1
2
Next

Read Discussion
Reply to All

1

Are We The New USSR?

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Iraq war now costing $6 billion a monthThe Bush administration is spending about $7 billion a month to wage the war on terror, and costs could total $570 billion by the end of 2010, assuming troops are gradually brought home, a congressional report estimates.
Now, raise your hand if you remember the '80's. All of you? Good. Remember all that stuff about "winning the cold war"? Well, those of us who were there remember that the cold war was "won" by the US bankrupting the USSR by simply out-spending them. It became a military spending version of keeping up with the Joneses, and the Soviets went bust before we did.

Now, here is the funny part. Bush compares the "war on terror" to the cold war. Only, he doesn't realize that we are now the ones in the Soviets' position. Get it? We are on the losing side of this "cold war"! We are the new USSR!

How stupid does one have to be to not realize that terrorist leaders took lessons from history and are following the US's own winning strategy! The action that the American right hails as the victory of the millenia is being used successfully against us! What irony! For God's sake, Osama Bin Laden was trained and armed by us to fight as our soldier against our cold war enemies in Afghanistan!

You know, it's not that I mind when "what goes around comes around"... I just wish we didn't have to suffer the catastrophic results of others' stupidity.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,363 • Replies: 22

No top replies

this is how it happens.... creeps up on the general public while they're busy waving the flag and calling the people who see it happening and call it "terrorist sympathizers" and the "hate America" crowd......

0 Replies

Re: Are We The New USSR?

freedom4free wrote:

and [Iraq war] costs could total $570 billion by the end of 2010, assuming troops are gradually brought home, a congressional report estimates.

No, no, Freedom and Bipolar. You don't understand. Even allowing for the Iraq war, (costs estimated so far as $200 million), Bush is still hellbent on driving us broke.

Please note the chart. Please note that Bush, father and son, could not care less how much more we spend than how much we take in. Notice that even if we deduct $200 million from the deficit-and Bush said that would be the total cost of the war, not the total cost of the war each year-we still run a deficit!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v645/kelticwizard100/GreenspanDeficitB.jpg

If Iraq had never happened, Bush would still be driving us broke. With Iraq, he just drives us broke sooner.

Makes you wonder what country he's really working for-the US or somebody else?

0 Replies

We are simply unfortunate enough to live in a time when there are expensive things that must be done. We must fight the terrorists, because they will fight us whether we do or not, and we must deal with those dictatorships that acquire WMD, because the alternative results in American cities being destroyed and dictatorships dominating their region. Some generations are not fortunate enough to live in times when there are few great turmoils that consume a lot of money, but you blame the president for responding appropriately to the exceptional needs of the times in which we live.

0 Replies

Except that, as the chart clealy illustrates, Bush is driving us broke even if Iraq never happened.

Even giving Bush the money he requested for Iraq, he still has a huge deficit.

Bush said that only $80 billion dollars would be necessary the first year, and the Democrats said $200 billion. Bush said $200 billion would cover the whole war.

But as you can see, Bush takes a surplus and drives the deficit up to $400 billion plus. That is way, way past the cost of the Iraq war.

We have a deficit of $200 billion dollars, Iraq or no Iraq.

Once again, it makes you wonder: Is Bush working for the US, or somebody else?

0 Replies

I kind of wonder more about the ones that keep complaining about Bush and the war and this and that, and this and that. Why doesn't someone come up with some solutions instead of just complaining all the time?

I constantly hear about what is wrong with the US and the President and everything else. Rarely, do I hear well if we did this maybe we could fix this, etc.

Kind of makes me wonder what's up with some of America's citizens.

0 Replies

kelticwizard wrote:

Except that, as the chart clealy illustrates, Bush is driving us broke even if Iraq never happened.

Even giving Bush the money he requested for Iraq, he still has a huge deficit.

How is it Bush's fault that 9/11 and the need to fight terrorism by, for instance, forming the Department of Homeland Security, and in many other ways, happened on his watch?

