool-aid. Congrats.

Can’t tell you how comforting you condemnation is.

Take care.

Due to poor proof reading, I made several mistakes in the post this is in response to. These may not be all of them.

I probably did get the point across, but it was sloppy and poorly drafted. Sorry about that.

This:

Did Hussein cooperate with international inspectors? Yes or no. Did Hussein claim to be able to harm the United States? Yes or no. Had he used chemical weapons before? Yes or no. Was he known to have used those weapons against his neighbors? Yes or no. Did the U.N. inspectors state, "We can't find WMDs because he won't cooperate, but we are quite certain he has them? Yes or no. Was Hussein know that have been trying to develop WMD type weapons he could use against his neighbors? Yes or no. Had he been bragging about paying the families of suicide bombers in Israel $25k? Yes or no. Did Hussein violate the no fly zones, and areas where he was not supposed to move his armed forces near the border with his neighbors he attacked before? Yes or no. Had Hussein shown the willingness to use WMDs before? Yes or no. Did the U.S. actually find a stockpile of chemical weapons in their after hostility mop-up? Yes or no. Had Hussein promised to help the enemies of the United States? Yes or no. Were some Al Qaeda camps found in Iraq? Yes or no.

The answer to every one of those questions is YES.

Should have read:

Did Hussein do his best to defeat the goals of international inspectors? Yes or no. Did Hussein claim to be able to harm the United States? Yes or no. Had he used chemical weapons before? Yes or no. Was he known to have used those weapons against his neighbors? Yes or no. Did the U.N. inspectors state, "We can't find WMDs because he won't cooperate, but we are quite certain he has them? Yes or no. Was Hussein know that have been trying to develop WMD type weapons he could use against his neighbors? Yes or no. Had he been bragging about paying the families of suicide bombers in Israel $25k? Yes or no. Did Hussein violate the no fly zones, and areas where he was not supposed to move his armed forces near the border with his neighbors he attacked before? Yes or no. Had Hussein shown the willingness to use WMDs before? Yes or no. Did the U.S. actually find a stockpile of chemical weapons in their after hostility mop-up? Yes or no. Had Hussein promised to help the enemies of the United States? Yes or no. Were some Al Qaeda camps found in Iraq? Yes or no.

The answer to every one of those questions is YES.

This:

You're the first "Conservative" I've ever seen make the case that the U.N. follows the dictates of the United States. None the less, that's your argument. We told the U.N., a Globalist agency that hates our nation with a passion, that we should invade Iran, and the U.N. said, "Oh can we?"

Should have read:

You're the first "Conservative" I've ever seen make the case that the U.N. follows the dictates of the United States. None the less, that's your argument. We told the U.N., a Globalist agency that hates our nation with a passion, that we should invade Iraq, and the U.N. said, "Oh can we?"

- - - - -

A discussion can only take place if two people (not just one of them) actually read the other person's comments and respond on point.

When people don't even notice your obvious mistakes and mention them, it's quite clear they aren't reading what you're writing.

That's unfortunate really. Oh well...