On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 21:38:06 -0400, Bill wrote:

Lazy Senior wrote:

Bill wrote:
But what they DID

have was WMDs
-Bill


Bill
You been watching WAY too much Fox News Network.

Iraq HAD WMD's? Where you been the last year??

Lazy Senior

Where is your memory? What do you think he gassed his Kurdish citizens
with? Does that not count as a WMD or do you have a stricter
definition? Why were UN inspectors there so many years? What about the
program to DISMANTLE such manufacturing facilites after he invaded
Kuwait. Why did he throw out the inspectors?

Convenient for your side of the argument that you omit the implications
of 4000 murdered on US soil

Four full years later and you still can't get the numbers
right. Just ****ing give up.

and the need to mitigate such occurences in
the future. Your 'side' is very short on alternative solutions but very
long on criticism.

Bad recent intelligence? You betcha. No denying that. Sold a bill of
false goods by the President to start a war without any discernable
reason? Lets use the same standard of proof and stop playing partisan
roles.

WMDs or not the underlying issues remain and thats the radical doctrine
of killing anything/anybody Western. We've got plenty of proof there.
Do you need proof that the Saddam regime was sympathetic to this cause
and was a major point of instability in the region?

We ain't gonna win this one with simple hugs and trying to be good
neighbors...and we damn sure won't win it with internal bickering.
Bring us a good candidate to deal with this 'quagmire' in 2008.

Good night,
Bill

On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 14:24:51 GMT, (GregS) wrote:

In article . com, "Peter Wieck" wrote:
John:

The amount of $$ appropriated for the Gulf War to-date is ~averaging
4.8 billion-with-a-B dollars per month. Allow 24 months, that comes to:
$115,200,000,000 .

115,200,000,000/285,000,000 = $404/person.

As of November 5.

This does not count the thousands of contracts for 'infrastructure' and
other items. That total brings the cost-per-capita to around
$750/person excepting those employed by Haliburton.

I would still rather see that money spent in West Virginia for schools,
or Mississippi, or Louisiana, even Texas, Alabama or Arkansas. God help
us, even Camden, NJ. At least when my present-and-future grandchildren
are paying it back there will be a discernable benefit.

But that would be too much like thinking from an administration
bankrupt in that skill.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA


What is really important is how much of that money spent on the war,
goes directly back to the US citizens. Much of this money supplies
jobs right here.

greg

So give it to them directly. Paying people to build
one-time-use bombs is tossing most of it straight down the toilet.

On 22 Nov 2005 07:18:16 -0800, "Peter Wieck" wrote:



There are too many not to provide regular
and easy targets to the tune of about 2.7 per day, on average,
fatalities. Not to mentioned wounded and crippled, not to mention US
citizens as private contractors in the region.

However, others in this newsgroup would obviously welcome the
death and maiming because of the economic activity (dollars going back
into the US) generated by it. How else justify the war on the basis of
the contribution to the US economy?

It is said that, had the Exxon Valdez arrived safely at its
destination port, it would have been a minor bump to the economy. But
by generating the spill, it made a much greater contribution due to
the billions expended in cleanup costs, lawyers, accountants, court
personnel, etc.

So maybe we should just destroy the rest of the world and
enjoy the economic benefts of rebuilding it.

By that standard, Katrina was the best thing to happen to the
US ecnomy this year. Right up there with the economic devastation
resulting from Enron and other cronies of the prsent administration.
The court costs alone for these events are staggering.

On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 17:10:32 GMT, Lazy Senior
wrote:

xrongor wrote:

lacking a real plan for the economy, the president chose a war. not the
best reason to go to war...

but hey, if it will help the economy, why dont we start two?

randy


It ok as long as YOU or your family aint doin the fighing and dying......

Thank you for the clear statiment of the administration and
congressional positions.


Lazy Senior

On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 15:56:49 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

Peter Wieck wrote:
John:

The amount of $$ appropriated for the Gulf War to-date is ~averaging
4.8 billion-with-a-B dollars per month. Allow 24 months, that comes to:
$115,200,000,000 .

