For all the talk, I really do wonder if Republicans actually want to win a war.
After the 911 attacks we all rallied behind President Bush and demanded justice and revenge. Nothing wrong with revenge. That is a big part of what justice is.
But all the while we were demanding war and invasions and occupations and nation building and freedom and democracy and apple pie and honoring our Judeo/Christian Forefathers and putting up Ten Commandment monuments everywhere we could, damn few of us were demanding we pay for all this.
Where were all the great right leaning Americans who said forget my tax cut Mr. President. We have a war to pay for. Our Troops need proper equipment. We need to focus on victory no matter what the cost.
But alas. My faith in the right wasn't shaken because there never was any. While our Soldiers went to fight in Afghanistan and then Iraq, the right decided it was more American I guess to dig our Nation into a gaping debt than raise taxes enough to pay for the wars and promises we made to those that fought them.
Now the General in Afghanistan is calling for more Troops. Not surprising. Generals always call fro more Troops. Republican senators will line up to attack President Obama if he doesn't send them. But how many will have the balls to say "Folks. This time, let's pay for it. We need to raise taxes."
Not one of them.
We have the best people in the world serving in our Nation's Armed Forces. And we can't even honor them enough to pay for the wars and occupations we send them to.
God Bless America, I hope.
53 comments:
It's Obama’s policies are losing the war how can you blame it on the republicans?
Obama has long said that we have been fighting the wrong war...that Afghanistan is where we should have been concentrating, not Iraq.
So now that Obama's own General is requesting more troops, Obama is sitting on his hands!
Problem is, Obama promised an immediate pull-out if he got elected.
Looks like his chickens are coming home to roost.
This common bashing and false labeling of Republicans is getting to be ridiculous
The Key for the Punk Ass Bitch Chicken Hawk Right and the REMFpublicans is to divert attention by starting wars overseas, which they never have any attention of joining and fighting, and concentrating upon the Homeland where they attack Veterans and Anti-War Americans and use the Power of the Federal Government to enrich themselves, their families and cronies.
Why am I not surprised that feax patriot, Robert Thomas, never once offered to help pay for the Iraq and Afghanistan occupations. As usual, another rightie content to borrow our Nation into extinction.
You know, all I hear is that some General wants 40,000 more troops for Afghanistan...
Does anyone have a clue what he plans on doing with these troops? What's his plan?
Is he going to guarantee a victory in Afghanistan? Does he have a date and time for this victory once he receives his troops?
Can he define what he means by winning?
Just a thought....
If we weren't pouring money into everything else under the sun (wasted Wall Street Bailouts, bullshit stimulus, buying and subsidizing whole industries (the auto industry) and a whole myriad of things government doesn't need to be pouring money into, then the cost of fielding the military wouldn't be that extra strain.
Having said that, Obama himself said this was the war we needed to fight. And he either needs to let the soldiers win it (and listen to his generals) or just pull out and surrender. Debt for war is acceptable because you don't half-ass a war (Vietnam being the shining example of half-assery).
Patrick,
WAR added 5 trillion to our debt BEFORE we even contemplated bailing out everybody and everything.
Our friend and colleague, Shaw, has had a recurrence of cancer. This is her second bout in as many years. This year, Shaw has suffered other setbacks as well. Earlier this year, her sister passed away. And she worries about another family member who is gravely ill.
On top of this run of bad luck, Shaw is also being harassed by a cyber-bully. I can’t think of anything more hurtful … to be attacked at a time like this.
Shaw and I exchanged several e-mails earlier today. With her knowledge and permission, I have put up this post, Stop the sadistic and sexist cyber-bullying now!.
Please drop by and leave a kind word for Shaw. She is a good person who deserves a kind word.
Bush lost this war when he took his eyes off the ball, and decided to use our military in a criminal aggression against an innocent country.
With ten percent of the money Bush poured down the sewer in Iraq, we could have gone a long way toward helping the Afghan people build a modern, functional society, and proved to them that we are people of good will. Instead, Bush left just enough troops behind to kill a bunch of them every few weeks, and give them all the reason in the world to hate us.
It's too late now. And don't even begin your pathetic whining about how we are blaming Bush. It's long past time that conservatives face the incredible damage that they have done to our country, with their greed and their hatred, and their tea parties, and their stupid, phony ideology.