0 Replies

Focus, Brandon. You have to learn to Focus.

Let's start this all over again. Even allowing for the Iraq war, Bush still runs a huge deficit!

You got that?

Do you understand?

The whole Iraq Afghanistan thing does not even add up to half this huge deficit. So your whole Iraq defense of the deficit falls apart.

The money we have to borrow to close the deficit shall accumulate interest, and the interest will have to be paid off on the NEXT year's budget. Which leads to less money available for paying off the government's expenses. Which leads to another huge deficit the year after that.

Sort of the like the fellow who pays off one credit card by borrowing from another. And the Iraq war is only half of it.

Bush's clear plan is to put the country into dire financial straits, so Social Security and other programs will have to be jettisoned. That is why both he and his father ran up these outrageous bills on the US government.

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

I kind of wonder more about the ones that keep complaining about Bush and the war and this and that, and this and that. Why doesn't someone come up with some solutions instead of just complaining all the time?

Oh? And we don't elect a president to FIND those solutions?

I've seen this line of argument before. Bush supporters who don't have any way to defend his performance, so they demand his critics come up with point-by-point solutions.

Pray tell, what is the man at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue supposed to do-read suggestions the citizens send him in the mail and just decide to take the best ones?

However, just to prove what an easy guy to get along with I am, I will give one of those solutions. Stop those tax cuts to the rich. Clearly, they don't work, as the deficit proves.

How's that for starters?

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

Kind of makes me wonder what's up with some of America's citizens.

What is up is that increasing numbersof Americans are getting fed up with the direction this country is being taken by this Administration.

I will confess. I expected nothing good from Bush from the start. I do not like his philosophies, and I thought the fellow before him did a great job. Since Bush planned to change those successful policies, I expected an unsuccessful result. And we got it.

Others, however, who did have hope for this Administration are now turning against it. If you choose not to do so, fine, that is your right.

But don't say people don't have the right to criticize the President or any of our leaders. We do. And I sure did not see the other side spare any criticism when Clinton was in the White House. And Clinton did a much better job.

0 Replies

Re: Are We The New USSR?

kelticwizard wrote:

freedom4free wrote:
and [Iraq war] costs could total $570 billion by the end of 2010, assuming troops are gradually brought home, a congressional report estimates.

No, no, Freedom and Bipolar. You don't understand. Even allowing for the Iraq war, (costs estimated so far as $200 million), Bush is still hellbent on driving us broke.

Please note the chart. Please note that Bush, father and son, could not care less how much more we spend than how much we take in. Notice that even if we deduct $200 million from the deficit-and Bush said that would be the total cost of the war, not the total cost of the war each year-we still run a deficit!

If Iraq had never happened, Bush would still be driving us broke. With Iraq, he just drives us broke sooner.

Makes you wonder what country he's really working for-the US or somebody else?

I love that chart you throw up there every now and then. Could you care to explain what types of funding Clinton cut back on to create that "surplus"? Was that really a surplus on the total national debt or was that really just a surplus for those years? It looks like there was about a $200 billion surplus in 2000 but it started to go away at the end of his term. If you could please explain some of these things instead of just using silly graphs that don't really say much or explain anything then that would help. A graph without an explanation is really nothing at all.

0 Replies

Well, first of all, I don't recall saying I was a Bush supporter in this thread. But, my point is, I do not speak again the President while he is in office unless he were to commit an impeachable defense. I couldn't stand it when comedians, etc. made those nightly jokes about Clinton, and I actually didn't care for Clinton.

I try to carry my feeling about life throughout all I do. I believe that no matter what situation you are in there is a solution to the problems you face. I believe attitude is everything! I see so much energy expended complaining in today's world when I know (because the world just proved it with Katrina) that if we all stopped and put the important things first (i.e., the welfare of the world) we could come together and find those solutions.

