BB
Flashlight Enthusiast
How-about the same way we decided when we won WWII? Those occupations where not pieces of cake either--from what I have read.
-Bill
-Bill
Spain pulls out of Iraq
- Thread starter ikendu
- Start date
Help Support Candle Power Flashlight Forum
Nitro
Flashlight Enthusiast
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2004
- Messages
- 1,347
[ QUOTE ]
Sasha said:
Ok... for this post, I am not an administrator. I remove my hat. Any administrators who want to slap my wrist or ban me for this post... feel free... I'm sure I'll deserve it... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon6.gif
I find it very strange that when the United States was attacked on September 11, 2001, the American people were screaming for vengeance. The compassion that poured from every corner of this great nation was the likes of which I doubt we've ever seen. The entire world felt our pain as the horror of that day played over and over and over for months. The entire world was effected by that day.
But it didn't take long for people to go back to their selfish ways. Screw the rest of the world... screw our fellow Americans... it's all about ME! However, at that point we had already deployed our troops to Afghanistan... because the people DEMANDED payback! Well now all of a sudden... "oh! we shouldn't put our sons and daughters lives at risk for oil!"... HUH?!?!?
And then Saddam started up with his crap again... and the UN and it's *****-politics refused to enforce the sanctions that it had imposed... further putting the world at risk and further condemning an entire nation of people to an existance of oppression, slavery, abuse, poverty, torture and murder.
Where's your compassion now people? Oh, that's right... it's all about YOU!!! It doesn't effect you, so who gives a damn? Only when it's in your own back yard does it matter. Well guess what? Those two planes that flew into the WTC WERE in your own back yard! Didn't feel very good, did it? Kinda sucked, didn't it? How many people died that day? You cared because they were AMERICANS... but you could care less if they are on the other side of the world... and let me tell you right now, the number of Iraqi citizens that have died at the hands of Saddam and his thugs makes the numbers from 9-11 look like chump change.
You sit here and whine about WMD and who did what and who's only wanting to line their pockets... who cares?!?!? Does it matter what reasons we used to go over there to free those people? Do you think they really give a rat's *** what our reasons were? They were just happy we came. And unless you've been over there and talked with these people yourselves, you truly have no idea what they think. And if you think that CNN or any other news agency is giving you the REAL story, then I have a bridge for you.
But screw them! We got Saddam, now let them rebuild their own country and government. Well guess what? It wouldn't happen. Because the very people who are killing the coalition troops would take over in a hearbeat and things would go right back to the way they were with Saddam. And again... if you believe otherwise, I have a second bridge for you.
And now this thing with Spain. The compassion that came from this board the day that they were bombed warmed my heart to no end. And you all embraced the flag that I put up in remembrance of those who died that day. You all felt the pain again... the pain that you felt on September 11, 2001. The world felt it. And now here we go again... the compassion is gone and screw those assholes! Take down the flag!!!
I'm so sick of the selfishness and lack of compassion that is displayed on a daily basis in this world. We are all HUMANS and we all feel pain. It's unfortunate though that some only feel it when it effects them and screw anyone else. How quick they are to turn their backs on their fellow humans... as long as it's not in their back yard. God help you all when it is again. You'll have no one to blame but yourselves when everyone looks at you and says, "Screw you!"
[/ QUOTE ]
Sasha, will you marry me? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
Sasha said:
Ok... for this post, I am not an administrator. I remove my hat. Any administrators who want to slap my wrist or ban me for this post... feel free... I'm sure I'll deserve it... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon6.gif
I find it very strange that when the United States was attacked on September 11, 2001, the American people were screaming for vengeance. The compassion that poured from every corner of this great nation was the likes of which I doubt we've ever seen. The entire world felt our pain as the horror of that day played over and over and over for months. The entire world was effected by that day.
But it didn't take long for people to go back to their selfish ways. Screw the rest of the world... screw our fellow Americans... it's all about ME! However, at that point we had already deployed our troops to Afghanistan... because the people DEMANDED payback! Well now all of a sudden... "oh! we shouldn't put our sons and daughters lives at risk for oil!"... HUH?!?!?
And then Saddam started up with his crap again... and the UN and it's *****-politics refused to enforce the sanctions that it had imposed... further putting the world at risk and further condemning an entire nation of people to an existance of oppression, slavery, abuse, poverty, torture and murder.
Where's your compassion now people? Oh, that's right... it's all about YOU!!! It doesn't effect you, so who gives a damn? Only when it's in your own back yard does it matter. Well guess what? Those two planes that flew into the WTC WERE in your own back yard! Didn't feel very good, did it? Kinda sucked, didn't it? How many people died that day? You cared because they were AMERICANS... but you could care less if they are on the other side of the world... and let me tell you right now, the number of Iraqi citizens that have died at the hands of Saddam and his thugs makes the numbers from 9-11 look like chump change.
You sit here and whine about WMD and who did what and who's only wanting to line their pockets... who cares?!?!? Does it matter what reasons we used to go over there to free those people? Do you think they really give a rat's *** what our reasons were? They were just happy we came. And unless you've been over there and talked with these people yourselves, you truly have no idea what they think. And if you think that CNN or any other news agency is giving you the REAL story, then I have a bridge for you.
But screw them! We got Saddam, now let them rebuild their own country and government. Well guess what? It wouldn't happen. Because the very people who are killing the coalition troops would take over in a hearbeat and things would go right back to the way they were with Saddam. And again... if you believe otherwise, I have a second bridge for you.
And now this thing with Spain. The compassion that came from this board the day that they were bombed warmed my heart to no end. And you all embraced the flag that I put up in remembrance of those who died that day. You all felt the pain again... the pain that you felt on September 11, 2001. The world felt it. And now here we go again... the compassion is gone and screw those assholes! Take down the flag!!!
I'm so sick of the selfishness and lack of compassion that is displayed on a daily basis in this world. We are all HUMANS and we all feel pain. It's unfortunate though that some only feel it when it effects them and screw anyone else. How quick they are to turn their backs on their fellow humans... as long as it's not in their back yard. God help you all when it is again. You'll have no one to blame but yourselves when everyone looks at you and says, "Screw you!"
[/ QUOTE ]
Sasha, will you marry me? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
[ QUOTE ]
Darell said:
Just one question for you, Dave.
[ QUOTE ]
Good or bad Iraq is not a war we can lose or abandon.
[/ QUOTE ]How do we determine when we've "won" this war?
