Breaking my own rule not to respond to you anymore in this post:
Originally posted by theking
Here is a real scenario for you...that I believe to be true.
The Second World War ended 58 years ago...we have found the money to keep troops in Europe for 58 years...there are currently more troops in Europe that there are in Iraq.
WRONG! MANY MORE COMBAT TROOPS IN IRAQ THAN EUROPE!
COSTS MORE TO MAINTAIN THIS LEVEL OF COMBAT THAN PEACETIME EUROPE!
-------
The Second World War ended 58 years ago...we have found the money to keep troops in Asia for 58 years...there are currently almost as many troops in Asia as there are in Iraq.
WRONG! MANY MORE COMBAT TROOPS IN IRAQ THAN ASIA!
COSTS MORE TO MAINTAIN THIS LEVEL OF COMBAT THAN PEACETIME ASIA!
-----------
I suggest to you that we will find the money to keep troops in Iraq for 58 years...if we deem it to be necessary...and it will probably be deemed necessary...as historically the US maintains forces in an AO once they have been initially introduced.
SUGGESTIONS DON'T PAY FOR AMMO!
And just for the sake of argument..let's say you are RIGHT..that it costs more to maintain Euorpe AND Asia that it does currently in Iraq.
If that was true, over 50% of our total expenditures would go just for these 3 areas out of our entire budget.
Your world where there is unlimited money to finance whatever we deemed to be truely necessary does not exist.
|