Costs in Iraq now top $300 billion

[Lawrence of Arabia]

hahaha, enjoy

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
How much are you guys willing to pay to address the root cause of Islamic terrorism by reforming the Middle East? Just curious...

What does that have to do with the invasion of Iraq?

[Drake Tungsten]

Not that drunk, but kinda sick now...

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
I support Bush's little adventure in Iraq. I thought it had the potential to change the region for the good. It still does.

That's funny. In the run up to the war I don't remember hearing you say that. I do remember losts of people claiming Saddam had WMD and that he was going to give them to Al Qaeda any day now.

We all knew (Well, everyone who wasn't a fool/Republican) Saddam wasn't going to give weapons to Islamic Militants who wanted him over thrown and who he spent 3 decades repressing.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
I don't buy the reasoning that Iraq made us less safe. The potential was there, certainly, but it seems to have worked out for the best.

[Drake Tungsten]

That's funny. In the run up to the war I don't remember hearing you say that.

Your memory's not very good, then...

[DanS]

I had told DanS that I believed Bush was utterly financially reckless and DanS claimed that inflation adjusted Bush's budget deficit for this year would be dramatically lower then 2004.

Don't put words in my mouth, *******. I didn't say "dramatically" lower.

I'm on track to win our bet, btw.

[Lancer]

A stable Iraqi democracy right in the middle of all those wacko, extremeist, moslem states would be a happy thing.

Find Iraq among the following group:



I rest my case.

[Lancer]

WoW.

I've never seen DanS call anyone the seven star (*) thing before.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Lancer
A stable Iraqi democracy right in the middle of all those wacko, extremeist, moslem states would be a happy thing.

Find Iraq among the following group:



I rest my case.

Lets look at those smilies:

(Egypt, secular pro-US regime, second largest recipient of US foreign aid)

(Syria, secular, anti-US dictatorship)

(Jordan, pro-US monarchy)

(Saudi Arabia, Fundamentalist, pro-US absolute MOnarchy)

(Iraq, pro-US transitional regime)

(Iran, Anti-US fundamentalist Theocracy)

Its funny how only two of those have regimes that are actually anti-US, as opposed to significant US allies.

As for Iraq becoming a "stable democracy", we have no idea right now if that will happen, and in fact we have almost no say in whether that will be the outcome anyways. For a simple example, look at the trends in Latin America after the wave of new dmeocracies in the late 80's, early 90's. A few have become stable, some have slid backwards, like Venezuela, others are unstable (Ecuador, Nicaragua, Bolivia). Whether Iraq will be a stable dmeocracy is out of the hands of the US even at this point, with 130,000 of our troops there.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by DanS
Don't put words in my mouth, *******. I didn't say "dramatically" lower.

I'm on track to win our bet, btw.

OK, we will see.

Business - Reuters
Greenspan Warns Deficits Endanger Economy

1 hour, 31 minutes ago

By Glenn Somerville

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan warned on Thursday that unless lawmakers come to grips with spiraling U.S. deficits, the economy was at risk of stagnation "or worse."

"Under existing tax rates and reasonable assumptions about other spending ... projections make clear that the federal budget is on an unsustainable path, in which large deficits result in rising interest rates and ever-growing interest payments that augment deficits in future years," Greenspan told the Senate Budget Committee.

He said that while the U.S. economy was "doing well," the danger was that deficits would keep rising as a percentage of total national output.

"Unless that trend is reversed, at some point these deficits would cause the economy to stagnate or worse."

The early questioning from lawmakers focused narrowly on budget issues, rather than on the economic outlook or oil prices. Bond and stock markets showed little early reaction to Greenspan's remarks.

Much of the Fed chairman's testimony echoed prior cautions he has made to Capitol Hill lawmakers. He stressed that steps to fix the problem were essential.

"As the latest projections from the (Bush) administration and the Congressional Budget Office suggest, our budget position is unlikely to improve substantially in the coming years unless major deficit-reducing actions are taken," the Fed chief said.

GET CONTROL

Greenspan reiterated his call for some type of automatic government spending controls.

"In my judgment, the necessary choices will be especially difficult to implement without the restoration of a set of procedural restraints on the budget-making process," he said.

Bush has pledged to cut the budget gap in half by 2009. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated the 2005 budget shortfall will come in around $400 billion, including funding for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Fed chief has long urged renewal of so-called pay-go provisions that compel lawmakers to show how they will fund any spending initiatives or tax cuts.

Greenspan said the approaching surge of American retirees added urgency to the need to deal with budget constraints in light of uncertainty about the scale of looming medical and retirement costs.

"These uncertainties -- especially our inability to identify the upper bound of future demands for medical care -- counsel significant prudence in policy-making," Greenspan said, adding that policy-makers "need to err on the side of prudence when considering new budget initiatives."

Greenspan said the U.S. economy was growing at a reasonably good pace but noted "the positive short-term economic outlook is playing out against a backdrop of concern about the prospects for the federal budget."

Ronald Simpson, a managing director of Action Economics LLC in New York, said it seemed like a less-enthusiastic take on the economic outlook than that in the statement issued after the policy-setting Federal Open Market Committee met on March 22, when it said national output was growing solidly.

"(It) sounds like a bit of a downgrade from the last FOMC statement which sounded a little more upbeat," Simpson said.



Greenspan repeated that the United States may already be in a position where it cannot meet commitments made to the baby boom generation and urged benefit cuts, if needed, be made as soon as possible.

[DanS]

The FY '04 deficit was $412 billion. If the FY '05 deficit is $400 billion, then I win by a reasonably wide margin, even without considering inflation.

Edit: Damn it, you cross-edited me.

[Dinner]

True but the CBO hasn't factored in the new tax cuts Republicans are pushing through. The loss of the estate tax is going to hit the bottom line.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
How much are you guys willing to pay to address the root cause of Islamic terrorism by reforming the Middle East? Just curious...

Uh, unless you mean killing them all and letting Allah sort 'em out, there ain't no "reforming" the middle east from outside. The Islamic fundamentalist *******s want to "reform" us into either good Muslims, or dead infidels. Needless to say, we tend to object to that idea and are willing to resist forcibly. In fact, given our loathing for what they represent, we're willing to resist forcibly for generations, if need be. Yet you're surprised that they'll be willing to resist for generations?

There isn't enough money or manpower in the world for outsiders of different religion, culture to "reform" the Islamic world. A thousand years ago, it was "crusades" - to the Islamist, same thing, different name.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
How much are you guys willing to pay to address the root cause of Islamic terrorism by reforming the Middle East? Just curious...

If, however unlikely, the American misadventure in Iraq managed to prevent a 9/11 level attack against the US then the price per life saved would be 100+ million dollars, even if no soldiers had died.

If you count the fact that you're over 1500 fatalities in then it's more like 200+ million dollars...