[/ QUOTE ]
I know... my name's not Dave... nor do I play one on TV...
No one ever wins at war... I know you know that Darell. But I do think there can be definate losers... and those would be the innocent victims who when the dust settles, they are worse off than when they started. I would say that even right now, the Iraqi people are not losers. Does that mean we've "won" the war? I don't think so. But I do think we've made sure that the Iraqi people didn't lose.
Darell said:
Just one question for you, Dave.
[ QUOTE ]
Good or bad Iraq is not a war we can lose or abandon.
[/ QUOTE ]How do we determine when we've "won" this war?
[/ QUOTE ]
I know... my name's not Dave... nor do I play one on TV...
No one ever wins at war... I know you know that Darell. But I do think there can be definate losers... and those would be the innocent victims who when the dust settles, they are worse off than when they started. I would say that even right now, the Iraqi people are not losers. Does that mean we've "won" the war? I don't think so. But I do think we've made sure that the Iraqi people didn't lose.
[ QUOTE ]
BB said:
How-about the same way we decided when we won WWII? Those occupations where not pieces of cake either--from what I have read.
-Bill
[/ QUOTE ]
There you had a country as a whole which was considered to be an enemy. Entire cities were bombed to dust with many civillian lives lost, this is not an option here. The opposition isn't Irak as such, it's only a small group within Irak. and furthermore, the terrorists themselves don't have economic motives, but religious motives and are willing to attack in the US. The US itself was never under threat during WW2, only it's military forces abroad were. You can have a new regime and have them sign any declaration you want, it won't stop the terrorists from targeting US troops.
I think this is exactly what makes it so much of a problem. The US army isn't exactly equipped or trained to go after individual people. That's more for James Bond / Special forces. How does one recognize a terrorist, how can they find them? Tanks and aircraft are no good in this case. Doens't it present some of the same problems vietnam had? No regular army as opposition.
As for Spain, the election showed that the people wanted their troops home and the promise the newly elected party made was kept, so I don't consider it right to blame them. Once again it seems that it's "you're either with us or against us" as with the start of the war. If the US would elect a president who had stated that he would withdraw from Irak if he were to be in power during the next election, wouldn't you expect him to keep his promise too?
As for the UN, their soldiers risk their lives as well in conflicts in which they have no intrest, but to try to separate the fighting forces and to protect the population.
BB said:
How-about the same way we decided when we won WWII? Those occupations where not pieces of cake either--from what I have read.
-Bill
[/ QUOTE ]
There you had a country as a whole which was considered to be an enemy. Entire cities were bombed to dust with many civillian lives lost, this is not an option here. The opposition isn't Irak as such, it's only a small group within Irak. and furthermore, the terrorists themselves don't have economic motives, but religious motives and are willing to attack in the US. The US itself was never under threat during WW2, only it's military forces abroad were. You can have a new regime and have them sign any declaration you want, it won't stop the terrorists from targeting US troops.
I think this is exactly what makes it so much of a problem. The US army isn't exactly equipped or trained to go after individual people. That's more for James Bond / Special forces. How does one recognize a terrorist, how can they find them? Tanks and aircraft are no good in this case. Doens't it present some of the same problems vietnam had? No regular army as opposition.
As for Spain, the election showed that the people wanted their troops home and the promise the newly elected party made was kept, so I don't consider it right to blame them. Once again it seems that it's "you're either with us or against us" as with the start of the war. If the US would elect a president who had stated that he would withdraw from Irak if he were to be in power during the next election, wouldn't you expect him to keep his promise too?
As for the UN, their soldiers risk their lives as well in conflicts in which they have no intrest, but to try to separate the fighting forces and to protect the population.
The "casus belli" - the cause for war, matters.
In Vietnam, we had the "gulf of tonkin" incident, later proved to be a fraud. In Iraq, we have the claim of WMD.
In both cases, the people starting these wars almost certainly believe that what they're doing is, in the long run, for the good of us all. I'm the first to say that communism is probably the worst thing that ever happened to humanity: roughly 140,000,000 - one hundred and forty million - people murdered by their own governments in communist or "national socialist" nations. Was the Vietnam war justified? I don't think so, but I can understand that in the big picture of the day, it made sense to the decision makers in government: fight communism here, so we won't ever have to fight it in America.
Iraq is the same. We need to get out of Saudi Arabia. To the Muslim world, US troops in Saudi is roughly the same as the Vatican being occupied by Norwegian Black Metal bands. We're really against everything they stand for: tradition, gender segregation, and above all absolutist religion and the fusion of church and state. Staying in Saudi will produce more terrorism and unite the Muslim world against us.
But let's cut the crap about oppression. We're in the area because we need to be: if we don't have a military presence on top of a lot of oil, our nation could be choked out almost any time. We're dependent on oil, and need requires control.
America faced down the worst regimes ever seen on earth (Hitler, Stalin and Mao). If we need to use force to maintain our oil supply because that's what it takes to remain strong, I'm willing to say "ok." because I believe we are, in the long run, one of the best things to ever happen to the human race. And I mean that. If there was no America, the world would have been over-run by totalitarian states after World War 2, and 1984 would have looked like Run Spot Run.
Hussein was a bad guy. I'm sure we knew that when we backed him against Iran in the Iran-Iraq war, and we (we == "the US Govt") just dealt with it.
Here's Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein in 1983. Best buddies.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
All that I can accept.
But the idea that the Goverment plotted to use 9/11 as an excuse to attack Iraq from Day One sickens me to the core of my being.
Think about this. It's the day after 9/11. They're talking to the head of the CIA, and the most experience advisor on Terrorism the goverment has.
Are Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld asking "Who did this, and how do we get them?" No, they are certainly not.
All that they want to know is "How can we use this to invade Iraq?".
Think about that. Invading Iraq is the long term strategic necessity from their point of view.
And, after the attack on 9/11, their immediate thought is how to use the tragedy to further that long-term strategy. Not immediate countermeasures, not invesitgation. It's "how can we use this to invade Iraq?"
The Cabinet put their long term strategy over your life, my life, and the lives of everybody lost in 9/11.
Spain pulled out of Iraq because, at the end of the day, it's a war to ensure long term strategic objectives. We were almost certainly never in any danger from Saddam Hussein. Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld and the rest of them pressured the CIA to produce intelligence which backed up their plan to invade.
I'm not happy at what Spain has done in terms of encouraging more terrorism around elections, but having been lied to, I can't see why any foreign government would continue to support us in Iraq, or anywhere else.
