It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Iraq war costs more per month than Vietnam

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
This angers me so much, it’s our money we can do with it whatever we want.


NO, Is my tax payer money not yours and I want accountability for it.




The problem in Africa or the rest of the world is not my fault, and I should pay for it because it’s the right thing to do??? Give me a freaking break! If we want to sped more on our DoD bugged so what? Mind your business!


As a rich nation we have a moral right to fight hunger and famine, but we have not right to instigate wars in other countries.

Is nothing wrong with making our military the best in the world, but the problem is the ones that "ARE" benefiting from The increased in the "Military budget" the "Carlyle" group and "Haliburton" from the war in Iraq.

That where the problem is private corporations and firms are getting the profits from all the government doings because the relationship with one another.

Its called dirty politics.




posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 10:32 AM
link   

NO, Is my tax payer money not yours and I want accountability for it.


I pay the same taxes as you marge, so I have a right to say what I want done with it.


As a rich nation we have a moral right to fight hunger and famine, but we have not right to instigate wars in other countries.


“A moral obligation” You have got to be kidding me. I wouldn’t want to deal with the problem in Africa because we did not create it. I think “you break it, you bought it” is a good rule to abide by.

[edit on 31-8-2005 by WestPoint23]



posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 10:36 AM
link   
Cost of War

From 1961-1965 (First 4 years) 1,864 were killed in action in Vietnam.
Vietnam Casualties

Souljah, I have never picked it up... Where are you from? And, by the way, I don't mind you bringing up this subject at all, even though I am an American and you aren't. In fact, I appreciate it.
As has been pointed out numerous times, this isn't just about the US. In fact, the outcome of this action has repercussions worldwide. We (humanity) are all paying for this one way or another. Money isn't the only cost...



This angers me so much, it’s our money we can do with it whatever we want.


Unfortunately, even we don't all agree on how it's being spent. this isn't about what we want, it's about what the government decides.



"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building," said Bush during the campaign. "We're not into nation-building," he said last September.



posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 10:42 AM
link   
I find it funny that either side think it is "their" money. If one thing should be obvious is that they don't see it as your money. In fact, unless cameras are rolling I am willing to bet most don't think of you at all.

What is the best kind of government? The kind where the average citizen doesn't even know it's there.

What is the best slave nation? The nation where the citizens don't know they are slaves. You pay land rights to the government(in another time it would have been the Church, or the King, or your slave master -- a rose by any other name), you pay tithes to the government, you pay and you pay all because the governement says so. Because of acts and laws passed with the primary interest being to business and corperations, and so the vicous circle continues.

Times are hard need more money ---> Need more work
More work -----> More government income
More government income ---- More ability to pass laws
More laws pass to benefit multinational corperations ------> Times harder for the average workers

Times are hard need more money ---> Need more work
More work -----> More government income
More government income ---- More ability to pass laws
More laws pass to benefit multinational corperations ------> Times harder for the average workers



posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Unfortunately, even we don't all agree on how it's being spent. this isn't about what we want, it's about what the government decides.


That’s why we have a government in the first place, to make decisions on our behalf. If you don’t agree with them well use your right to vote.


[edit on 31-8-2005 by WestPoint23]



posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 10:49 AM
link   
One thing to remember we elect the government, "the government is for the people and by the people."

Not for the benefit of corporate power when government becomes for the corporations and by corporations "we the people" become "expendable"



posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
Hmmm...

Are you seriously Asking me that?

Yeah.


How about increasing Education, Health, Social Services and all other areas which don't get enough Money at all?

22% of the budget is on education, 43% on health and social services.
We spend a whopping 5% on justice, I was also wrong about the defence, we spend 8% on defence and international.


By looking at this Pie Charts it's much too OBVIOUS who is the No.1 Military Empire on this Planet and where the Billions of Dollars go, when this Money should go to the people who really need it.

Exscuse me?
Can we just get back to the subject at hand as in mabye talk about how much the UK spends and not focus on the US for one tiny, little,icckle, microscopic moment??
You realise that the co-alition , atelast the UK as far as I know has broken the offical rules to help these people?
They found a large cache of money for the insurgents to use, who did they give ALL of that money to? Nope not the new government but the local school.


Or do we need more Tanks? More Aircraft? More Warships? More Nuclear Bombs? More Weapons to blow ourselves UP?

With respect, my country is running on the lowest budget we can handle, the MOD is expected to do more with less.
There are threats to my country that cant be solved with diplomacy, tell me what we are to do if , as you say we should, not spend that money on defence?






Yes - Apparently YOU PEOPLE need more of that.

WE need more weapon because WE cant defend ourselves properly.
Are you trying to say we shouldnt defend ourselves?



So Children in Africa will get their first gun when they are 12 and start killing people.

So what do you suggest?
Remove the warlords?


Yes, that's what we need.

[edit on 31/8/05 by Souljah]

No thats not what we need but hey since we dont do anything major and overnight miricle wise about it we are logical
as bad as any murderer and rapist, YES OR NO???



posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 10:56 AM
link   

One thing to remember we elect the government, "the government is for the people and by the people."


I know, we elect the government and after we elect them they do what they think is best for the people, disagree? Vote.

