You might be right about politicians but I can assure you my arguments are from just my view of the costs both in people and monies. I haven't shifted my arguments from one side or another and I don't believe H has either. I care about America as much as anyone but I am willing to discuss all the aspects of her endeavors both wise and unwise. To be honest, the above is true too with those who look at this war and change their viewpoints to maintain support for it. That too is pretty amazing.

If Congressional Democrats believe their own rhetoric, then they have the power to defund the war and force Bush to bring home the troops. Obviously, they either do not believe their own rhetoric or they lack the courage to do what they believe is right.

 

Many of these same scoundrels who only voted to authorize the war because of public opinion are pulling out all the stops (including undermining our alliance with Turkey) to hurt this country's chances of winning the war. Much has been made of the cost of fighting this war, what will the cost of losing it be?

Last year, spending in Iraq amounted to less than 1 percent of the total economy -- about as much as Americans spent shopping online and less than half what they spent at Wal-Mart. Total defense spending is 4 percent of gross domestic product, the figure that measures the nation's economic output. In contrast, defense spending ate up 14 percent of GDP at the height of the Korean War and 9 percent during the Vietnam War. (emphasis added)

 

The Cost of War, Unnoticed

 

I've seen this comparison to the size of the GDP before and it's simply not valid. Who cares how large the cost of the wars is to the size of the total economy--the problem here is that it's being financed with borrowing from foreign investors and is just not a fiscally sound practice. The dollar is falling rather rapidly with respect to most other major currencies which will make the cost to repay the debt that much more difficult. Who is going to pay for the decisions and the gluttonous spending of this generation? Our children.

If Congressional Democrats believe their own rhetoric, then they have the power to defund the war and force Bush to bring home the troops. Obviously, they either do not believe their own rhetoric or they lack the courage to do what they believe is right.

 

Many of these same scoundrels who only voted to authorize the war because of public opinion are pulling out all the stops (including undermining our alliance with Turkey) to hurt this country's chances of winning the war. Much has been made of the cost of fighting this war, what will the cost of losing it be?

 

 

You seem quick to jump on the Dems but there are many Reps who have asked the same questions. John Warner from VA is one such Republican. Just because some people are members of a party doesn't mean that all members speak with that same voice.

 

Your rhetoric (scoundrals) is intriguing. Never once have I called Bush or any who pushed this war as a "Just War" a scoundral. Yet some feel it is fine to name anyone who disagrees or has a varying viewpoint on this conflict as unworthy of respectful dialogue. (I'm not naive, many Dems have been as bad or worse with this language.)

 

The reason people ask about the cost is it's a legitimate question. But I still think that no one is giving hard facts on either side.

The annual cost of the Iraq War will never likely approach the cost of the Vietnam or Korean wars. We are no longer using large numbers of our most expensive one-time-use weapons such as cruise missiles either, like we were during the war's "hot" phase.

 

Now that the the evidence that the surge is workig is coming in, opponents of the war are shifting their arguments from body counts to cost. The lengths to which politicians will go to undermine their own side to win elections is pretty amazing.

 

The violence is being reduced, but the Iraqis have still not forged any meaningful political agreements that will allow the U.S. to disengage or even reduce force levels. People who think we can sustain spending $330 million dollars a day indefinitely (given the expected rise in entitlement spending and the existing debtload of the federal government) perhaps need to take a basic course in finance.

You seem quick to jump on the Dems but there are many Reps who have asked the same questions. John Warner from VA is one such Republican. Just because some people are members of a party doesn't mean that all members speak with that same voice.

 

Your rhetoric (scoundrals) is intriguing. Never once have I called Bush or any who pushed this war as a "Just War" a scoundral. Yet some feel it is fine to name anyone who disagrees or has a varying viewpoint on this conflict as unworthy of respectful dialogue. (I'm not naive, many Dems have been as bad or worse with this language.)

 

The reason people ask about the cost is it's a legitimate question. But I still think that no one is giving hard facts on either side.

I think "scoundrel" is an appropriate way to characterize politicians who voted for the war then began to actively oppose it as soon as public support started to dwindle. These scoundrels now lack the courage to force the Bush administration to take action that they say is in the nation's best interests.

 

The leaders of the anti-war movement are liberal Democrats and Democrats have the votes to defund the troops if they believe that is the moral thing to do. For the record, I respect those who have been opposed to the war from square one like Dennis Kucinich. You will not hear me criticizing people like Kucinich and Ron Paul because I believe that their opposition to the war is sincere and it has been consistent. As politicians go, both seem to be pretty honorable men and you will never hear me disparage their character.