A country, like a person, is as good as their word, and we lied to the world about weapons of mass distruction in Iraq.
In Vietnam, we had the "gulf of tonkin" incident, later proved to be a fraud. In Iraq, we have the claim of WMD.
In both cases, the people starting these wars almost certainly believe that what they're doing is, in the long run, for the good of us all. I'm the first to say that communism is probably the worst thing that ever happened to humanity: roughly 140,000,000 - one hundred and forty million - people murdered by their own governments in communist or "national socialist" nations. Was the Vietnam war justified? I don't think so, but I can understand that in the big picture of the day, it made sense to the decision makers in government: fight communism here, so we won't ever have to fight it in America.
Iraq is the same. We need to get out of Saudi Arabia. To the Muslim world, US troops in Saudi is roughly the same as the Vatican being occupied by Norwegian Black Metal bands. We're really against everything they stand for: tradition, gender segregation, and above all absolutist religion and the fusion of church and state. Staying in Saudi will produce more terrorism and unite the Muslim world against us.
But let's cut the crap about oppression. We're in the area because we need to be: if we don't have a military presence on top of a lot of oil, our nation could be choked out almost any time. We're dependent on oil, and need requires control.
America faced down the worst regimes ever seen on earth (Hitler, Stalin and Mao). If we need to use force to maintain our oil supply because that's what it takes to remain strong, I'm willing to say "ok." because I believe we are, in the long run, one of the best things to ever happen to the human race. And I mean that. If there was no America, the world would have been over-run by totalitarian states after World War 2, and 1984 would have looked like Run Spot Run.
Hussein was a bad guy. I'm sure we knew that when we backed him against Iran in the Iran-Iraq war, and we (we == "the US Govt") just dealt with it.
Here's Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein in 1983. Best buddies.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
All that I can accept.
But the idea that the Goverment plotted to use 9/11 as an excuse to attack Iraq from Day One sickens me to the core of my being.
Think about this. It's the day after 9/11. They're talking to the head of the CIA, and the most experience advisor on Terrorism the goverment has.
Are Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld asking "Who did this, and how do we get them?" No, they are certainly not.
All that they want to know is "How can we use this to invade Iraq?".
Think about that. Invading Iraq is the long term strategic necessity from their point of view.
And, after the attack on 9/11, their immediate thought is how to use the tragedy to further that long-term strategy. Not immediate countermeasures, not invesitgation. It's "how can we use this to invade Iraq?"
The Cabinet put their long term strategy over your life, my life, and the lives of everybody lost in 9/11.
Spain pulled out of Iraq because, at the end of the day, it's a war to ensure long term strategic objectives. We were almost certainly never in any danger from Saddam Hussein. Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld and the rest of them pressured the CIA to produce intelligence which backed up their plan to invade.
I'm not happy at what Spain has done in terms of encouraging more terrorism around elections, but having been lied to, I can't see why any foreign government would continue to support us in Iraq, or anywhere else.
A country, like a person, is as good as their word, and we lied to the world about weapons of mass distruction in Iraq.
Nitro
Flashlight Enthusiast
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2004
- Messages
- 1,347
[ QUOTE ]
Kristofg said:
[ QUOTE ]
BB said:
How-about the same way we decided when we won WWII? Those occupations where not pieces of cake either--from what I have read.
-Bill
[/ QUOTE ]
There you had a country as a whole which was considered to be an enemy. Entire cities were bombed to dust with many civillian lives lost, this is not an option here. The opposition isn't Irak as such, it's only a small group within Irak. and furthermore, the terrorists themselves don't have economic motives, but religious motives and are willing to attack in the US. The US itself was never under threat during WW2, only it's military forces abroad were. You can have a new regime and have them sign any declaration you want, it won't stop the terrorists from targeting US troops.
[/ QUOTE ]
I have to say that if we lost WW2, we would ALL be speaking German.
[ QUOTE ]
I think this is exactly what makes it so much of a problem. The US army isn't exactly equipped or trained to go after individual people. That's more for James Bond / Special forces. How does one recognize a terrorist, how can they find them? Tanks and aircraft are no good in this case. Doens't it present some of the same problems vietnam had? No regular army as opposition.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's why we go after the nations that harbor them, ie Iraq?
[ QUOTE ]
As for Spain, the election showed that the people wanted their troops home and the promise the newly elected party made was kept, so I don't consider it right to blame them. Once again it seems that it's "you're either with us or against us" as with the start of the war. If the US would elect a president who had stated that he would withdraw from Irak if he were to be in power during the next election, wouldn't you expect him to keep his promise too?
[/ QUOTE ]
"You're either with us or against us"
What part of that phrase don't you understand?
[ QUOTE ]
As for the UN, their soldiers risk their lives as well in conflicts in which they have no intrest, but to try to separate the fighting forces and to protect the population.
[/ QUOTE ]
No interest in? The UN has an interest in everything. After all they are the worlds Mummy and Duddy.
Kristofg said:
[ QUOTE ]
BB said:
How-about the same way we decided when we won WWII? Those occupations where not pieces of cake either--from what I have read.
-Bill
[/ QUOTE ]
There you had a country as a whole which was considered to be an enemy. Entire cities were bombed to dust with many civillian lives lost, this is not an option here. The opposition isn't Irak as such, it's only a small group within Irak. and furthermore, the terrorists themselves don't have economic motives, but religious motives and are willing to attack in the US. The US itself was never under threat during WW2, only it's military forces abroad were. You can have a new regime and have them sign any declaration you want, it won't stop the terrorists from targeting US troops.
[/ QUOTE ]
I have to say that if we lost WW2, we would ALL be speaking German.
[ QUOTE ]
I think this is exactly what makes it so much of a problem. The US army isn't exactly equipped or trained to go after individual people. That's more for James Bond / Special forces. How does one recognize a terrorist, how can they find them? Tanks and aircraft are no good in this case. Doens't it present some of the same problems vietnam had? No regular army as opposition.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's why we go after the nations that harbor them, ie Iraq?
[ QUOTE ]
As for Spain, the election showed that the people wanted their troops home and the promise the newly elected party made was kept, so I don't consider it right to blame them. Once again it seems that it's "you're either with us or against us" as with the start of the war. If the US would elect a president who had stated that he would withdraw from Irak if he were to be in power during the next election, wouldn't you expect him to keep his promise too?
[/ QUOTE ]
"You're either with us or against us"
What part of that phrase don't you understand?
