The price tag for rebuilding Iraq.

[tcsenter]

To me it seems the invasion guarantees a permanent presence in the region, in multiple spots, and with it a perpetual taxpayer obligation to fund that presence. And I really wonder if it doesn't insure those future 9/11s?

You think US forces are going to be administrating and providing the security in Iraq forever? Our forces in Afghanistan are dwindling and increasingly becoming more multi-national or reliant upon Afghan security. The 'perception' of Afghanistan being a US military outpost is decreasing and will continue to.

Iraq will be a very tough row to hoe, no question, but there is really no support for the logic that the US will have to maintain for many years to come a visible force in Iraq that will continue to incite in the minds of many a perception of 'military occupation' by the US.

We will have a military presence in the "region", but not on the 'Holy Lands' which are the source of great resentment and bitterness.

The idea is to delegitimize the long-standing grievances into which Bin Laden and other Islamic extremists are tapping so they no longer ring true with those disgruntled Muslim populations. Not 'what Bin Laden can tap into today' but rather 'five...ten...years from now'. If we are minimally successful in Iraq, then there will be nothing to which these groups can point as a grievance because Iraq will not only have been freed from a regime that most in the Muslim world found contemptible but the Iraqi people will have been provided relief from the sanctions most in the Muslim world found condemnable.

There has to be a plan that seeks to accomplish some kind of long-term remedy to these grievances without confessing to the world of terrorist organizations that 'terrorism works', even if the short term consequence is to inflame anti-US sentiment. Again, short-sightedness has been our problem for years, that's what got us into this position.

The Israeli-Palestinian question is far more duanting and better men than GWB have failed to bring about enduring peace in that region. 'US presence on the Holy Lands' and the Iraq problem are do-able today.

 

[tcsenter]

Another fortune teller.

The two year anniversary of 9/11 is just 9 days away. There hasn't been another terrorist attack.

Another victim of myopia.

Logical fallacy:

"There was not an attack yesterday, or the day before, there will never be another attack."

Even though the Bush administration hasn't taken the necessary steps to avoid another one. Too costly what with the $500 BILLION deficit and the cost of the unnecessary invasion of Iraq.

And your idea of these 'necessary steps to avoid another terrorist attack' would be?

So we haven't really paid for the first one, have we?

By that same token, if Bush hasn't taken the necessary steps to avoid another terrorist attack, then we really are no more secure against a terrorist attack than we were the day before 9/11?

Let's not worry about "a couple more" until we've at least made a down payment on the first.

lol! We aren't discussing the purchase of another nuclear submarine. We're discussing a cost that would be forced upon us without our chosing, the equivalent of three or four dozen more nuclear submarines, not to mention the human toll. That we haven't, as you say, 'made the downpayment on the first terrorist attack' is even further reinforcement that we could hardly afford a second, eh?

 

[BoberFett]

I don't have anything relevant to add to the conversation.

It just amuses me that I can pick out a BOBDN topic from the Today page's Hot Topics section by title alone.

 

[JellyBaby]

You think US forces are going to be administrating and providing the security in Iraq forever?

Forever is a very long time. Years for certain, decades possible, my entire lifetime debatable. If not in Iraq, surely elsewhere in the region, where ever the next foothold is rationalized. I do feel this will be a political issue in the next couple of national elections and we'll have "debate" but in the end U.S. taxpayer money will flow into the mid east under auspices of security and hemegony, in record proportions.

The idea is to delegitimize the long-standing grievances into which Bin Laden and other Islamic extremists are tapping

We "left" Saudi Arabi by closing down our main airbase there yet terror found Iraq and flourishes there now. Perhaps because the U.S. we also increased its presence in Kuwait, Qatar and a few other nearby states? My guts tells me there's more fuel now to fire OBL and his thugs than ever and this was a fear of mine long before the warmongers mongered.

There has to be a plan that seeks to accomplish some kind of long-term remedy to these grievances without confessing to the world of terrorist organizations that 'terrorism works',

Sounds right but what we're doing seems to be creating more terrorism. I hope you're right and I hope it's only for a time.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
I don't have anything relevant to add to the conversation.

