Bush Says Victory in Iraq is Important (President Bush, No Surrender)

Fox News ^ | 12/7/2006 | Fox News

[tobyhill]

Bush Says Victory in Iraq is Important

[daybreakcoming]

Thanks for heads up. I was done anyway. Chewed up and spit out fer sure now. :o)

[Cyclopean Squid]

Yeah, this forum is a House full of Animals. An Animal House, if you will.

[jveritas]

Since you have mentioned the duration of WW II and compare it to the duration of the war in Iraq, and since you mentioned the number of troops killed and wounded in Iraq, it would have been more honest for you to mention the casualties that we suffered in WW II as well as the cost of WW II: Over 400,000 US troops were killed in WW II, over 600,000 wounded, and the cost of the war was 288 billions dollars in 1940’s money which equivalent to over 2 trillions dollars in today money.

http://www.cwc.lsu.edu/other/stats/warcost.htm

[processing please hold]

His problem that he is making the very wrong assumption that President Bush has accepted or is going to accept the surrender terms in Iraq Surrender group report.

Only time will tell if President Bush accepts the terms. If our troops start coming back stateside en mass, we'll have our answer. I remember him saying that protecting our borders was important too.

[processing please hold]

Very interesting link. Thanks.

[Man of the Right]

True, but we won World War II.

More than half of U.S. ground forces have been tied down in Iraq (in country, refitting or preparing to deploy) for nearly four years. Are you prepared to pet the nation that our Army and Marines will not be needed for other contingencies. Is it fair to ask 20-year veterans to serve 10 combat tours in Iraq/Afghanistan when 99% of the American population contributes nothing but paying taxes?

[altura]

Honesty is the best policy.

However, it isn't popular among some posters.

Orson Scott Card had an excellent article on the costs of various wars and included the relatively safe (in terms of troop loss) war in Iraq.

I personally know of two returnees from Iraq who were killed almost immediately in traffic. I cite this fact because life is dangerous and almost always fatal.

It is hard to talk about this without seeming disrespectful of our heros who have given their lives for a great cause. That I would never do, but facts are facts.

As far as monetary cost, most of that would have to be spent anyway. We would have to keep troops and keep them trained. We would have to develop equipment and have it ready. It would probably cost almost as much to keep a secure fighting force even if we did not have peacekeepers in Iraq.

[kabar]

The dems don't listen, the press doesn't listen and apparently kabar doesn't listen.

And altura doesn't read.

[tobyhill]

"Subsequently, we learned that the President accepted this CIA estimate based on a single source"

That's not true because we know that British Intelligence had information that Iraqi Officials traveled to Niger to at the minimum inquire about Uranium and we know from the past use and wars that Saddam had unaccounted for chems according to the UN themselves and that's what brought on 1441. No one should have the luxury of convenient memory when it comes to UN 1441. An automatic act of war was when Saddam fired at our pilots patrolling the no-fly zone but that's just a minor issue to many. Not to mention that Saddam never returned at least the body of our pilot shot down during the first Gulf War which was a part of the cease-fire.
Congress authorized the war based on a lot of information so they need to stand by their vote and help win instead of being critics.

[processing please hold]

For the Gulf War it is worth noting that various members of the allied coalition reimbursed the U.S. for 88-percent ($54 billion) of the amount shown, so the actual cost to the taxpayer was only about $7 billion, roughly the same as for the Spanish-American War, and on a per capita basis only $26.92, arguably the least expensive war in the nation's history.

I didn't know it was fought that cheaply.

[altura]

Did you say something brilliant that I missed?

Ooops.

[pollyannaish]

Yes he did. But the solution he proposed has never wavered. He has ALWAYS been clear about his plan to deal with the border.

[Man of the Right]

I'm curious: Why do you think I supported Clinton (I didn't)?

[jveritas]

And we are going to win this war.

[advertising guy]

BTW it was Baker collecting the checks in GW1

[meandog]

And, how dare you compare me to Molly Ivins...as you can see, I look NOTHING like her. She has hair, I don't!

[jveritas]

Agree.

[altura]

Sorry. Of course you didn't support Clinton.

But you did say that Bush misled us based on a single source, which has been pointed out to you over and over again by various posters not to be true.

Even Clinton agreed that Sadam had WMD's. But we all know Clinton lies.

Perhaps it was the fact that you chose to misrepresent facts that made me think you might be an admirer of Clinton's.

Sorry for the error, understandable though it might have been.

[jveritas]

Correct, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait paid for most of the cost of the first Gulf War.

[pollyannaish]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1746479/posts