[ QUOTE ]
As for the UN, their soldiers risk their lives as well in conflicts in which they have no intrest, but to try to separate the fighting forces and to protect the population.
[/ QUOTE ]
No interest in? The UN has an interest in everything. After all they are the worlds Mummy and Duddy.
Nitro
Flashlight Enthusiast
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2004
- Messages
- 1,347
[ QUOTE ]
Muppet said:
The "casus belli" - the cause for war, matters.
In Vietnam, we had the "gulf of tonkin" incident, later proved to be a fraud. In Iraq, we have the claim of WMD.
In both cases, the people starting these wars almost certainly believe that what they're doing is, in the long run, for the good of us all. I'm the first to say that communism is probably the worst thing that ever happened to humanity: roughly 140,000,000 - one hundred and forty million - people murdered by their own governments in communist or "national socialist" nations. Was the Vietnam war justified? I don't think so, but I can understand that in the big picture of the day, it made sense to the decision makers in government: fight communism here, so we won't ever have to fight it in America.
Iraq is the same. We need to get out of Saudi Arabia. To the Muslim world, US troops in Saudi is roughly the same as the Vatican being occupied by Norwegian Black Metal bands. We're really against everything they stand for: tradition, gender segregation, and above all absolutist religion and the fusion of church and state. Staying in Saudi will produce more terrorism and unite the Muslim world against us.
But let's cut the crap about oppression. We're in the area because we need to be: if we don't have a military presence on top of a lot of oil, our nation could be choked out almost any time. We're dependent on oil, and need requires control.
America faced down the worst regimes ever seen on earth (Hitler, Stalin and Mao). If we need to use force to maintain our oil supply because that's what it takes to remain strong, I'm willing to say "ok." because I believe we are, in the long run, one of the best things to ever happen to the human race. And I mean that. If there was no America, the world would have been over-run by totalitarian states after World War 2, and 1984 would have looked like Run Spot Run.
Hussein was a bad guy. I'm sure we knew that when we backed him against Iran in the Iran-Iraq war, and we (we == "the US Govt") just dealt with it.
Here's Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein in 1983. Best buddies.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
All that I can accept.
But the idea that the Goverment plotted to use 9/11 as an excuse to attack Iraq from Day One sickens me to the core of my being.
Think about this. It's the day after 9/11. They're talking to the head of the CIA, and the most experience advisor on Terrorism the goverment has.
Are Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld asking "Who did this, and how do we get them?" No, they are certainly not.
All that they want to know is "How can we use this to invade Iraq?".
Think about that. Invading Iraq is the long term strategic necessity from their point of view.
And, after the attack on 9/11, their immediate thought is how to use the tragedy to further that long-term strategy. Not immediate countermeasures, not invesitgation. It's "how can we use this to invade Iraq?"
The Cabinet put their long term strategy over your life, my life, and the lives of everybody lost in 9/11.
Spain pulled out of Iraq because, at the end of the day, it's a war to ensure long term strategic objectives. We were almost certainly never in any danger from Saddam Hussein. Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld and the rest of them pressured the CIA to produce intelligence which backed up their plan to invade.
I'm not happy at what Spain has done in terms of encouraging more terrorism around elections, but having been lied to, I can't see why any foreign government would continue to support us in Iraq, or anywhere else.
A country, like a person, is as good as their word, and we lied to the world about weapons of mass distruction in Iraq.
[/ QUOTE ]
EDIT: There was a statement here that was out of line, so I removed it. Sorry Muppet.
There are so many flaws in your post, it makes me tired to even think about it. I'm going to bed now, and maybe if your lucky, someone else will point out your errors. If not, I'll respond at a later time.
Good night all. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/sleepy.gif
Muppet said:
The "casus belli" - the cause for war, matters.
In Vietnam, we had the "gulf of tonkin" incident, later proved to be a fraud. In Iraq, we have the claim of WMD.
In both cases, the people starting these wars almost certainly believe that what they're doing is, in the long run, for the good of us all. I'm the first to say that communism is probably the worst thing that ever happened to humanity: roughly 140,000,000 - one hundred and forty million - people murdered by their own governments in communist or "national socialist" nations. Was the Vietnam war justified? I don't think so, but I can understand that in the big picture of the day, it made sense to the decision makers in government: fight communism here, so we won't ever have to fight it in America.
Iraq is the same. We need to get out of Saudi Arabia. To the Muslim world, US troops in Saudi is roughly the same as the Vatican being occupied by Norwegian Black Metal bands. We're really against everything they stand for: tradition, gender segregation, and above all absolutist religion and the fusion of church and state. Staying in Saudi will produce more terrorism and unite the Muslim world against us.
But let's cut the crap about oppression. We're in the area because we need to be: if we don't have a military presence on top of a lot of oil, our nation could be choked out almost any time. We're dependent on oil, and need requires control.
America faced down the worst regimes ever seen on earth (Hitler, Stalin and Mao). If we need to use force to maintain our oil supply because that's what it takes to remain strong, I'm willing to say "ok." because I believe we are, in the long run, one of the best things to ever happen to the human race. And I mean that. If there was no America, the world would have been over-run by totalitarian states after World War 2, and 1984 would have looked like Run Spot Run.
Hussein was a bad guy. I'm sure we knew that when we backed him against Iran in the Iran-Iraq war, and we (we == "the US Govt") just dealt with it.
Here's Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein in 1983. Best buddies.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
All that I can accept.
But the idea that the Goverment plotted to use 9/11 as an excuse to attack Iraq from Day One sickens me to the core of my being.
Think about this. It's the day after 9/11. They're talking to the head of the CIA, and the most experience advisor on Terrorism the goverment has.
Are Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld asking "Who did this, and how do we get them?" No, they are certainly not.
All that they want to know is "How can we use this to invade Iraq?".
Think about that. Invading Iraq is the long term strategic necessity from their point of view.
And, after the attack on 9/11, their immediate thought is how to use the tragedy to further that long-term strategy. Not immediate countermeasures, not invesitgation. It's "how can we use this to invade Iraq?"
The Cabinet put their long term strategy over your life, my life, and the lives of everybody lost in 9/11.
Spain pulled out of Iraq because, at the end of the day, it's a war to ensure long term strategic objectives. We were almost certainly never in any danger from Saddam Hussein. Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld and the rest of them pressured the CIA to produce intelligence which backed up their plan to invade.
I'm not happy at what Spain has done in terms of encouraging more terrorism around elections, but having been lied to, I can't see why any foreign government would continue to support us in Iraq, or anywhere else.