We all knew that before you posted it. But it's nice of you to be honest enough to admit it.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Another victim of myopia.

Logical fallacy:

"There was not an attack yesterday, or the day before, there will never be another attack."

You people are using 9/11 just like the terrorists did. To advance your own sick agenda. When anyone disagrees with you you pull out the threat of another 9/11. If the Bush administration did the necessary work the risk would be minimized. But they haven't. They increase the size of government agencies, write the "Patriot Act" (talk about LOL) to take away our constitutionally guaranteed freedoms and ignore the real risk just like they did two years ago. Disgusting.

And your idea of these 'necessary steps to avoid another terrorist attack' would be?

My idea of those necessary steps to avoid another terrorist attack would be to fund airport security for a start. Pay for enough security personnel, PROFESSIONAL GOVERNMENT TRAINED AND EMPLOYED SECURITY PERSONNEL, to check passengers AND cargo. Pay for sky martials on long flights instead of firing them because putting them up in hotels overnight is too expensive. Put in place a system for checking the millions of containers that come into our ports every year. That's just for a start. Instead of running off half cocked to Iraq to start a war that has NOTHING to do with terrorism.

By that same token, if Bush hasn't taken the necessary steps to avoid another terrorist attack, then we really are no more secure against a terrorist attack than we were the day before 9/11?

That's right. Now you're getting it.

lol! We aren't discussing the purchase of another nuclear submarine. We're discussing a cost that would be forced upon us without our chosing, the equivalent of three or four dozen more nuclear submarines, not to mention the human toll. That we haven't, as you say, 'made the downpayment on the first terrorist attack' is even further reinforcement that we could hardly afford a second, eh?

Your circular logic is ridiculous. If Bush and Co. were serious about stopping a terrorist attack they could. They found a way to waste $100 BILLION on a useless war in Iraq. They can find a way to fund anti-terror initiatives here at home. They found a way to fund over a TRILLION DOLLARS IN TAX CUTS they can find a way to fund anti-terror initiatives.

Stop making excuses for these lying imbeciles. They're losing the battle against terrorism because of their screwed up prioirities and their insistence on spending money on unnecessary invasions and even more unnecessary tax cuts to help their wealthy friends pay for all those donations to the re-elect Bush campaign (may God forbid). It's a pretty good return on investment when you're guy gets into office and hands you a trillion dollar tax cut that he only charges you 250 million for in return.

You're supporting an administration that is ignoring the true terrorist threat at the price of innocent lives here at home and in Iraq.

For God's sake WTFUP! (wake the **** up!)

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

To me it seems the invasion guarantees a permanent presence in the region, in multiple spots, and with it a perpetual taxpayer obligation to fund that presence. And I really wonder if it doesn't insure those future 9/11s?

You think US forces are going to be administrating and providing the security in Iraq forever? Our forces in Afghanistan are dwindling and increasingly becoming more multi-national or reliant upon Afghan security. The 'perception' of Afghanistan being a US military outpost is decreasing and will continue to.

Iraq will be a very tough row to hoe, no question, but there is really no support for the logic that the US will have to maintain for many years to come a visible force in Iraq that will continue to incite in the minds of many a perception of 'military occupation' by the US.

We will have a military presence in the "region", but not on the 'Holy Lands' which are the source of great resentment and bitterness.

The idea is to delegitimize the long-standing grievances into which Bin Laden and other Islamic extremists are tapping so they no longer ring true with those disgruntled Muslim populations. Not 'what Bin Laden can tap into today' but rather 'five...ten...years from now'. If we are minimally successful in Iraq, then there will be nothing to which these groups can point as a grievance because Iraq will not only have been freed from a regime that most in the Muslim world found contemptible but the Iraqi people will have been provided relief from the sanctions most in the Muslim world found condemnable.

There has to be a plan that seeks to accomplish some kind of long-term remedy to these grievances without confessing to the world of terrorist organizations that 'terrorism works', even if the short term consequence is to inflame anti-US sentiment. Again, short-sightedness has been our problem for years, that's what got us into this position.

The Israeli-Palestinian question is far more duanting and better men than GWB have failed to bring about enduring peace in that region. 'US presence on the Holy Lands' and the Iraq problem are do-able today.

