General Discussion Undecided where to post - do it here. |
Reply to Thread New Thread |
![]() |
#1 |
|
As with the rest of the planning they did not take an extended occupation into consideration. Just march in, sweep away Saddam and company, and istall the eager Iraqi exile community into power.
That being said, I fail to see how even the initial invasion by itself could cost only 60 billion. Moving all the equipment over there, moving it all back (if we had left), ordinance expended, equipment replacement (things wear out, even in a campaign that short), and a thousand other normal things. They really ****ed that up, but then again some people predicted 30+K casualties for the initial invasion to. People are stupid. |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
|
Originally posted by SlowwHand
Except they didn't count on the reluctance of the population to take control of their own destiny. The population has taken control of its own destiny. They just didn't count on there being multiple, competing versions of that destiny, and multiple, armed populations, each willing to fight for its version. Mind you, anyone with a 7th grade education, a library card, and an hour to kill reading up on the history of Iraq would have come to the conclusion that this would happen. But I guess nobody in the White House has a library card. |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#8 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#9 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#12 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#13 |
|
I never claimed that figure was correct. All I said was that I'd be unhappy if I found out I'd paid that figure to support the war
![]() The only thing no one has bothered to think about yet is what effect the borrowing has had on the economy, and who is paying what because of those effects to suppport the war. There is alot more to the financial side of the war than saying "It cost X amount, but we said Y years ago it would cost Z amount". |
![]() |
Reply to Thread New Thread |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|