Quote:
Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
As to the money, in context of the overall military budget, its not that much percent of a single year's spending. As to presenting the question, or facts, to the american people, he repeatedly said it will be tough, long and expensive. We were basically defying a large percentage of the world. You thought it would be cheap?
|
Uh, my point is that the manner in which we defied the rest of the world made it more expensive for us. I did not think it would be cheap. By the way, I think your "it's that much percent" argument is fairly misplaced in this discussion, and not just because $87 billion represents more than 20% of the FY03 military budget.
I think it's fair to say that there were some mixed messages sent about the cost of this enterprise, and that Bush clearly stated at some point or other that this would not be easy. However, you choose to ignore the other messages that were sent that the sacrifices would be minimal. I found Replaced Texan's post about his/her (not a big fan of the "em" thing) grandmother kind of interesting in this regard. She's waiting for the oil revenues to pay for it all, just like it seemed a majority of the country thought Saddam had a hand in 9/11 up until very recently. I don't think that's because they all were hanging out with Fluffer down at the rehab clinic.
I find it interesting that despite Bush's rhetoric the only sacrifices that are being made are by those who are in our military and the future taxpayers who will have to pay off this deficit spending.
Quote:
|
I'm was using France, as shorthand. Please do feel free to underestimate me, though.
|
I guess I read a certain sneer into all admin supporters references to France, after the whole freedom fries debacle. My apologies. I fully estimate you.
Quote:
Iraq was allowing sham inspections because the US had massed hundreds of thousands of troops on its border. That costs, both in dollars and the soldiers lives being disrupted. We had been "inspecting" for 10 years. France/Germany/Russia were not changing their position with any amount of time.
You are smarter than this. If Bush timed this for the election, it would happen next June or so.
You do recognize that the heat posed a closing window, that did make waiting a few months impossible. A decision to wait a few months would be a decision to wait a year. We had soldiers there. We knew they'd be there for awhile if we went in when we did. Is it fair to add a year to how long they'd be there?
|
My point was only that the timing factors that forced us to go in when we did were predicated on the fact that we had deployed troops to Kuwait long prior to that time. The decision on when to deploy was made by the same people who cry that "we had no time to wait." If you think that makes the deadline an inevitability, that's your prerogative.
I believe there were political and military alternatives that could have been explored, and your conclusory statements about what France/Germany/Russia were going to do don't really do much to change that. This probably means you will find my views to be unrealistic. I can accept that.
On an unrelated note, I miss the headdress. I think it'd be cool if you started working in some other hats, maybe a fez or a cowboy hat or one of those cool kaiser-era helmets with the spike on top. (Please note that no political statements were intended in my choice of examples.)
edited to fix tags, and you're not alone in reading the sneer factor into references to France -- T.S. 