So you don't think that terrorists, like Bin Laden, will add it up? Connect the dots? Even if what you're saying is true, and even if we don't admit why we're really doing it, you don't think OBL will chalk it up to a victory for himself and the rest of the militant Islamic world? If he gets what he wants, who cares what we say we're doing it for. It no longer matters. Beyond that however, who's to say OBL or others like him won't just generate some other reason to hate us and/or attack us? After all, he hasn't declared the major military operations to be over, we have.

 

[adlep]

I dont know man,
How come anyone can argue with BOBDN on the war and Iraq topic?
As a true US patriot, I strongly oppose the total waste of our military might and manpower on a country like Iraq.
It seems to me that Iraq was not an imminent danger to the US. It looks like the continous UN pressure could do the job this time around. There was no need to go to war which will cost us so much money and resources....

It is a sad and scary thing with George W Bush.
There was a parody of him 3 years ago on SNL. It goes like this:
He has this speech out of the Oval Office and everything is buning in the backround, Capitol, Pentagon etc, etc...
It was very funny and unthinkable 3 years ago, but now it is not funny. It is very, very sad and terrifying...
You go BOBDN.....

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: BoberFett
I don't have anything relevant to add to the conversation.

We all knew that before you posted it. But it's nice of you to be honest enough to admit it.

My, how did you become so clever? Surely somebody as intelligent and witty as you must be a fairly high ranking official. Governor? Senator perhaps?

Oh, wait. You seem to have plenty of time on your hands, since you're posting here. With that kind of free time, I'd guess you're a nobody. You think pretty highly of your opinion considering you're a nobody.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Another victim of myopia.

Logical fallacy:

"There was not an attack yesterday, or the day before, there will never be another attack."

You people are using 9/11 just like the terrorists did. To advance your own sick agenda. When anyone disagrees with you you pull out the threat of another 9/11. If the Bush administration did the necessary work the risk would be minimized. But they haven't. They increase the size of government agencies, write the "Patriot Act" (talk about LOL) to take away our constitutionally guaranteed freedoms and ignore the real risk just like they did two years ago. Disgusting.

And your idea of these 'necessary steps to avoid another terrorist attack' would be?

My idea of those necessary steps to avoid another terrorist attack would be to fund airport security for a start. Pay for enough security personnel, PROFESSIONAL GOVERNMENT TRAINED AND EMPLOYED SECURITY PERSONNEL, to check passengers AND cargo. Pay for sky martials on long flights instead of firing them because putting them up in hotels overnight is too expensive. Put in place a system for checking the millions of containers that come into our ports every year. That's just for a start. Instead of running off half cocked to Iraq to start a war that has NOTHING to do with terrorism.

By that same token, if Bush hasn't taken the necessary steps to avoid another terrorist attack, then we really are no more secure against a terrorist attack than we were the day before 9/11?

That's right. Now you're getting it.

lol! We aren't discussing the purchase of another nuclear submarine. We're discussing a cost that would be forced upon us without our chosing, the equivalent of three or four dozen more nuclear submarines, not to mention the human toll. That we haven't, as you say, 'made the downpayment on the first terrorist attack' is even further reinforcement that we could hardly afford a second, eh?

Your circular logic is ridiculous. If Bush and Co. were serious about stopping a terrorist attack they could. They found a way to waste $100 BILLION on a useless war in Iraq. They can find a way to fund anti-terror initiatives here at home. They found a way to fund over a TRILLION DOLLARS IN TAX CUTS they can find a way to fund anti-terror initiatives.

Stop making excuses for these lying imbeciles. They're losing the battle against terrorism because of their screwed up prioirities and their insistence on spending money on unnecessary invasions and even more unnecessary tax cuts to help their wealthy friends pay for all those donations to the re-elect Bush campaign (may God forbid). It's a pretty good return on investment when you're guy gets into office and hands you a trillion dollar tax cut that he only charges you 250 million for in return.

You're supporting an administration that is ignoring the true terrorist threat at the price of innocent lives here at home and in Iraq.

For God's sake WTFUP! (wake the **** up!)

Amen!

