[Kevin]

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

My point is that if more people die due to the "war on terror" than die by terror itself then your strategy is seriously flawed.

Not at all. I showed where that was the case too in WWII.

Besides most don't go to war because of those that have already died. We do so to save future lives. They lives lost now will save 10x that amount in the future.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Not at all. I showed where that was the case too in WWII.

Besides most don't go to war because of those that have already died. We do so to save future lives. They lives lost now will save 10x that amount in the future.

Well, if this is true of all wars, how many have been saved since the birth of Humanity, counting the world has been at war and under violence for close to 95% of the time?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Uncle I was under the impression that this was a war on terrorism and not on JUST those that attacked us.

Saddam wasn't a terrorist

[tie]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Uncle I was under the impression that this was a war on terrorism and not on JUST those that attacked us.

It amazes me how many times I've had to say that.

Probably you have to keep on saying it because it is wrong!

[tie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

First of all, gomac is the one claiming to be the google wizard. Besides, I'm not the one claiming Rumsfeld said it would cost $50 billion, you are. As soon as gomac lets you use his computer again, why don't you google it and provide the quote. IN CONTEXT.

Spliffdaddy, you got anything to say before tie leaves the thread again? At least say... "bye tie" That's what I always say.

Bye, ebuddy! Once more, I provided the quotes you wanted, and once more I was right.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by tie 

Bye, ebuddy! Once more, I provided the quotes you wanted, and once more I was right.

Are you kidding me Jr? Is the "got'cha!" moment the one where you admit; "OK, I admit that the situation isn't as clear as I had thought."??? Thanks for affirming my original point. Rumsfeld was not referring to the democratization of Iraq in less than six months. Notice gomac has not returned. He's been corrected and wisely stepped aside. You, on the other hand have more pride and continue on with... "Well, So?!? HE ALSO SAID...!!!" This is just silliness. Now that we've talked about what Wolfowitz said and what the Office of Management and Budget estimated it would cost, how about what Rumsfeld said???

"The Office of Management and Budget estimated it would be something under 50 billion dollars."

That's what Rumsfeld said based on what the Office of Management and Budget estimated it would cost.

Then you go on to say; "I can only find a transcript of one interview where Rumsfeld gave the $50 billion figure." and that is specifically referencing toppling Saddam in an interview with Stephanapolis prior to our action in Iraq; A. B. He was quoting the figure given by a more authoritative source than himself. I also read where he said "war never plays out". Did you catch that?

I find it interesting that your ilk would present a Rumsfeld quote out of context and when I absolutely obliterate the nonsense, you bring up more nonsense; then compound it with "okay, I was also wrong on Wolfowitz" (whom I didn't bring up). How about addressing the fact that you were wrong in the first place on the original topic and less than clear on the second topic? (Again, a topic I did not bring up). A topic citing a Rumsfeld quote when the quote was Rumsfeld citing an Office of Management and Budget quote. I mean, you've managed to be wrong on issues we weren't even discussing. C'mon tie, gomac was doing better than this.

Bye indeed.

[tie]

ebuddy, Rumsfeld gave the $50 billion figure himself. I really have no idea what you are quibbling about. Of course, he drew from other sources to come up with this estimate -- did you expect him to draw it from thin air? Why are you surprised that multiple sources in the administration, Defense and the OMB, gave the same estimate? Nonetheless, he gave the estimate himself, and in fact gave a number at the low end of the OMB estimate (which was $50-60 billion).

Then you argue that Rumsfeld's estimate came prior to our action in Iraq?! In an interview which specifically referenced toppling Saddam?! No kidding, that was the whole point! I guess you want me to find an interview after the start of the war where Rumsfeld does not mention toppling Saddam, yet he does mention war on Iraq and estimates the cost of the war without giving any information on how he came up with his estimate? These criteria are ridiculous.

I mentioned Wolfowitz because he said that the reconstruction would cost $0 billion, and another administration official said it would cost <$2 billion. So if you claim the war ended with the toppling of Saddam (which it clearly didn't, but I'll play along), then even still the total estimates of Rumsfeld and his deputy, for the war and the post-war war, are just $50 billion.