A country, like a person, is as good as their word, and we lied to the world about weapons of mass distruction in Iraq.
[/ QUOTE ]
EDIT: There was a statement here that was out of line, so I removed it. Sorry Muppet.
There are so many flaws in your post, it makes me tired to even think about it. I'm going to bed now, and maybe if your lucky, someone else will point out your errors. If not, I'll respond at a later time.
Good night all. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/sleepy.gif
[ QUOTE ]
Nitro said:
I have to say that if we lost WW2, we would ALL be speaking German.
[/ QUOTE ]
Wäre ja nicht schlecht oder?
However, the point I was trying to make was that there were no weapons which caused direct harm on US soil. This time, the terrorists do manage to target US territory. Hence, the civilian population is at risk.
[ QUOTE ]
That's why we go after the nations that harbor them, ie Iraq?
[/ QUOTE ]
Which would be wonderfull if you'd actually manage to get them. Spain has the ETA, the US didn't go after them either. Not even Spain itself managed to root them out. Nor did England manage to get rid of the IRA. You can't attack a country to get terrorists, you have to get them in person. They can leave Irak (if they were there in the first place) and move to another country. you can't keep invading countries trying to catch up with them. The problem is exactly that they have many sperate cells spread over different countries.
[ QUOTE ]
"You're either with us or against us"
What part of that phrase don't you understand?
[/ QUOTE ]
That a nation can help without having to go to war and do the same as the US. The more you "demonize" other religions/countries the more isolated you get. Australia sent troops, but nobody mentions them anymore. Spain sent troops, but has been pressured by their own civil population to bring them home and they have done so. And suddenly it seems as if Spain has become a "bad" nation. Things aren't that black/white. Even in the US, those that were critical of the war were suddenly considered "bad" and "unpatriotic".
[ QUOTE ]
No interest in? The UN has an interest in everything. After all they are the worlds Mummy and Duddy.
[/ QUOTE ]
I meant that the soldiers themselves have no intrest in those conflicts. The US soldiers have an intrest in the sense that they are "avenging" the Sept 11th attacks. The UN troops are more or less comparable to the US troops in Somalia. A conflict in which they had no intrest except to protect the peace as international police force as it were. The UN does not attack countris, it will protect itself from individual militia groups and protect civilians.
Nitro said:
I have to say that if we lost WW2, we would ALL be speaking German.
[/ QUOTE ]
Wäre ja nicht schlecht oder?
However, the point I was trying to make was that there were no weapons which caused direct harm on US soil. This time, the terrorists do manage to target US territory. Hence, the civilian population is at risk.
[ QUOTE ]
That's why we go after the nations that harbor them, ie Iraq?
[/ QUOTE ]
Which would be wonderfull if you'd actually manage to get them. Spain has the ETA, the US didn't go after them either. Not even Spain itself managed to root them out. Nor did England manage to get rid of the IRA. You can't attack a country to get terrorists, you have to get them in person. They can leave Irak (if they were there in the first place) and move to another country. you can't keep invading countries trying to catch up with them. The problem is exactly that they have many sperate cells spread over different countries.
[ QUOTE ]
"You're either with us or against us"
What part of that phrase don't you understand?
[/ QUOTE ]
That a nation can help without having to go to war and do the same as the US. The more you "demonize" other religions/countries the more isolated you get. Australia sent troops, but nobody mentions them anymore. Spain sent troops, but has been pressured by their own civil population to bring them home and they have done so. And suddenly it seems as if Spain has become a "bad" nation. Things aren't that black/white. Even in the US, those that were critical of the war were suddenly considered "bad" and "unpatriotic".
[ QUOTE ]
No interest in? The UN has an interest in everything. After all they are the worlds Mummy and Duddy.
[/ QUOTE ]
I meant that the soldiers themselves have no intrest in those conflicts. The US soldiers have an intrest in the sense that they are "avenging" the Sept 11th attacks. The UN troops are more or less comparable to the US troops in Somalia. A conflict in which they had no intrest except to protect the peace as international police force as it were. The UN does not attack countris, it will protect itself from individual militia groups and protect civilians.
Jack_Crow
Enlightened
M,
No doubt that resource poor people don't get the response they should. As Amcits we can't set our thinking down to the level most of the world operates at. It's not stupidity, but a lack of education. People know nothing else but their differences and history. And their hate.
Face it the world sucks.
Just wait till the "Aids burn" walks it's way through Asia and Africa. Or if the world is due for a repeat of the Flu of 1917.
Have I depressed you yet.
Jack Crow in Iraq
No doubt that resource poor people don't get the response they should. As Amcits we can't set our thinking down to the level most of the world operates at. It's not stupidity, but a lack of education. People know nothing else but their differences and history. And their hate.
Face it the world sucks.
Just wait till the "Aids burn" walks it's way through Asia and Africa. Or if the world is due for a repeat of the Flu of 1917.
Have I depressed you yet.
Jack Crow in Iraq
Unicorn
Flashlight Enthusiast
We can't leave until the place is stable, if ever.
So what if the war was for oil? At least someone is willing to protect the oil that is needed by the entire world. Without oil from the Middle East the only contry that would benefit would be Russia, since they have a very large amount of oil that they can't afford to drill for.
Those who keep whining about no war for oil are a bunch of fing hypocrites, whether American, Spanish, Canadian, or whatever. Without that oil flowing freely, your way of life would change, and for a long time your standard of living would drop tremendously. Unless of you're already living in tin huts. Even the so called self sufficient are indirectly affected. How the hell do you think that the food gets to Safeway? Oil burning trucks or trains. Ok, diesel, but they are still using oil for fuel and lubrication.
That's enough. I'm done with this. I'm going to wait 'til it's dark then start playing with my lights.
So what if the war was for oil? At least someone is willing to protect the oil that is needed by the entire world. Without oil from the Middle East the only contry that would benefit would be Russia, since they have a very large amount of oil that they can't afford to drill for.
Those who keep whining about no war for oil are a bunch of fing hypocrites, whether American, Spanish, Canadian, or whatever. Without that oil flowing freely, your way of life would change, and for a long time your standard of living would drop tremendously. Unless of you're already living in tin huts. Even the so called self sufficient are indirectly affected. How the hell do you think that the food gets to Safeway? Oil burning trucks or trains. Ok, diesel, but they are still using oil for fuel and lubrication.
That's enough. I'm done with this. I'm going to wait 'til it's dark then start playing with my lights.