Mr. Thomas, it is your fault. The collapsed economy is your fault. the perversion of the Supreme Court and the justice department are your fault. The fact that we are hated around the world and now have virtually no allies is your fault. It's all your fault, and you can scream and smear and lie and whine all you want- we are not going to forget it.
Tao: where do you get these numbers? Your ass?
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf
That's less than $1 trillion over 8 years. At least get your facts right when you want to argue. And even with the issues of the Iraq war, it's better spent than the trillions the government has wasted on bailing stuff out in the last year.
I thought the stimulus was 700 billion of which a little more than half has been spent Patrick. Big numbers I admit. But trillions on bailouts? Not yet anyway my friend.
But while I have everyone's attention. Is a two percent income tax going to hurt more than not being able to pay for winning wars and occupations? Keeping the promises made to the Veterans who served? Keeping prisons open so we can keep criminals off the streets? C'mon people. I don't care what political persuasion you are. Whatever cuts are suggested will be shot down by both sides. But we'll still hear the same bullshit about cutting waste. If your adjusted gross income is 30,000 a year. Two percent is a little over $11 a week. If you are pissed about that, refuse the police and fire protection government provides. Refuse to drive on the roads built and maintained by tax dollars.
We aren't going to cut and save out of the 11 trillion debt.
Patrick M how can you know any money used in Iraq was "better spent"? Ever been there? All you have are reports from the Federal Government that things went swimmingly there. That evil Federal Government....
Sigh. What makes you think that raising taxes would mean additional revenue for the government? Sometimes raising marginal rates results in less revenue, it all depends on where we are on the Laffer curve.
But if that's what it will take to make you liberals agree to fight in Afghanistan, so be it. I'll agree to a tax raise IF AND ONLY IF:
1) ALL of the additional money goes to the military.
2) You agree - IN WRITING - to reduce rates when we win
3) You agree to stick it out in Afghanistan until we win.
As for the commenters here...
Patrick M - ditto your thoughts!
Green Eagle - a known loser. He's just looking for an excuse to lose in Afghanistan. He's sore that we won in Iraq
Tao - actually asks good questions. Obama needs to make the case for Afghanistan.
"Does anyone have a clue what he plans on doing with these troops? What's his plan?"
Read the US Army /Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Field Manual 3-24
"Is he going to guarantee a victory in Afghanistan?"
Are you serious? Did the signers of the Declaration guarantee victory over the British?
"Does he have a date and time for this victory once he receives his troops?"
Again, are you serious? Did the signers of the Declaration set a date and time for victory over the British?
Me being serious - this isn't World War II so it's not going to end in dramatic fashion. In fact, even after the violence stops it'd be years before we can be sure of we've won.
Insurgencies don't end with a bang, they wither away.
By the same token, the counterinsurgents don't need high levels of force throughout the entire campaign. Just as insurgencies wither away, the counterinsurgents slowly reduce their force levels as they whittle away at the insurgency.
How long? Well, the shortest time in modern history that it's ever taken to beat an insurgency is 10 years. So we're ahead of the historical trend in Iraq, and at less than 7 years into Afghanistan a bit behind schedule (because we've got farther to go there).
Can he define what he means by winning?"
Finally, a good question. The answer is: a relatively stable Afghanistan at peace with it's neighbors and with no insurgency.
Hard? Yes. Impossible? Not at all.
Tom the Redhunter has this to say about me: "Green Eagle - a known loser. He's just looking for an excuse to lose in Afghanistan. He's sore that we won in Iraq."
Leaving aside the obvious fact that George Bush's aggression against Iraq was one of the most colossal military blunders in the history of mankind, I would like to know, Mr. Redhunter, what you think you know about me that gives you any justification for calling me a "known loser," or saying that I am looking for a chance to lose in Afghanistan. I don't think you know a God damned about me, and I believe you are lying about me just as you are lying about everything else. Put up or shut up, Mr. Tough Guy.
...I'll leave others to defend themselves from your childish post, if they care.
I appreciate your idea about all new taxes going to the military Tom. The fli side is, I see no way to "win" anything in Iraq and Afghanistan. We can keep pouring money and lives into them and when we leave, it's back to the same old crap. Fundamentalists or brutal dictators. While we're fighting for freedom, or whatever we're fighting for over there, their people are fighting for their religion. They still brutalize women in both places in the name of their religion. They still grow opium in Afghanistan.
If spending a trillion or more would really turn Iraq and Afghanistan into functioning republics that respect human rights it's money well spent. Right now and in any forseeable future, it's money down the toilet as far as I'm concerned.