 

As for John Warner, Chuck Hagel, and other Republicans whose support for the war buckled under the weight of public opinion, I have just as little respect for them as I do the scoundrels who did the same in the Democratic Party. At least neither Warner nor Hagel are seeking reelection in 2008.

The violence is being reduced, but the Iraqis have still not forged any meaningful political agreements that will allow the U.S. to disengage or even reduce force levels. People who think we can sustain spending $330 million dollars a day indefinitely (given the expected rise in entitlement spending and the existing debtload of the federal government) perhaps need to take a basic course in finance.

And people who think that our government can afford to continuously increase entitlement spending to maintain their grip on power should take the same course. I am convinced that government spending will continue to accelerate - war or no war. I prefer seeing my money spent fighting terrorists and maintaining a strong national defense to having it spent creating another generation of government parasites who no longer believe in the American dream.

I think "scoundrel" is an appropriate way to characterize politicians who voted for the war then began to actively oppose it as soon as public support started to dwindle. These scoundrels now lack the courage to force the Bush administration to take action that they say is in the nation's best interests.

 

The leaders of the anti-war movement are liberal Democrats and Democrats have the votes to defund the troops if they believe that is the moral thing to do. For the record, I respect those who have been opposed to the war from square one like Dennis Kucinich. You will not hear me criticizing people like Kucinich and Ron Paul because I believe that their opposition to the war is sincere and it has been consistent. As politicians go, both seem to be pretty honorable men and you will never hear me disparage their character.

 

As for John Warner, Chuck Hagel, and other Republicans whose support for the war buckled under the weight of public opinion, I have just as little respect for them as I do the scoundrels who did the same in the Democratic Party. At least neither Warner nor Hagel are seeking reelection in 2008.

 

And people who think that our government can afford to continuously increase entitlement spending to maintain their grip on power should take the same course. I am convinced that government spending will continue to accelerate - war or no war. I prefer seeing my money spent fighting terrorists and maintaining a strong national defense to having it spent creating another generation of government parasites who no longer believe in the American dream.

 

First of all, if that's the way you feel, you need to do a little research into which party was in power when the largest expansion of entitlement spending since the Great Society was enacted (a.k.a. the Medicare drug benefit). Did your vote help put them in office?

 

Secondly, if the only way to effectively fight terrorism is to flush hundreds of millions of dollars down the toilet every day in Iraq, we will certainly be defeated by "the terrorists" because they will bleed us dry in short order. We need to be much smarter about fighting terrorism than we have been in following the disastrous leadership of George W. Bush. Because of his "shoot first and ask questions later" bravado, we are now in one heck of a mess.

First of all, if that's the way you feel, you need to do a little research into which party was in power when the largest expansion of entitlement spending since the Great Society was enacted (a.k.a. the Medicare drug benefit). Did your vote help put them in office?

That is quite an assumption to make that I am not already aware of the wasteful spending that occurred during the latter part of the Republican reign in Congress. Spending like Democrats cost Republicans control of the Senate and House.

 

Spending on domestic programs such as the Department of Education has exploded under George W. Bush. Conservatives are well aware of how we have been betrayed by Republicans when it comes to fiscal policy.

 

I don't care which party wants to create federal dependents through out of control spending. I would rather see the money burnt - and I am not speaking figuratively.

 

Secondly, if the only way to effectively fight terrorism is to flush hundreds of millions of dollars down the toilet every day in Iraq, we will certainly be defeated by "the terrorists" because they will bleed us dry in short order. We need to be much smarter about fighting terrorism than we have been in following the disastrous leadership of George W. Bush. Because of his "shoot first and ask questions later" bravado, we are now in one heck of a mess.

IMO, no spending is as destructive to our society as the spending used to buy votes to expand the size and power of the federal government (i.e., the kind of spending being proposed by John Edwards and Hillary Clinton).

 

I see the presence of 150,000+ troops in Iraq at a time that the terrorist state of Iran is threatening destruction of Israel and the US as a bonus. Hopefully, we will take action soon to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

 

Iran has done everything short of running infomercials to let us know that it is developing the bomb. I believe that we should take Ahmadinejad at his word. The money spent stabilizing Iraq and establishing bases there may look like a bargain in a few years.