That's the perception of many Americans too, which is why Bush needs to be so careful about timing. In reality the numbers bandied about for the cost of the War amount to a couple percent of GDP for the US... not a particularly huge deal (considering that during WW2 the US was spending over 40% of GDP on the military). And as far as deficits are concerned, the US Debt/GDP ratio is on par with most industrial nations I've seen data for. Less than some Europeans, more than others. Overall at the end of '01 US Debt/GDP was around 45%... for comparison the EU average is about 70%.

That's the perception of many Americans too, which is why Bush needs to be so careful about timing. In reality the numbers bandied about for the cost of the War amount to a couple percent of GDP for the US... not a particularly huge deal (considering that during WW2 the US was spending over 40% of GDP on the military). And as far as deficits are concerned, the US Debt/GDP ratio is on par with most industrial nations I've seen data for. Less than some Europeans, more than others. Overall at the end of '01 US Debt/GDP was around 45%... for comparison the EU average is about 70%.</font>[/QUOTE]The cost of build-up and eventual war with Iraq is one of the most complelling arguments against the war. I cannot percieve 25-50 billion dollars as a mere drop in the bucket. That is real money spent and gone. Debt is not good and the way out is built purely in optimism.

Having 50-80 billion dollars (a war-cost estimate I read in Time) more for U.S. security and abunndance inside the borders over the next three to five years is way more appealing to me than spending it on speculated and percieved threats overseas. Considering the vauge facts tying Iraq to Al Queda it seems the broader war on terror, with real facts and threats, should take financial priority.
I know the subway I ride is not terrorproof and neither is the mall I work in, probably never will be, but they could have more cops present and more trains to keep it from become so dangerously crammed. The reason why they don't is they don't have the money. The war on terror at home is where the real threat is.

At home we face a nursing shortage and some communities lay-off first responders while we gear up to pay an exorbitant amount of money for a very unpopular war.


I can think of alot of things to pay for with that kind of money, at home. The needs at home outweigh the threat of Iraq and the critical timing is last year.

Well, thats just my two pennies as a U.S. taxpaying citizen.

[ 02-28-2003, 08:44 PM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

No one is saying saddam is a nice guy, but what has he actually done?. and what is he planning?. Absolutely nothing seems to be the answer. If america wants a war aginst iraq for its own reasons (oil?) or as usual to support israel in some way let it pay for it itself.
the full might of american military intelligence has unearthed not one single WOMD and not onle link to al queda.

There are equally or more evil regimes in the world that america does nothing about, so why pick on iraq?.
One of the greatest violators of human rights in the region is israel, but the US won't hear a word against them will it?.

<font color="#ffccff">Try reading the papers or the news shows. I gave a quick list in your other thread. </font>

<font color=orange>Do you just like repeating yourself or something, cause I just saw this same statement in your other thread. At least come up with something original every once in a while. You might try going to your thread and reading my response there. I'm not going to repeat it here.</font>

Yeah, Desdicado, I posted a reply to this statement on the other thread as well.