Nope, patrick, not from my ass but rather from the ass of a libertarian/conservative:
http://www.humblelibertarian.com/2009/10/republicans-why-would-america-want-you.html
So, you may want to go over and correct this information with these obviously misinformed libertarians/Ron Paul supporters...
TAO said...
You know, all I hear is that some General wants 40,000 more troops for Afghanistan...
Does anyone have a clue what he plans on doing with these troops? What's his plan?
Ask Obama!
Today my thoughts are catalyzed by the hostile liberal comments I’ve read on some blogs and the insincere left-minded posts regarding conservatives who disagree with Obama and his ideas. I am glad to stand apart from you. You are an angry, insatiable bunch. You do the exact same things that you criticize others for, and then you go bonkers.
We can stand on different sides of politics without being so hateful.
I DID NOT VOTE FOR BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA. I VOTED FOR JOHN MCCAIN.
Get over yourselves already, you people on the left. Everything is not about you. It is about America. I and other Americans are tired of your over-used, emotional, race-baiting nonsense.
I have seen some pretty hostile conservatives, but right now the disappointment in Obama is catapulting the left into heights of total and complete confused anger. I say confused because they believed in him so much. Their scrambling to defend him is a requiem of their fear. Conservatives have always been able to criticize their own and do it regularly. Liberals can't and won't find fault in themselves
That’s all.
101: My number includes last year's Wall Street bailout as well. That puts it over a trillion easy.
I do agree that if we're going to keep spending the way we are, tax increases will be inevitable. But it won't be war that does it.
Grung_e: I make that statement from a simple principle: Fighting (debatable) enemies of America is a clear purpose of the federal government; throwing money at everything moving (welfare for the poor, corporate welfare, and everything in between) is a perfect example of overreaching, and the reason we're really in a financial mess. And both parties are to blame for this.
Tao: The paulistas are notorious for being nutbags (even if I agree with them mostly). But you misquote even THAT number:
While lowering taxes, you let spending swell. You never balanced the budget. You added $5 trillion to the national debt.
...of which less than $1 trillion was war spending. The other $4 trillion includes the same kind of idiotic social spending (like the Wall Street bailout, most notoriously) that Obama is promising to double down on now.
To Whom: In fairness to the "angry liberals," the most vicious personal attacks have been coming from the crazies on the right (see the comment from (O)CT(O)PUS above). Your energies would be better spent working against people on our side of the aisle that behave badly and let the liberals police their own filth.
Red,
The biggest fallacy in your logic is to tie the signers of the declaration of independence to an explanation of what is going on in Afghanistan.
It is one thing to 'pay the price' in ones own country its another to thing to 'pay the price' so that Afghanistan as you said, "Can he define what he means by winning?"
Finally, a good question. The answer is: a relatively stable Afghanistan at peace with it's neighbors and with no insurgency."
Now, I have no problem with going into Afghanistan and wiping out Al-Qaeda but to go in and then all of the sudden decide to nation build is all again another story.
That is the point that all of you neoconservatives seem to forget as you rush off attacking everything and everybody...
Its also the question that military leaders do not have to deal with...
"How does what occurs in Afghanistan and Iraq effect America and Americans? Why is the future of those two failed states critical to the future of the United States?"
Now you can go and chase all the theories you want, like Vietnam, and democracy for everyone...but at the end of the day the reality is that gets you a couple of years not 10 or 15 like you are claiming.
So you can read whatever field manual you want but that is generalities not specifics in regards to Afghanistan.
This is a different debate but our government had no choice but to fund the stimulus. It was either that or collapse of the financial system which would have cost far more in money and misery than the 700 billion.
As for Iraq and Afghanistan, President Obama is going to keep Troops there into the unforseeable future. This is stupid. Either institute the draft. Send however many Troops are necessary and raise the taxes necessary to pay for it. Or leave altogether.
Leaving our Troops in both places is merely a pander to right wing interests or just another show of cowardice by legislators afraid they will be labeled as panzies.
Truth101 Said: Leaving our Troops in both places is merely a pander to right wing interests or just another show of cowardice by legislators afraid they will be labeled as panzies.
Give it up already that Blame Game is getting to be boring.
I just blamed the left as much as the right TS. I can't even blame bipartisanly without being pilloried by someone anymore. Geeze!
As to Afghanistan and a song I heard many, many years ago while serving in Vietnam:
"We gotta get out of this place if it's the last thing we ever do...."