PS. BOBDN, you should start a thread re. the costs of rebuilding Iraq. That would be an interesting topic.

I think this thread is hopelessly off on a tangent (and yes, I contributed to it).

 

[povertystruck]

And a thread about the "value of occupied Iraq"

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: BoberFett
I don't have anything relevant to add to the conversation.

We all knew that before you posted it. But it's nice of you to be honest enough to admit it.

My, how did you become so clever? Surely somebody as intelligent and witty as you must be a fairly high ranking official. Governor? Senator perhaps?

Oh, wait. You seem to have plenty of time on your hands, since you're posting here. With that kind of free time, I'd guess you're a nobody. You think pretty highly of your opinion considering you're a nobody.

So it's OK for you to attack him, but not for him to respond in kind? How lame.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

You claim Bush did not cite terrorist connections as justification for invading Iraq. I proved this was untrue, using a letter from Bush himself on whitehouse.gov. You continue to dodge this in message after message. Do you have the integrity to acknowledge your mistake or not?

I will address this question in due time.

Moving on to your diatribe, once again you neatly ignore my key question, high-lighted above. No one questions that U.N. sanctions had an effect on Muslim feelings towards the West.

Nice try. Let's look at this "key question, highlighted above":

Can you offer any evidence -- i.e., a link or other verifiable source -- that the U.N. sanctions were "fueling hatred for the West among Muslim populations" and served as a "rallying cry for terrorist recruiters" to a significant extent,<-- comma

That forms the basis of your "key question" as you have written it. You then make an additional request, as implied by your placement of a comma after "extent":

and more importantly, to a greater extent than our invasion?

Had you meant the latter phrase to be a condition of the first, it would have been written like this:

...served as a "rallying cry for terrorist recruiters" to a significant extent and, more importantly, to a greater extent than our invasion?

Skipped your High School English courses on those days the comma was taught?

A second way would have been to entirely eliminate the phrase 'to a significant extent,' and replace it with 'to a greater extent...'.


[ ... (remainder of yet another tcsenter "rather long diatribe, barely intelligible" deleted) ]

I'm not going to quote this whole mess -- again -- and address it point by point -- again. Tcsenter, If you really want to discuss your answer-to-everything rationalization for the Iraqi invasion, post it in a thread by itself where people can enjoy it or ignore it as they see fit. I'll be happy to shred it there as many times as you want. Until then, I will offer a few quick responses to this spew:

Your die-hard refusal to acknowledge your error re. Bush, 9/11, and the invasion damages your credibility. "In good time?" When is that exactly? Which circle of hell has to freeze before you step up to the plate and confess, "Yes, I was wrong about that. Sorry."?

Your little grammar-Nazi dodge above is one of the most pathetic ways to avoid addressing an issue. I expressed the issue several times, in several ways. It's clear you understood the point. It's equally clear you cannot defend your position, so you argue about where the comma belongs.

Your many quotes support your (undisputed) contention that the Arab world was unhappy with our sanctions. They provide no support for your premise that sanctions were more inflammatory than our invasion. That is merely a theory, a theory you have not supported with evidence.

Your many personal attacks and distortions of my comments are childish nonsense that further detract from your credibility.

Finally, let's be clear about the context of this discussion. You floated a "rationale" that we invaded Iraq because the U.N. sanctions had to go. You made the grandiose claim that your rationale "completely subverts all criticisms of the Bush Administration's stated justification for war with Iraq and ties-up all seeming contradictions" (emphasis yours). Frankly, the claim is pompous nonsense. All criticisms? All contradictions? Please.

I'm clear about the context, and my statement stands.

If you really insist on standing by this statement, including your bolded and underlined all's, then let me be more blunt. Your claim is one of the most pompous and self-aggrandizing loads of nonsense I've ever seen here. All? Every single possible criticism? Every single "seeming contradiction"? My apologies, your holiness. I didn't realize you were perfect.

Kindly give your incredibly inflated ego a rest before you hurt yourself.


That's not to say your rationalization isn't interesting, or even that it's without merit. It may well be part of the misguided thought process that drew Bush into the Iraqi quagmire. Unfortunately, it is just as flawed and just as duplicitous as the rest of the fictions used to justify the invasion.