DieselDave said:
...if we had a Democrat in charge ...conservatives would be saying
...40% of the population would be on the other side of where they are now.
There is an truth here that is very important to recognize (thanks, Dave!). Much of the "deeply held positions" that I see people glued to would flip-flop in an instant if the other party were in power. Think about it. Remember a guy who campaigned for president on "no nation building"? Those that supported him then are now totally ready to support the polar opposite position ..."we MUST build a nation".
DieselDave said: ...If Clinton ...would Ted be saying the same things he is today?
Maybe. During Vietnam, you saw people oppose the President even if he was from the same party. I don't know about Ted. But...your point is well taken.
DieselDave said:...only one way to defeat terrorism and that's is to kill as many of them as possible.
Here I agree with Dave but I think we must go further. You may have heard Donald Rumsfeld asking if new terrorists are being made faster than we can find and kill them. That is an important point. I very much believe we need a two step approach.
Step 1: ...what Dave said...find them and kill them.
Step 2: Figure out what the fundamental problem is and get working on that. Otherwise you just have an endless terror cycle. Terror on the scale of the 9-11 attack needed broad support. It was expensive. I don't buy the argument "they hate our freedom". We've been free a long time but it is only recently (last 10 years?) that we've seen attacks like this.
Is it the gap between rich and poor in Saudi Arabia? Is it lack of human rights? Is it lack of democracy? There is a truth that underlies Al Queada that we are missing. Until we figure it out, terrorists will just keep coming out of the woodwork. 15 of the 19 highjackers came from Saudi Arabia. They were VERY well funded. We are missing something important here.
DieselDave said:...Iraq is not a war we can lose or abandon.
Once again...gotta agree with Dave. How we got there is somewhat moot at this point. If we simply pull out, it will be worse than before and much more likely to create world terror than if we had just left it alone.
I'll come back around now to my original post.
I believe that we need to change the perception that this is a U.S. occupation and get Muslim peace keeping troops into Iraq to provide stability until the Iraqis can sort out a democratic process that will bring long term peace and stability to that region. As long as the majority of the soldiers that Iraqis see every day are "white, Christian Americans" it will seem like occupation. If our country were occupied by an army that looked different, spoke another language and worshiped another religion than ours...I can guarantee that many Americans would be shooting, bombing and resisting that army. And I don't think we would regard ourselves as terrorists while we were doing it. And...it would NEVER stop until the occupiers went away.
Egypt sent many troops to help us in the first Gulf war. Now they are absent. Where are our diplomats now that we need them to convince such countries to help us maintain a stable peace to help the Iraqi people? Do we think that Muslims would be unwilling to help their fellows in a time of need? I don't. If something in the way the U.S. is conducting itself is holding that support back...then THAT is something we need to change.
...if we had a Democrat in charge ...conservatives would be saying
...40% of the population would be on the other side of where they are now.
There is an truth here that is very important to recognize (thanks, Dave!). Much of the "deeply held positions" that I see people glued to would flip-flop in an instant if the other party were in power. Think about it. Remember a guy who campaigned for president on "no nation building"? Those that supported him then are now totally ready to support the polar opposite position ..."we MUST build a nation".
DieselDave said: ...If Clinton ...would Ted be saying the same things he is today?
Maybe. During Vietnam, you saw people oppose the President even if he was from the same party. I don't know about Ted. But...your point is well taken.
DieselDave said:...only one way to defeat terrorism and that's is to kill as many of them as possible.
Here I agree with Dave but I think we must go further. You may have heard Donald Rumsfeld asking if new terrorists are being made faster than we can find and kill them. That is an important point. I very much believe we need a two step approach.
Step 1: ...what Dave said...find them and kill them.
Step 2: Figure out what the fundamental problem is and get working on that. Otherwise you just have an endless terror cycle. Terror on the scale of the 9-11 attack needed broad support. It was expensive. I don't buy the argument "they hate our freedom". We've been free a long time but it is only recently (last 10 years?) that we've seen attacks like this.
Is it the gap between rich and poor in Saudi Arabia? Is it lack of human rights? Is it lack of democracy? There is a truth that underlies Al Queada that we are missing. Until we figure it out, terrorists will just keep coming out of the woodwork. 15 of the 19 highjackers came from Saudi Arabia. They were VERY well funded. We are missing something important here.
DieselDave said:...Iraq is not a war we can lose or abandon.
Once again...gotta agree with Dave. How we got there is somewhat moot at this point. If we simply pull out, it will be worse than before and much more likely to create world terror than if we had just left it alone.
I'll come back around now to my original post.
I believe that we need to change the perception that this is a U.S. occupation and get Muslim peace keeping troops into Iraq to provide stability until the Iraqis can sort out a democratic process that will bring long term peace and stability to that region. As long as the majority of the soldiers that Iraqis see every day are "white, Christian Americans" it will seem like occupation. If our country were occupied by an army that looked different, spoke another language and worshiped another religion than ours...I can guarantee that many Americans would be shooting, bombing and resisting that army. And I don't think we would regard ourselves as terrorists while we were doing it. And...it would NEVER stop until the occupiers went away.
Egypt sent many troops to help us in the first Gulf war. Now they are absent. Where are our diplomats now that we need them to convince such countries to help us maintain a stable peace to help the Iraqi people? Do we think that Muslims would be unwilling to help their fellows in a time of need? I don't. If something in the way the U.S. is conducting itself is holding that support back...then THAT is something we need to change.
stockwiz
Enlightened
I'm one of these cooky isolationist type conservatives, you know, the ones who think the patriot act was not necessary, nor was federalizing airline security, and I believe and know that Bush is spending way too much money.. how so called fiscal conservatives seem to miss this incredible spending by their republican presidents just baffles me. They actually make the democrats look fiscally responsable at times, but me, I'll never vote for a republicrat again.
I believe that there is a very good reason arabs hate us... because we've been meddling in their internal affairs for decades, going back to Reagan and earlier, telling them what they can and cannot do, intigating conflict for our own purposes, harassing their citizens, trying to mold their culture to our own image, WHICH IS NOT OUR JOB NOR SHOULD IT BE. People forget that it was our meddling that put Saddam and Bin Laden in power in the first place, by a republican no less. I'm a believer in the philosophy "we leave them alone, they'll leave us alone."