The Animals
That's a very sane approach Mad Mike. I've always said if you want a wise dog, get a German Shepherd.
Your wonderful union gave us a good hosing Joe101. Proud of them?
No.
From Wikipedia, more on the total cost of the Iraq War:
Indirect and delayed costs
According to a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report published in October 2007, the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could cost taxpayers a total of $2.4 trillion dollars by 2017 when counting the huge interest costs because combat is being financed with borrowed money. The CBO estimated that of the $2.4 trillion long-term price tag for the war, about $1.9 trillion of that would be spent on Iraq.
Stiglitz, former chief economist of the World Bank and winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics, has stated the total costs of the Iraq War on the US economy will be three trillion dollars in a moderate scenario, and possibly more in the most recent published study, published in March 2008. Stiglitz has stated: "The figure we arrive at is more than $3 trillion. Our calculations are based on conservative assumptions. They are conceptually simple, even if occasionally technically complicated. A $3 trillion figure for the total cost strikes us as judicious, and probably errs on the low side. Needless to say, this number represents the cost only to the United States. It does not reflect the enormous cost to the rest of the world, or to Iraq."
The CRS estimated in September 2006 that total expenditures had topped half a trillion dollars. Additionally, the extended combat and equipment loss have placed a severe financial strain on the U.S Army, causing the elimination of non-essential expenses such as travel and civilian hiring.
As the total passed US$450 billion, the cost for the Iraq war reached approximately $1500 per person in the United States. If the Iraq war were to wind up costing 1.9 trillion dollars, the cost would be over 4.2 times higher ($6,300 per United States citizen.) This would put the expense at $25,000 for an average family of four, or $32,000 per family if Afghanistan is included.
As a comparison, with this money he estimates that one could have built 8 million houses, paid 15 million teachers, paid for the child care of 530 million kids, paid for the scholarship of 43 million students, offered social safety net during 50 year to Americans. Stigltz also said that United States help for Africa is only $5 billion, soon to be superseded by China. $5 billions correspond to only the spending of 10 days for the war by the United States.
Long-term health care costs
A recent study indicated that the long term health care costs for wounded Iraq war veterans could range from $350 billion to $700 billion.
Military equipment lost
The U.S. has lost a number of pieces of military equipment during the war. The following statistics are from the Center for American Progress:[they are approximations that include vehicles lost in non-combat-related accidents as of 2006.
Land equipment
20 M1 Abrams tanks
55 Bradley fighting vehicles
20 Stryker wheeled combat vehicles
20 M113 armored personnel carriers
250 Humvees
500+ Mine clearing vehicles, heavy/medium trucks, and trailers
10 Amphibious Assault Vehicles
Air equipment
Main article: List of aviation accidents and incidents during the Iraq War
109 Helicopters
18 Fixed-Wing Aircraft
In June 2006, the Army said that the cost of replacing its depleted equipment tripled from that of 2005. As of December 2006, according to government data reported by the Washington Post, the military stated that nearly 40% of the army’s total equipment has been to Iraq, with an estimated yearly refurbishment cost of $US 17 billion. The military states that the yearly refurbishment cost has increased by a factor of ten compared to that of the pre-war state. As of December 2006 approximately 500 M1 tanks, 700 Bradley Fighting Vehicles and 1000 Humvees are awaiting repair in US military depots.
truth101 asks..."For all the talk, I really do wonder if Republicans actually want to win a war."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Isn't it the democrats that don't want to send the much need Troops in to support the war in Afganistan?
Nancy Pelosi said that such a request would not be well received.
If I said it oce, I've said it 50 times.
Either we send more troops as needed or we get out. It would be courting death for the soldiers that are already there if more troops are needed and we don't send any to support them.
It's the Republicans that are pressing Obama to send more troops. Isn't that a sign that they DO wish to 'WIN the WAR'? I would think that it is.
Right now the scummy politicians are hanging our military out to dry. They MUST either abide what the General says or pick up our marbles and go home. We can not not accept the status quo as a solution. We can not let our troops be sitting targets.
But until the teleprompter tells Obama to send the troops requested he will sit on his hands and pull a Lyndon B Johnson! Victory or defeat is in the Presidents hands! He just gave away Eastern Europe why not Afghanistan!