 

[tcsenter]

Forever is a very long time. Years for certain, decades possible, my entire lifetime debatable. If not in Iraq, surely elsewhere in the region, where ever the next foothold is rationalized. I do feel this will be a political issue in the next couple of national elections and we'll have "debate" but in the end U.S. taxpayer money will flow into the mid east under auspices of security and hemegony, in record proportions.

There is no support for the logic that the US will have to maintain for many years to come a visible force in Iraq that will continue to incite in the minds of many a perception of 'military occupation' by the US. Qatar and Kuwait aren't 'Holy Lands' to anyone. Our presence in Qatar and Kuwait are not an issue now and will not be in the future.

We "left" Saudi Arabi by closing down our main airbase there yet terror found Iraq and flourishes there now. Perhaps because the U.S. we also increased its presence in Kuwait, Qatar and a few other nearby states? My guts tells me there's more fuel now to fire OBL and his thugs than ever and this was a fear of mine long before the warmongers mongered.

Umm...the reduction began in April of 2003. We still have a force there, but a much reduced one. I have attempted to emphasize the best that I know how that this is not an "instant gratification" thing. I realize that Americans are almost consumed by the need for instant gratification and their belief that if something doesn't produce instant results then it must not be worth it.

But, I can't argue with someone's 'gut'. I only operate in the realm of rational thought supported by reason and logic. Can't help you with 'gut feelings', particularly those which restrict your ability to look in the context of anything further than today and now.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: BoberFett
I don't have anything relevant to add to the conversation.

We all knew that before you posted it. But it's nice of you to be honest enough to admit it.

My, how did you become so clever? Surely somebody as intelligent and witty as you must be a fairly high ranking official. Governor? Senator perhaps?

Oh, wait. You seem to have plenty of time on your hands, since you're posting here. With that kind of free time, I'd guess you're a nobody. You think pretty highly of your opinion considering you're a nobody.

Why look! It's BoberFett!

Bober, you're posting here too!

But unlike me, nothing you are posting is witty. Or intelligent. Or even clever!

You must think pretty lowly of your opinion then, huh Bober? Considering you're a nobody without even the attributes you ascribe to little old nobody me.

What are YOU doing here? Living the very existence you have outlined for me!

A nobody on an internet forum. With plenty of time on his hands.

But see! Even though we are both just nobodies on an internet forum I can still make you look like a fool quite easily by using your own words against you!

Unless you are somebody. Governor? Senator? President perhaps? Is that you George?

Well, if so I was certainly correct when I copied your statement. If that is you George then you really don't have anything relevant to add to the conversation.

Now quickly! Call Dick Cheney! Or Karl Rove! Ask them what you should say next!

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: tcsenter
It is profoundly bad form bordering on childish harassment to pursue people into other threads and carry a different discussion there out of some belligerent attempt to force someone back into discussion they may only temporarily have left and haven't had an opportunity to rejoin. I'll respond when I'm ready to respond, not when he wants me to respond. [ ... ]

My Lord, more ego run amok. Hate to break it to you, but I have more important things on my to-do list than "pursuing" you. Yes, even slumming in OT ranks higher on my list. I saw the thread, I saw your post, I saw the rest of the often-goofy "confessions" with equally goofy responses.

For better or worse, I thought my post was appropriate in the context of that thread. In retrospect, I probably wouldn't do it again because it looks bad and it's a distraction from more important issues here. It also obviously fueled your sense of self-importance.

Besides, it would be a full-time job chasing all the neo-cons who run and hide when their baloney is challenged with actual evidence.



PS. Did I punctuate this one OK?

 

[Wag]

$1?

 

[povertystruck]

my bid is $2

 

[BoberFett]

BOBDN

My opinion is quite meaningless on a global scale. At least I recognize that. Sadly, you seem to have convinced yourself that somebody cares about your opinion.

Bush this. Evil empire that. Doesn't it ever get old?

Let me guess, you voted for Gore and just can't let go of the fact that he lost.

 

[Moonbeam]

Actually Gore won.

