Muslims in control of ports

WTF!!!!?? Everyone knows i am pro bush but i just can not understand turning over ports to the enemy. My vote and a lot of others would have went the other way if i had known this was going to happen. Why not send them some nukes while we are at it? while we are at it lets train some mus to be pilots too.

 

Thoughts?

It's the deficit.

 

Can't keep spending all that money without selling off the country.

Ya, AND he will veto anything put in place to stop the deal!!!!!!

 

Does ANYONE still support this moron?

Ya, AND he will veto anything put in place to stop the deal!!!!!!

 

Does ANYONE still support this moron?

 

Sure, all those that stand to benefit. Oh, and the current "at war" status gives him the power to do what he pleases.

 

Though the senate blocked the Chinese from taking over oil companies, so there is that.

Well we don't need coal so the chinese are irrelevent in our major trading deals HEHE

It's the deficit.

 

Can't keep spending all that money without selling off the country.

really this is a cheap war

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_buzzcharts/buzzcharts200601230854.asp

Well we don't need coal so the chinese are irrelevent in our major trading deals HEHE

 

Yeah, like try finding products you buy that are NOT made in China. Trade defecit to the tune of 600 billion or thereabouts. 700 billion to Japan.

Yeah, like try finding products you buy that are NOT made in China. Trade defecit to the tune of 600 billion or thereabouts. 700 billion to Japan.

 

 

OK OK So they don't have any big money energy for us to exploit. Hows that?

really this is a cheap war

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_buzzcharts/buzzcharts200601230854.asp

 

Interesting link. The title of this war was also interesting. Iraq has not been liberated. It's been democratically handed to the wrong party.

 

 

The US effort there now is not to rebuild, but to establish bases.

 

The money for that effort is not shown in the cost of the war per se, in your link.

 

We're talking over a trillion total.

Their strategy is to cause the US to have such a huge deficit that it collapses

Interesting link. The title of this war was also interesting. Iraq has not been liberated. It's been democratically handed to the wrong party.

 

 

The US effort there now is not to rebuild, but to establish bases.

 

The money for that effort is not shown in the cost of the war per se, in your link.

 

We're talking over a trillion total.

 

 

once its all said and done maybe but you gotta keep in mind that this war has gone on for 3 years, and the cost of maintaining all troops and equipment is in that total too so, the defence department has had extra money frred up to spend else wear; mostly on the new naval ships

See now the links I found said something completely different.....

 

 

The Bill So Far: Congress has already approved four spending bills for Iraq with funds totaling $204.4 billion and is in the process of approving a “bridge fund” for $45.3 billion to cover operations until another supplemental spending package can be passed, most likely slated for Spring 2006. Broken down per person in the United States, the cost so far is $727, making the Iraq War the most expensive military effort in the last 60 years.

 

Long-term Impact on U.S. Economy: In August 2005, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the cost of continuing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan at current levels would nearly double the projected federal budget deficit over the next ten years. According to current estimates, during that time the cost of the Iraq War could exceed $700 billion.

 

Economic Impact on Military Families: Since the beginning of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, more than 210,000 of the National Guard’s 330,000 soldiers have been called up, with an average mobilization of 460 days. Government studies show that about half of all reservists and Guard members report a loss of income when they go on active duty—typically more than $4,000 a year. About 30,000 small business owners alone have been called to service and are especially likely to fall victim to the adverse economic effects of military deployment.

 

 

http://www.ips-dc.org/iraq/quagmire/

this is predicting future cost and negating the fact that while the cost for vietnam would be 600 billion today, the gnp wouldnt add up which make this estimate invalid.

600 billion today is only about 4% of our gnp while vietnam cost about 12% of the gnp at the the time.

Did you check out the link?

We are unlikely to be told where the money goes, nor how much.

 

Under the Radar.

 

An IDIQ contract, which is made up of task and delivery orders, does not define a firm quantity of services or goods that the government needs. It is not until goods or services are required that the government places an order. The General Accounting Office stated that those types of contracts "were not attaining the level of competition Congress had initially envisioned." For example, Kellogg Brown & Root, a subsidiary of Halliburton, and Bechtel have received task and deliver orders worth billions. Those task and delivery orders fall below the procurement radar screen and are not open for bidding or available to Congress or the public.

 

An additional $18.6 billion has been earmarked for the reconstruction of Iraq, but who in the federal government will have the staff or resources to monitor that money? Despite the recent contracting horror stories about overpriced fuel, kickbacks, and the exploitation of cost-plus contracts by contractors, Congress has been slow to act on war profiteering laws and even had them removed from the $18.6 billion Iraq supplemental that was approved by Congress in October 2003.

 

 

More here.

Did you check out the link?

 

yeah and its full of anti war propoganda which tends to bend truths to their needs

It says the same thing as most of the links I checked, this one just happened to break it down a bit simpler. I wanted to keep it accesable to the general GF public

still it speculates on a lot of things and leaves many things unclear

Overlook my link. See if I care.

if this war was so cheap, our troops would have the armored vehicles and such to protect them from ieds. There is no way considering the technology and general cost of the weaponry that this war is so cheap. it makes no sense. Now if you are talking cost ABOVE what is already allocated then perhaps, seeing as how Bush made sure to shift quite a bit of money into the armed forces even before 9-11.

 

You can't even calculate past wars accurately in today's dollars considering the changes in technology and weaponry.

hummer our then skined and already armored as much as possible(we need to find a replacement) but have you seen what we have been developing for our troops?

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/001437.html

their is another version of it too that is capable of blasting incoming rpgs and missles

I just watched a news blurb and i can honestly say that bush's attitude towards passing this bill borders on treasonous. Really this just has al the makings of scary as hell. DAMN the executive veo powers. Corzine has instruct NJ prot authority to sue to stop the take over. In two seeks, the UAE could have complete control over our entire eastern coast. that is SOOOOO freaking scary to me. something seriously has to change in this curent admin. ALL of congress seems to be against this. Isn't this what our checks and balances are supposed to stop?

not something you would expect from bush normaly too

Isn't this what our checks and balances are supposed to stop?

 

That's what this eternal war against the phantom menace means, Tizz.

 

Screw congress, and forget the constitution.

 

All hail king george the first.