Also all this large corporation stuff is over exaggerated. Find me a poor guy or a poor company (whatever that is) that can rebuild Iraq for us and I would gladly be in favor of them.



posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 11:09 AM
link   
Is nothing wrong when it comes to defence awarded contracts going to corporations. Is nothing wrong with awarding contracts to companies in Iraq that are Iraqi not foreigners.

But when you put two and two together that is something that will make you wonder.

Carlyle group = Bush family

Haliburtion = Cheney

Bush + Cheney = elected officials.



posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 11:16 AM
link   
Yeah and there are also other 2+2 equations like this..

Iraq: Former UK colony.
USA: Former UK colony.
UK: Used to own the two above...
Could this be a UK conspiricy?



posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Carlyle group = Bush family

Haliburtion = Cheney

Bush + Cheney = elected officials.


And you have proof that Cheney is continually getting money form Halliburton? If not then don’t give me the Michael Moore lip service. Plus we elected them, both times.



posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043

Originally posted by WestPoint23
This angers me so much, it’s our money we can do with it whatever we want.


NO, Is my tax payer money not yours and I want accountability for it.




The problem in Africa or the rest of the world is not my fault, and I should pay for it because it’s the right thing to do??? Give me a freaking break! If we want to sped more on our DoD bugged so what? Mind your business!


As a rich nation we have a moral right to fight hunger and famine, but we have not right to instigate wars in other countries.

Is nothing wrong with making our military the best in the world, but the problem is the ones that "ARE" benefiting from The increased in the "Military budget" the "Carlyle" group and "Haliburton" from the war in Iraq.

That where the problem is private corporations and firms are getting the profits from all the government doings because the relationship with one another.

Its called dirty politics.




I hate to tell you but Haliburton has been benefiting from wars since World War II. I find it funny everybody thinks Haliburton is only in Iraq because they had ties with Chaney and Bush. Haliburton has been in just about every country in the world during times of war. They rebuilt the Kuwait oil fields when they were destroyed by Saddam they were rebuilding infrastructure in the Balkans and many many other countries. They also have major offices in just about every Arab country. I can guarantee you they would have been in Iraq regardless of the administration. The only benefit they had was getting the no bid part of the contract from having a favorable administration in office for them.



posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

One thing to remember we elect the government, "the government is for the people and by the people."


I know, we elect the government and after we elect them they do what they think is best for the people, disagree? Vote.

Also all this large corporation stuff is over exaggerated. Find me a poor guy or a poor company (whatever that is) that can rebuild Iraq for us and I would gladly be in favor of them.


do you see anything suspicious that the 2 top heads of this nation have close ties to the 2 major contracted companies in iraq? not looking for a long answer, just a simple yes or no with a short explanation would do.

to me, that in itself sets of huge red flags that must be looked into to see if they are being influenced by these companies.



posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 11:34 AM
link   
Here is a nice link to inside information of Cheney dealings with haliburton.

Occurs you can read it or discarted as just more lies against our nice Mr. Cheney and Haliburton.

www.halliburtonwatch.org...



posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 11:35 AM
link   

do you see anything suspicious that the 2 top heads of this nation have close ties to the 2 major contracted companies in iraq? not looking for a long answer, just a simple yes or no with a short explanation would do.


In short no, those companies would still be there even if another administration was in office. Why? Because they have the resources and experience for the job, whether you like who they are associated with is another matter.



posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
In short no, those companies would still be there even if another administration was in office. Why? Because they have the resources and experience for the job, whether you like who they are associated with is another matter.


agreed. i believe they'll be doing just fine as a company without having the 2 major political officers because. but would they have been able to get such non-bidding deals without their influence? isn't it in the best interest of an administration to find the best cost-efficient solution and at least get some bids from other companies for such huge contracts?



posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Conspicuouz

Originally posted by WestPoint23
In short no, those companies would still be there even if another administration was in office. Why? Because they have the resources and experience for the job, whether you like who they are associated with is another matter.


agreed. i believe they'll be doing just fine as a company without having the 2 major political officers because. but would they have been able to get such non-bidding deals without their influence? isn't it in the best interest of an administration to find the best cost-efficient solution and at least get some bids from other companies for such huge contracts?


Isn't that required by law to aviod exactly this type of thing? Just as a conflict of interest alone this should have huge red flags, but alas.........have they found that girl in aurba yet?



posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 11:48 AM
link   

but would they have been able to get such non-bidding deals without their influence? isn't it in the best interest of an administration to find the best cost-efficient solution and at least get some bids from other companies for such huge contracts?


Probably not, and I also don’t agree with their decision of a non-bidding deal.


but alas.........have they found that girl in aurba yet?


The media’s habit of sticking to certain stories like white on rice for ratings is an old time tradition.


[edit on 31-8-2005 by WestPoint23]



posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Here is a nice link to inside information of Cheney dealings with haliburton.

Occurs you can read it or discarted as just more lies against our nice Mr. Cheney and Haliburton.

www.halliburtonwatch.org...


Why do you ignore the fact that Haliburton has been under US military contract since WWII Marg?

You cannot blame it all on one person he only worked for them for a few years. What about all the years when other presidents both Dem and Rep were in office and he did not work for for Haliburton?



posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Probably not, and I also don’t agree with their decision of a non-bidding deal.


There was a very valid reason for that decision WestPoint, they were the only company that had the infrastructure in place on a moments notice, that could handle the job.




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join