I also believe we have a double standard in favor of Israel, that is, we come down too hard on arab nations and let Israel get away with whatever it wants, and news about what Israel does is grossly underreported by the mainstream media, for example this wall they are building deep into territory that is not theirs, cutting palestinian towns and farmland in two, seperating palestinians on the Israeli side of the fence from any help at all.
They are allowed to stockpile a nuclear arsenal that is the largest in the world on a "per citizen" basis, several hundred weapons for a population of 6.5 million, while nations like Iran are harassed to no end if they are suspected of having any more then a nuclear power plant much less one single nuclear weapon. They are given billions yearly, sometimes to the tune of 10-15% of their 100 billion dollar GDP, in the form of direct US taxpayer aid and loan guarantees that they never have to pay back, and use it on military. It's a back and forth game that never ends.. people criticize palestinian suicide bombers killing Israeli citizens, but far more palestinian civilians are killed by Israeli tanks and military then vise versa. The palestinians retaliate the only way they can given the limited funds and help they have compared to the billions Israel receives yearly from the United States.
The people responsable for the faulty intelligence saying that saddam had weapons when he really didn't were Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle, both who in my opinion put the interests of Israel before the United States anyways, dual loyalists. They are also the same neoconservatives pushing for war with Iran, with no real evidence of anything.. if Iran happens to have a nuclear weapon, so what? It will never reach the United States, and Iran is no threat to the United States. Ricard Perle himself was caught sending Israel classified US intelligence back in the 1980's... and no, I don't think it's somehow anti-semitic to criticize Israeli policy, because I believe it's lead to a lot more hardship for the United States and our citizens the benefit.
As for Al Quida, or whatever it's called, see point number one... we meddle in their affairs they retailiate, plus, al quida is based in Afghanistan, and is a relatively small group of rebels over a wide area, and to go and lump all arab nations and governments or blame them for not stopping al quida into one group is as silly as saying Saddam and Bin Laden were conspiring. It would be like blaming the United States for not stopping the Oklahoma City bombing, suspected to have been done by a small group of radicals like the ones at Waco. It's impossible to control every citizen in a nation... and if a few of them might have a grudge against us, well I'm not going to blame them personally. I wouldn't like it if China, for example, decided it would just fly planes over the United States and send in troops just because they have interests in Mexico (yeah dumb example I know)
It's time to get out of the middle east, stop funding Israel, and let them solve their own problems, and give all that money back to the american taxpayer... because it has cost us dearly, not just in dollars spent on needless conflicts of no interest to america, but on the billions in direct aid to a nation that in my opinion is the real cause of instability in the region.
I know this will be hard for some to read, because I know how long it took me to finally accept it fully and now I learn more daily, and you are only getting little snippets of facts here with so much more to research. All I ask is you keep an open mind. The libery forums are a good place to learn more about people who are in the opinion that I am as well as plenty off good viewpoints representing both sides of the middle east situation but an overall conservative leaning.
I believe that there is a very good reason arabs hate us... because we've been meddling in their internal affairs for decades, going back to Reagan and earlier, telling them what they can and cannot do, intigating conflict for our own purposes, harassing their citizens, trying to mold their culture to our own image, WHICH IS NOT OUR JOB NOR SHOULD IT BE. People forget that it was our meddling that put Saddam and Bin Laden in power in the first place, by a republican no less. I'm a believer in the philosophy "we leave them alone, they'll leave us alone."
I also believe we have a double standard in favor of Israel, that is, we come down too hard on arab nations and let Israel get away with whatever it wants, and news about what Israel does is grossly underreported by the mainstream media, for example this wall they are building deep into territory that is not theirs, cutting palestinian towns and farmland in two, seperating palestinians on the Israeli side of the fence from any help at all.
They are allowed to stockpile a nuclear arsenal that is the largest in the world on a "per citizen" basis, several hundred weapons for a population of 6.5 million, while nations like Iran are harassed to no end if they are suspected of having any more then a nuclear power plant much less one single nuclear weapon. They are given billions yearly, sometimes to the tune of 10-15% of their 100 billion dollar GDP, in the form of direct US taxpayer aid and loan guarantees that they never have to pay back, and use it on military. It's a back and forth game that never ends.. people criticize palestinian suicide bombers killing Israeli citizens, but far more palestinian civilians are killed by Israeli tanks and military then vise versa. The palestinians retaliate the only way they can given the limited funds and help they have compared to the billions Israel receives yearly from the United States.
The people responsable for the faulty intelligence saying that saddam had weapons when he really didn't were Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle, both who in my opinion put the interests of Israel before the United States anyways, dual loyalists. They are also the same neoconservatives pushing for war with Iran, with no real evidence of anything.. if Iran happens to have a nuclear weapon, so what? It will never reach the United States, and Iran is no threat to the United States. Ricard Perle himself was caught sending Israel classified US intelligence back in the 1980's... and no, I don't think it's somehow anti-semitic to criticize Israeli policy, because I believe it's lead to a lot more hardship for the United States and our citizens the benefit.
As for Al Quida, or whatever it's called, see point number one... we meddle in their affairs they retailiate, plus, al quida is based in Afghanistan, and is a relatively small group of rebels over a wide area, and to go and lump all arab nations and governments or blame them for not stopping al quida into one group is as silly as saying Saddam and Bin Laden were conspiring. It would be like blaming the United States for not stopping the Oklahoma City bombing, suspected to have been done by a small group of radicals like the ones at Waco. It's impossible to control every citizen in a nation... and if a few of them might have a grudge against us, well I'm not going to blame them personally. I wouldn't like it if China, for example, decided it would just fly planes over the United States and send in troops just because they have interests in Mexico (yeah dumb example I know)
It's time to get out of the middle east, stop funding Israel, and let them solve their own problems, and give all that money back to the american taxpayer... because it has cost us dearly, not just in dollars spent on needless conflicts of no interest to america, but on the billions in direct aid to a nation that in my opinion is the real cause of instability in the region.
I know this will be hard for some to read, because I know how long it took me to finally accept it fully and now I learn more daily, and you are only getting little snippets of facts here with so much more to research. All I ask is you keep an open mind. The libery forums are a good place to learn more about people who are in the opinion that I am as well as plenty off good viewpoints representing both sides of the middle east situation but an overall conservative leaning.
<font color="blue">REMINDER TO ALL</font> <font color="red">*coughNitrocough*</font> <font color="blue">: Attack the post... not the poster. Please follow that simple guideline and this thread will not be locked like so many before it. Thank you. </font>
PlayboyJoeShmoe
Flashaholic
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/jpshakehead.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/jpshakehead.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/jpshakehead.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/jpshakehead.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/jpshakehead.gif
I don't worship at the house of Bush. I am pissed about the immigration laws, the massive spending (which isn't getting us new Airlift capability to replace the C-141 and C-5 aircraft that are being retired hand over fist) and various other things I DON'T LIKE!
