Why Obama Giving The Order To Kill Bin Laden Was Significant

Monday morning quarterbacking is always genius at work.

Half the football teams who played this past weekend are mulling over what "could have been" if "only we had done this or that"!

The fast food mentality of our society is not fit for protracted commitments at anything ... even personal relationships. Everything from hamburgers to automobiles have a short shelf life for the average American. Going in was not the bad part. Staying was. Originally Posted by LexusLover

I thought we should have left Iraq alone before we started fucking with them. I was right.

You are the dishonest hack who has trouble reading graphs. I said even at the peak the actual number was "barely half" the $20 Bn. a month you cited - and my graph confirms this! Either cite a credible source for your higher number or admit you're a lying hack!

And the proper methodology for tallying cost is to look at actual DOD expenditures. Adding estimates of future VA benefits and interest is an arbitrary and flaky attempt to inflate the total. You can make a case against any war without being intellectually dishonest. Originally Posted by lustylad

The tallest column on your graph is year 2008. The vertical axis is about 150 billion. The 2008 column does not touch the 150 billion, so let's call it 148 billion. Divide 148 billion by 12 and what do you get 12.3 billion. Since I don't have time to chase down a link for what someone said 8 years ago. I will change what I wrote. In 2008 the USA was SPENDING 12.3 BILLION a month on Iraq.

I thought you went to an Ivy league school. How come you have trouble with graphs?

The tallest column on your graph is year 2008. The vertical axis is about 150 billion. The 2008 column does not touch the 150 billion, so let's call it 148 billion. Divide 148 billion by 12 and what do you get 12.3 billion. Since I don't have time to chase down a link for what someone said 8 years ago. I will change what I wrote. In 2008 the USA was SPENDING 12.3 BILLION a month on Iraq.

I thought you went to an Ivy league school. How come you have trouble with graphs? Originally Posted by flghtr65

https://www.nationalpriorities.org/c...FQwKaQodK3EKKA

https://www.nationalpriorities.org/cost-of/ Originally Posted by i'va biggen

He passed this up also.

The tallest column on your graph is year 2008. The vertical axis is about 150 billion. The 2008 column does not touch the 150 billion, so let's call it 148 billion. Divide 148 billion by 12 and what do you get 12.3 billion. Since I don't have time to chase down a link for what someone said 8 years ago. I will change what I wrote. In 2008 the USA was SPENDING 12.3 BILLION a month on Iraq.

I thought you went to an Ivy league school. How come you have trouble with graphs? Originally Posted by flghtr65

Let's see, where do I start on you this time, moron?

You claim you have no “time to chase down a link for what someone said 8 years ago” about the Iraq war costing us $20 bn. a month. Yet you whined because my first bar chart refuting your number was 6 years old. Looks to me like it's not a matter of your having no time to chase down anything, flighty. You're just too damn weak and wimpy to admit you made up the $20 bn. a month number.

You claim I can't read graphs. Then why am I the one who trotted out a SECOND graph to dumb it all down for you, flighty? Here it is again... see how I removed all the guesswork for you? Each bar has three numbers on it showing actual spending in Iraq, Afghanistan, and combined. That's for dumbfucks like you who don't know how to read the bars alone.



For the peak year of 2008, the exact number is $142.1 bn. So there's no need to say “let's call it 148 billion”. Now do the math again (I do it in my head, but it's ok for you to use a calculator) and you get $11.8 billion. Gee flighty, that's over 40% LOWER than your number. Or, as I correctly mentioned earlier, it's BARELY HALF the amount you stupidly tossed out of $20 billion.

Of course, when you stupidly tossed out that fictitious, made-up number you did it this way:

We had been spending over 20 billion per month in Iraq.... Liberating Mosul will not be more costly than the 20 billion per month we were spending over there. Originally Posted by flghtr65

Notice how you didn't even qualify your fictitious number by adding “at the peak”. You wanted everyone to think we were spending $20 billion a month throughout the entire course of the war, from start to finish. Kind of dishonest of you, isn't it flighty? It's all on Bush, so you feel free to fudge and inflate the numbers as much as you can to make him look bad.

Once again, my graph exposes your lying. Add up all the bar amounts for 2003-2011 and you get $797.3 billion. Divide by 9 and you get $88.6 billion. Divide by 12 and you get $7.4 billion.

Bottom line – we spent an average of $7.4 billion a month on the Iraq war. That's barely ONE-THIRD of what you falsely claimed we spent.

Had enough, dipshit? Like I said earlier, you should know better than to toss out false, inflated numbers at me. And let's not forget why you did it either. You wanted to deflect from Odumbo's stupid and disastrous decision to withdraw 100% of our forces back in 2011. You wanted to suggest it won't cost us anything to go back and fix the mess created by his ill-considered decision to put 2012 Presidential election politics ahead of US and Iraqi security needs.

The proper comparison that you are afraid to make is between the cost of keeping a small, residual force in Iraq then and the cost of our having to go back in since 2014. ISIS has now occupied Mosul for over 2 years. Any fool can see that liberating it will be much more costly today than had we made sure those ragheads never set foot in the city in the first place.

Yeah flighty, I have an Ivy League degree - and it shows. You're a Wisconsin community college dropout and it shows, too.

so mojorisin stuck to his guns on bin laden 9/11 hit

Bin Laden had a death sentence since the Bill Clinton days. Obama got the assignment and made good on the promise.