0 Replies

Part of the reason Clinton had a so called surplus is that he is a good candidate for the do nothing presidents. All though the other do nothings made no decisions involving business, Clinton did nothing when it came to attacks made on the US and its properties and its embassys. Should Clinton have done something sooner and utilized the military to take care of Bin Lauden sooner we would not be having this discussion.
There are vast differences between the USSR and America in relationship to the Cold War and the War on Terrorism. The USSR was trying to keep up financialy with the US. We in turn are not trying to keep up with a country, we are attempting to remove terrorists. Is it an up-hill battle? Most definetly. Should we stop? It all depends on how you want to live. Should we have never gotten involved in Iraq. It all depends on whether you have freedom, want freedom, or think other people should not enjoy the rights you have.
There are many things that cause deficits, and war is not the only thing. That is only what the narrowly focused use.

0 Replies

I don't think the USA is the new USSR but I do know a couple of things.

Economically the US has now the biggest budget deficit in its history. Clinton left a real surplus, not a so-called surplus. Bush has delivered a record deficit, not a so-called deficit. The US is in debt to China and Japan in a massive way. But it's okay, it's like the old situation if you owe the bank sixty thousand dollars and can't pay then you're in trouble but if you owe the bank sixty million dollars and can't pay then the bank's in trouble. For that reason no-one is interested in bankrupting the US. But if the Euro becomes the world reserve currency then you should be worried.

As to the war. It's poorly defined. It's not a "war" at all. All wars have a beginning, a middle and a perceived end. This has no end. This is dealing with another international phenomenon. Terrorism has been with us for many years. We've been fighting it for as long as it's been in existence. This is merely a different manifestation of it. Calling it a "war" in terror is yet another Bush policy blunder.

0 Replies

I don't think the USA is the new USSR but I do know a couple of things.

Economically the US has now the biggest budget deficit in its history. Clinton left a real surplus, not a so-called surplus. Bush has delivered a record deficit, not a so-called deficit. The US is in debt to China and Japan in a massive way. But it's okay, it's like the old situation if you owe the bank sixty thousand dollars and can't pay then you're in trouble but if you owe the bank sixty million dollars and can't pay then the bank's in trouble. For that reason no-one is interested in bankrupting the US. But if the Euro becomes the world reserve currency then you should be worried.

As to the war. It's poorly defined. It's not a "war" at all. All wars have a beginning, a middle and a perceived end. This has no end. This is dealing with another international phenomenon. Terrorism has been with us for many years. We've been fighting it for as long as it's been in existence. This is merely a different manifestation of it. Calling it a "war" on terror is yet another Bush policy blunder.

0 Replies

duplicate of previous post

0 Replies

The Cold War
The War on Drugs
Both were defined as wars and niether fit your definition of war.
It was acceptable for us to declare war on Germany after Japan attacked pearl Harbor. How come it is not acceptable to attack terrorism after we are attacked?????
We can stretch the connection of the US and the USSR through a possible connection with Afghanistan but, we are there for different reasons than the USSR was.
As always, these threads always turns into an anti whoever is president lambase. It has been stated before but it is worth repeating. If you see a problem have a solution. And the lame answer of "remove so and so as president" is not the solution. If the other party had a solid plan then they would have been elected.

0 Replies

The Cold War. Ah yes, I remember it fondly. It wasn't so much a war as a state of political tension so it doesn't fit my definition. The War on Drugs - it's a metaphor only, it's not a war either.

Terrorism is a tactic not a political state. You can't have a war on a tactic.

0 Replies

The United States Stolen by Republicans makes it so. :wink:

0 Replies

huh?

0 Replies

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe

Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel

McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND - Discussion by Foxfyre

Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN

The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash

McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix

Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter

Fellow Bostonians: How many of us wished we had an assault weapon last night? - Question by maxdancona

What should be first on the agenda of the winner in November? - Discussion by Frank Apisa

TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman

Forums
» Are We The New USSR?

1
2
Next

Read Discussion
Reply to All

Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 04/24/2024 at 07:35:28

▲ ▼