But we have a guy in the White house who can't make up his mind about Gitmo, who can’t settle "Health Care" reform, can't even tell the truth, and always having the "race" card readily available on any given day. So How do we expect to see a correct and prompt decision in this vital question? Even if time is of the essence!
Anyone that was in the military during a war knows that the General calls the shots- listen to the General- he is in the war with the troops. let the troops General decide if more troops are needed... If Obama can’t rely on HIS own General then replace him.. But DO SOMETHING.
Bumper stickers or t-shirts, flags on our cars, or buttons, etc are not going to win this war.. We have to use the high tech weapon that we have and not be concerned about hurting anyone’s feelings. Yes, War is hell , allowing our own troops to be killed is worse.
While I disagree with you Professor on the giving away of Eastern Europe. How did cancelling a missle defense system that didn't work do anything but save money?
I agree with your premise on Afghanistan to a point. Tell your republican friends to raise the taxes to pay for more Troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Your side continues to talk more Troops and victory, which you will notice I have been defining but I rarley see a rightie having a clue. Apparnetly their only definition of victory is more Troops and an unlimited committment to staying in these places until "we win." But not paying for it.
I suggest all my right leaning friends read TAO's previous comment again.
Truth101, your views are out of wack
We have several of the most vicious, vile, dangerous and hateful morons competing to get the most outrageous comment out there. They are Michelle Malkin, Glenn Beck, Hannity, Dobbs, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and Michael Savage. It's tough to distinguished one from the other if you just read the quotes without listening to the sound byte.
Thank God we have people like you and Shaw to show us the truth.
How many people have died for so called "exceptionalism"? All countries think they are exceptional, but the US has gone off the deep end into hubris and narcissism. Just watching the inflated egos of the nutty media clowns is enough to make me hurl. Glenn Beck is a Clown, Ann Coulter is a NUT. and Rush is full of himself, Malkin is a moron as is Hannity, and Mike Savage should be put into a insane asylum.
That was an exceptional comment )O(.
I go on this site just to keep my sanity.. And so I don't have to watch those nuts like Glenn Beck Hannity etc on TV or hear them on the radio. I like to be kept informed but I don't want to watch these insane people-I don't want to call them people.
The Right sees humane treatment as a weakness and I'm bloody sick of it.
PS that reprehensible, dishonest and sanctimonious dumb pig Bluepittbull is even worse than all of them.
Like I said in my previous post, I'm with you on your views, all the way. Thank you Truth, I feel better now.
May God Bless you for being here.
Did anyone hear about the Bush Twins new job? They signed up for the military... Oh fuck it I don't have the Chicken Hawk chops to type a sarcastic comment.
Afghanistan... Any chance ANY REMFpublicans Right Wing Chicken Hawk Punk Ass Bitch Yellow Elephant Conservative Birtherite Teabaggers will sign up and Win the War forgotten by Bush?
Of course not the Punk Ass Bitches of the Right let others fight for country while they profiteer in the homeland....
101: Actually, the justification for spending on the (non)stimulus bills is both linked when arguing about the wasting of money, and was not a necessity. For brevity, the continued applying of wasted cash is the reason this mess continues. And this costs us boatloads more than prosecuting war.
I will also add, on the idea of leaving our troops there as a measure of cowardice: If we can win and leave, then it's worth it. If the administration is NOT going to do what it takes, or if we're at a point we can't win, then pulling out in shame would be preferential.
Tao: If you apply the same kind of speculation to any government program, the costs always triple. So by that rationale, the long-term costs of all this stimulusing is going to run somewhere between $15-20 trillion, especially as the government grows exponentially to take on all these things that it's not responsible for.
i've just started reading these comments,and I must say that some of your poster's like Patrick are so full of shit they would need a sewer to flush their crap.
One of President Obama's strengths, whether we agree with his actual policies are not, is his dignity, graciousness and intelligence. The reichwing like Patrick M know this and try to reframe it as groveling etc. Clearly not true, but they've learned from the former Soviets about the Big Lie.
And you dear Patrick M are about as stupid a stool specimen as I have ever come across. How do cretins like you actually get to a computer without a map?
)O(: Do you actually read the comment before you vomit, I mean respond, I mean spew shit?
One of President Obama's strengths, whether we agree with his actual policies are not, is his dignity, graciousness and intelligence. The reichwing like Patrick M know this and try to reframe it as groveling etc.
First of all, where do you get this blather from based on my comments?