 

[Zebo]

BOB, not according to Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX)

Text

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Zebo
BOB, not according to Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX)

Text

Interesting comments from a Republican. I'll bet he doesn't get invited to the White House any time soon. Of course, that ship sailed when he posted his list of neo-conservative traits.

 

[tcsenter]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Zebo
BOB, not according to Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX)

Text

Interesting comments from a Republican. I'll bet he doesn't get invited to the White House any time soon. Of course, that ship sailed when he posted his list of neo-conservative traits.

I'm back! After DirectX 9.1b rendered my computer nearly useless; format, install, etc. and forgetting to back-up all my bookmarks before formatting - five or six hours worth of internet searching down the crapper.

Ron Paul. lol!

I'm not sure Ron Paul would be the type of guy you'd want to go to offer support for criticism on the costs of Iraq. The guy thinks we're still living in 1790. He basically thinks that 90% of the federal budget is unconstitutional. I mean everything, he even thinks that the Congressional Medal of Honor is an unconstitutional expenditure. He is against all foreign aid, he is against funding just about every major agency of the US government. He thinks the military should never be used unless our shores are literally being invaded. He's against the UN and thinks we should sever all ties with it. The list goes on.

If you look at a House vote on some bill and see a vote that is like 434 to 1, that one will be Ron Paul. He is the extreme Libertarian most Libertarians refuse to call their own (he runs as a Republican). One thing is for sure, if Ron Paul were King, we wouldn't be invading Iraq....because the federal government wouldn't have enough money to even entertain the thought (or any other major expenditure for that matter).

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Zebo
BOB, not according to Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX)

Text

Interesting comments from a Republican. I'll bet he doesn't get invited to the White House any time soon. Of course, that ship sailed when he posted his list of neo-conservative traits.

I'm back! After DirectX 9.1b rendered my computer nearly useless; format, install, etc. and forgetting to back-up all my bookmarks before formatting - five or six hours worth of internet searching down the crapper.

Ron Paul. lol!

I'm not sure Ron Paul would be the type of guy you'd want to go to offer support for criticism on the costs of Iraq. The guy thinks we're still living in 1790. He basically thinks that 90% of the federal budget is unconstitutional. I mean everything, he even thinks that the Congressional Medal of Honor is an unconstitutional expenditure. He is against all foreign aid, he is against funding just about every major agency of the US government. He thinks the military should never be used unless our shores are literally being invaded. He's against the UN and thinks we should sever all ties with it. The list goes on.

If you look at a House vote on some bill and see a vote that is like 434 to 1, that one will be Ron Paul. He is the extreme Libertarian most Libertarians refuse to call their own (he runs as a Republican). One thing is for sure, if Ron Paul were King, we wouldn't be invading Iraq....because the federal government wouldn't have enough money to even entertain the thought (or any other major expenditure for that matter).

Welcome back. Is it "due time" yet?

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Zebo
BOB, not according to Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX)

Text

Interesting comments from a Republican. I'll bet he doesn't get invited to the White House any time soon. Of course, that ship sailed when he posted his list of neo-conservative traits.

I'm back! After DirectX 9.1b rendered my computer nearly useless; format, install, etc. and forgetting to back-up all my bookmarks before formatting - five or six hours worth of internet searching down the crapper.

Ron Paul. lol!

I'm not sure Ron Paul would be the type of guy you'd want to go to offer support for criticism on the costs of Iraq. The guy thinks we're still living in 1790. He basically thinks that 90% of the federal budget is unconstitutional. I mean everything, he even thinks that the Congressional Medal of Honor is an unconstitutional expenditure. He is against all foreign aid, he is against funding just about every major agency of the US government. He thinks the military should never be used unless our shores are literally being invaded. He's against the UN and thinks we should sever all ties with it. The list goes on.

If you look at a House vote on some bill and see a vote that is like 434 to 1, that one will be Ron Paul. He is the extreme Libertarian most Libertarians refuse to call their own (he runs as a Republican). One thing is for sure, if Ron Paul were King, we wouldn't be invading Iraq....because the federal government wouldn't have enough money to even entertain the thought (or any other major expenditure for that matter).

We don't have the money to invade Iraq now. We're charging the invasion and sending the bill to future generations.