That said. We are in this boat. When November rolls around, I have three choices. A: Vote for the status quo B: Vote AGAINST Bush C: Don't vote.
I don't believe for one moment that Kerry would do ANYTHING that I might agree with. He won't increase military at all. He won't do anything to alienate the ILLEGALs. Mty taxes WILL increase. Gas will cost ever so much more.
So you see, I gotta vote Bush. I'm sorry if that offends you!
I don't worship at the house of Bush. I am pissed about the immigration laws, the massive spending (which isn't getting us new Airlift capability to replace the C-141 and C-5 aircraft that are being retired hand over fist) and various other things I DON'T LIKE!
That said. We are in this boat. When November rolls around, I have three choices. A: Vote for the status quo B: Vote AGAINST Bush C: Don't vote.
I don't believe for one moment that Kerry would do ANYTHING that I might agree with. He won't increase military at all. He won't do anything to alienate the ILLEGALs. Mty taxes WILL increase. Gas will cost ever so much more.
So you see, I gotta vote Bush. I'm sorry if that offends you!
You know, I do hope that either the republicans or the democrats will get a clue in the next decade or so, because I'm sick and tired of neither one having a strong, realistic position on, well, almost anything. Too many years of spineless pandering have left us with two decrepit, rusty, weak parties without a moral bone in their bodies.
After 9/11, we should have registered every illegal alien in the USA and given them a three year visa. And at the end of that period, anybody who hadn't legitamately sorted out their situation, we should have deported. Every last one. We have "leaders", but no Leadership.
If there are areas where the economy is dependent on illegal labor, like a lot of fruit farming is, then those companies and the government should have negociated a legitimate way of employing foreign nationals to do that work.
I think that would have been better all round: better for national security, and better for the civil rights of the illegals, who can be deported at any time for any reason and frequently have it used against them as a lever by the unscurpulous people they work for.
Ditto defence. We need an armed forces with different strengths. A lot of our cold war thinking and hardware was for massed war against the Soviets and those days are gone-gone-gone. The infamous "Rebuilding America's Defences" has a lot of good stuff, but doesn't get to the core of the problem: massively corrupt, inbred and politicised defence procurement processes. The Army is saddled with any number of insane pork projects, but nobody is willing to put some chlorine in the pool, so to speak. I'd *love* to believe that kerry, having been a grunt, might be more sympathetic to the needs of the military, and less sympathetic to the needs of the big defence contractors.
http://www.google.com/search?q=rebuilding+america's+defences
(Outlines the notion of "Pax Americana" - like "Pax Romana" - a global peace ensured by the presence of a sole superpower, the U.S.A. - basically casting us as the World's Policeman for the next two hundred years. Then proceeds to outline how to modernize the army to this goal. It's by Jeb Bush, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney et al, published in 2000. It's a good read.)
And although taxes didn't go up under Bush, national debt did, and in the long run that's exactly the same as taxes. It's all got to be paid for in the end.
I really think we should ditch income tax and move to a sales tax with exemptions for clothing, food, and rebates to the poor covering their share of transport and stuff like that. It's a lot less intrusive, for starters.
And the Founder's idea of limiting the government's ability to raise depts to what will be paid off within 10 or 20 years was a good one, they should have done that.
Anyway, I'm just rambling now, nothing to see. I'm just tired of not feeling like we have any political options which represent strong, clear government willing to clear up the mess left by decades, if not a century, of accumulated pandering and corruption.
After 9/11, we should have registered every illegal alien in the USA and given them a three year visa. And at the end of that period, anybody who hadn't legitamately sorted out their situation, we should have deported. Every last one. We have "leaders", but no Leadership.
If there are areas where the economy is dependent on illegal labor, like a lot of fruit farming is, then those companies and the government should have negociated a legitimate way of employing foreign nationals to do that work.
I think that would have been better all round: better for national security, and better for the civil rights of the illegals, who can be deported at any time for any reason and frequently have it used against them as a lever by the unscurpulous people they work for.
Ditto defence. We need an armed forces with different strengths. A lot of our cold war thinking and hardware was for massed war against the Soviets and those days are gone-gone-gone. The infamous "Rebuilding America's Defences" has a lot of good stuff, but doesn't get to the core of the problem: massively corrupt, inbred and politicised defence procurement processes. The Army is saddled with any number of insane pork projects, but nobody is willing to put some chlorine in the pool, so to speak. I'd *love* to believe that kerry, having been a grunt, might be more sympathetic to the needs of the military, and less sympathetic to the needs of the big defence contractors.
http://www.google.com/search?q=rebuilding+america's+defences
(Outlines the notion of "Pax Americana" - like "Pax Romana" - a global peace ensured by the presence of a sole superpower, the U.S.A. - basically casting us as the World's Policeman for the next two hundred years. Then proceeds to outline how to modernize the army to this goal. It's by Jeb Bush, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney et al, published in 2000. It's a good read.)
And although taxes didn't go up under Bush, national debt did, and in the long run that's exactly the same as taxes. It's all got to be paid for in the end.
I really think we should ditch income tax and move to a sales tax with exemptions for clothing, food, and rebates to the poor covering their share of transport and stuff like that. It's a lot less intrusive, for starters.
And the Founder's idea of limiting the government's ability to raise depts to what will be paid off within 10 or 20 years was a good one, they should have done that.
Anyway, I'm just rambling now, nothing to see. I'm just tired of not feeling like we have any political options which represent strong, clear government willing to clear up the mess left by decades, if not a century, of accumulated pandering and corruption.
chiaroscuro
Enlightened
Meanwhile,until the U.S. has a plan and a clue concerning doing what is necessary to create a stable Iraq--- our allies will increasingly /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/popcorn.gif
I ,for one,don't blame them.
I ,for one,don't blame them.
Nitro
Flashlight Enthusiast
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2004
- Messages
- 1,347
I edited a post of mine, which had a statement that was a direct attack on Muppet. It was out of line and I want to a apologize. Sorry Muppet!
Nitro
Flashlight Enthusiast
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2004
- Messages
- 1,347
Thanks Sasha for pointing out the error of my ways. BTW, my offer still stands. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grinser2.gif
