talking point of the antiwar is that the war costs too much

[NewXD40fun]

"We've had a war on poverty since when? 1964? Guess it's not working. Maybe we should surrender. Maybe we should pull out of the war on poverty."---Rush Limbaugh


Prould dittohead and typical white person,
Tom

[one-eyed-fatman]

Originally Posted by FrankRizzoXD40

If he wins, it won't be because of the military vote.

Do you agree?

I just find it funny how Etta and the mainstream media spun the opinions of 5 soldiers into



and



Frank

No. That's like saying the military vote don't count. Course you can always cover yourself by saying if Bambi wins it was because GW and buds suck big time. That would work.

[one-eyed-fatman]

Originally Posted by tmorr37

Not true another claim of the left
guess you just missed what happen in Bassra
iraqis

Even losers get over every once in a while but should they start disproving me constantly that'd be fine with me. Kinda doubt they will.

[tmorr37]

Originally Posted by KEVWYO

tmorr ... OK we get it. Congrats, kudos, here's a gold star and a smiley face for learning how to cut and paste ad nauseum. How about some orginal tmorr thought and perhaps some article synopisis and then a link. Draw me in to wanting to read your references by providing your own thought provoking words. We can all copy and paste. Interesting comes form reading everyone's take on a subject.

I'm sorry I ever posted
No matter what is done or said you will always have this anti american view
every thing is a Lie or something from some Neocon. There is no point in any further typing

[jtkratzer]

Don't know if it's been posted or not yet, but over the course of the 5 years we've been at war, the average per year has been 1% GDP per year...that's hardly anything in comparisson to the pork barrel spending going on at home. It's also practically nothing compared to the amount of credit card abuse by our elected officials.

[bountyhunter]

Originally Posted by tmorr37

The War Costs Too Much
An increasingly popular talking point of the antiwar party is that the war simply costs too much and that we must end it and refocus on domestic priorities.

Yeah, and we all know the GOP talking points:

Spending government money on roads, schools, and hospitals at home is filthy socialism. Doing the exact same thing in Iraq is brilliant foreign policy.

Nice to try to side step all the valid arguments against the war like:

1) Iraq posed no threat

2) The real enemy who carried out the 9/11 attack was in Afghanistan. We abandoned the efoort to kill Bin laden when he was trapped at Tora Bora.

3) Attacking Iraq cost us every ally we would need to actually wage and win the WOT.

4) Iraq would stretch our military to the breaking point so we did not have the troops we needed to stem the true threat which was in Afghanistan.

But, I digress. back to this mythical thread setting up a Straw Man about how the anti war arguments are just about money.

[bountyhunter]

Originally Posted by Etta Place

That's because the war DOES cost too much.

It costs too much, but that isn't the real problem: the money spent isn't making us safer, it is actually strengthening the enemy by driving mainstream Islamics over to radicalizing. Bush's invasion of Iraq was the only thing that could have let Bin laden enter and stay in Iraq (Hussein never allowed Al Qaeda in Iraq and he was so against Islamic fundamentalism he made wahabbism a death penalty offense in Iraq).

If we had actually derived anything good from the 5 trillion, we could argue about whether it cost "too much".. but, if all you buy is death and misery and destabilize an already shaky region, there is nothing to argue about. It was a fool's errand at any price.

[FrankRizzoXD40]

Originally Posted by Etta Place

By the way, have you heard the reports from Iraq that many of our troops there are supporting Obama because they want to come home?

LOL!!!

Are you talking about the 5 troops that ABC News was able to find in the story they posted yesterday?

ABC News: Whom Are Our Troops Endorsing?

The title of the story is..."Surprising Political Endorsements By U.S. Troops"

Am I surprised that 5 US troops support Obama? Nope. That story and the headline are very misleading. There are no references to polls, statistics, or anything. They found 5 troops who support Obama and included their comments in the story.

Yet another distortion from the MSM.

Frank

[Frenchy]

Originally Posted by FrankRizzoXD40

LOL!!!

Are you talking about the 5 troops that ABC News was able to find in the story they posted yesterday?

ABC News: Whom Are Our Troops Endorsing?

The title of the story is..."Surprising Political Endorsements By U.S. Troops"

Am I surprised that 5 US troops support Obama? Nope. That story and the headline are very misleading. There are no references to polls, statistics, or anything. They found 5 troops who support Obama and included their comments in the story.

Yet another distortion from the MSM.

Frank

I agree on this point. I'm sure I could find 5 troops that will write-in Pat Paulsen...
As for wanting to come home?...Hell, they all want to.

[Etta Place]

Originally Posted by FrankRizzoXD40

LOL!!!

Are you talking about the 5 troops that ABC News was able to find in the story they posted yesterday?

ABC News: Whom Are Our Troops Endorsing?

The title of the story is..."Surprising Political Endorsements By U.S. Troops"

Am I surprised that 5 US troops support Obama? Nope. That story and the headline are very misleading. There are no references to polls, statistics, or anything. They found 5 troops who support Obama and included their comments in the story.

Yet another distortion from the MSM.

Frank

You felt the need to post this twice?