115,200,000,000/285,000,000 = $404/person.

As of November 5.

This does not count the thousands of contracts for 'infrastructure' and
other items. That total brings the cost-per-capita to around
$750/person excepting those employed by Haliburton.

I would still rather see that money spent in West Virginia for schools...

Thanks very much but we have plenty of schools. We have so many that a
number are being closed. School consolidation is taking place. If
you'd like to send us something, we could use prime beef or Stilton cheese.

...or Mississippi, or Louisiana, even Texas, Alabama or Arkansas. God help
us, even Camden, NJ. At least when my present-and-future grandchildren
are paying it back there will be a discernable benefit.

"discernible"

I think we are seeing and will see such a benefit. I don't put a price
on my freedom.

But that would be too much like thinking from an administration
bankrupt in that skill.

You're an expert in foreign policy, are you?

I like a lot of folks much more when you're discussing boatanchors.

Funny, we feel the same way about you.



Dave Heil K8MN

wrote:
On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 15:56:49 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

Peter Wieck wrote:
John:

The amount of $$ appropriated for the Gulf War to-date is ~averaging
4.8 billion-with-a-B dollars per month. Allow 24 months, that comes to:
$115,200,000,000 .

115,200,000,000/285,000,000 = $404/person.

As of November 5.

This does not count the thousands of contracts for 'infrastructure' and
other items. That total brings the cost-per-capita to around
$750/person excepting those employed by Haliburton.

I would still rather see that money spent in West Virginia for schools...
Thanks very much but we have plenty of schools. We have so many that a
number are being closed. School consolidation is taking place. If
you'd like to send us something, we could use prime beef or Stilton cheese.

...or Mississippi, or Louisiana, even Texas, Alabama or Arkansas. God help
us, even Camden, NJ. At least when my present-and-future grandchildren
are paying it back there will be a discernable benefit.
"discernible"

I think we are seeing and will see such a benefit. I don't put a price
on my freedom.

But that would be too much like thinking from an administration
bankrupt in that skill.
You're an expert in foreign policy, are you?

I like a lot of folks much more when you're discussing boatanchors.

Funny, we feel the same way about you.

We? Is that you and your rig?

I'll guess that you speak only for yourself and that you do put a price
limit on your freedom.

Dave K8MN

wrote:


Bill wrote:
Convenient for your side of the argument that you omit the implications
of 4000 murdered on US soil


Four full years later and you still can't get the numbers
right. Just ****ing give up.


Ok, 3213. Does that change my point?

-Bill

On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 10:07:43 -0500, Beerbarrel
wrote:

On 23 Nov 2005 07:01:14 -0800, "Peter Wieck" wrote:

Sissies....

Beer, with all due respect, if you say so. And if you mean by "sissies"
that I (we) value human life over testosterone poisoning, I would be
proud of the designation.

Be well, have a good Thanksgiving!

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA


Good for you! We go to the middle east for 2 different reasons that is
for damn sure. It has nothing to do with testosterone. It has
everything to do with supporting your country. I think in your case
you should have stayed with the people you love so dearly. We sure
don't need or want you here.




"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that
we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only
unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American
public."


--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 10:20:32 -0500, Beerbarrel
wrote:

On 23 Nov 2005 07:12:02 -0800, "Peter Wieck" wrote:

Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

Samuel Johnson, 1775

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA



I would rather be a scoundrel than a coward.......I'll tell your
buddies you said hi when I get there next month.

You'll be a hell of a lot more shy there than you are here.

On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:11:02 -0400, Bill wrote:

wrote:


Bill wrote:
Convenient for your side of the argument that you omit the implications
of 4000 murdered on US soil


Four full years later and you still can't get the numbers
right. Just ****ing give up.


Ok, 3213. Does that change my point?

-Bill

No, because the answer is less than 2,000.