Second, the president could be the most dignified, gracious, and intelligent (HA!) person in the world, but if his policies convey weakness, self-absorption, and stupidity, his better qualities get lost.
And third, you've never won an argument in your life without sucker-punching your opponent, have you?
Did I hit one of your itsie pitsie nerves Pattie boy?
Aw, shucks I'm so, so sorwee
Your and you're nutty rightwing blog are pretty much irrelevant anyway.
So don't come off sucking up to the liberals about being their bud. I know all about two faces "boys" like you.
)O(: No, just responding to the retarded in language you'd understand.
And noting you can't answer my serious questions.
)O(: I'm curious what you know about "two faces 'boys'" like me (other than the taste).
On to your comment Patrick. There is no shame in exhibiting good sense. It's not President Obama that has no taste for doing what it takes to successfully build a functioning republic that respects human rights in Afghanistan and Iraq. It's the right wing that talks a brave talk but refuses to allow the necessary resources to be funded to complete the task. Your side is not willing to pay for true victory as it defines it. It has no right to complain when the common sense thing is to leave. In a sense, I can agree that leaving is due to "cowardice." But not the cowardice of the left. It is the cowardice of the right for not showing the willingness to pay for these ventures. It's more important to them to pander to morons who only want to hear the magic words "tax cuts" than to actually do what's necessary to win these occupations.
Sorry my friend )O( is being so hard on you Patrick. I'm truly wanting to embrace a more civil, kind and gentle Truth Shall Rule. But it's fun watching guys that are good at it trade barbs.
101: Actually, I was having fun with )O(, although I don't think he'd last long in a rational discussion.
I'd like for him to prove me wrong, but if not, I may have to use a little more of the lashing of the tongue (which he'd probably enjoy).
I will say this for you Patrick. I've been "motherfucked" by some high power people in my day. From staffers of senators. Mayoral candidates. A former candidate for U.S. Congress. Business leaders. And just plain folk. And although I think with your deluded right wing views are a betrayal to working Americans of which you are one, you are a good motherfucker Illustrious Patrick M. There have been many times I thought the M stood for motherfucker.
I mean this in a complimentary way.
Patrick M said...
Actually, I was having fun with )O(, although I don't think he'd last long in a rational discussion.
LOL, Don't give yourself so much credit Jerkoff, I just don't want to waste my time with a small fry like you.
Go back to your ass kissers on your blog.
)O(: I understand. If I were gnat-nadded such as yourself, I'd want the other guy to run off to comfortable territory. I'd also post with relative anonymity, rather than freely revealing most information about myself.
Which makes me wonder if it's a small dick, or an enlarged clit in your case.
Oh man )O(. Patrick called you a shrimp dick and a ball buster in one sentence. I told you Patrick was good. Now don't let our side down.
Patrick M said...
)O(: I understand. If I were gnat-nadded such as yourself, I'd want the other guy to run off to comfortable territory. I'd also post with relative anonymity, rather than freely revealing most information about myself.
Which makes me wonder if it's a small dick, or an enlarged clit in your case.
wow, that was so cleaver, i won't even try to beat it.
but tell me does anyone else except truth101 and your 3 buddies on your EGO INFLATED blog appreciate your stupid 3rd grad humor?
Why would I want to stay here and trade vulgar swipes with the likes of a asswipe winger like you?
I wouldn't and I won't, so brr bye schmuck face.
TRUTH 101 said...
Oh man )O(. Patrick called you a shrimp dick and a ball buster in one sentence. I told you Patrick was good.
The question is...GOOD AT WHAT?
time warp forgotten.... another interesting facet of this whole problem is that even warmongers can see redirecting the efforts from Afghanistan (where the 9/11 bad guys were and still are) eight years ago, and invading Iraq was a strategic blunder of high magnitude.
the problem is the conditions in Afghanistan now are not the conditions of Afghanistan 8 years ago when the bad guys were on the ropes and in ragged retreat.
look up how many U.S. boots were actually on the ground when the bad guys were routed in 2002. Dubya and the boys didn't even honor calls for more troops to block their escape to Pakistan.
Afghanistan continues to be a Bush legacy problem that could have been squared away except for his chronic cranial rectitus.
and yes.... it all costs...
An emergency fund is one of the biggest stress relievers you can give yourself. And who doesn't want to reduce stress? When you have an emergency fund, there is less anxiety.
Instead of trying to borrow the money or putting the repair on a credit card, you can pay for it out of the emergency fund.
Post a Comment