Over 400 GOP Lies and Counting!

[wwworry]

Check 'em out. Contribute...

Claim v. Fact database (http://www.claimvfact.org)

[numediaman]

I don't think these kinds of things accomplish much. It is like Sly railing about flip flops. Whats the point? Dems think Bush lies; Republicans think Kerry flip flops. I'm ready to concede both points if it means we can proceed to a discussion of the issues.

[zimv20]

love it

[Neserk]

As long as people keep it accurate I think it is a great way to debunk the crap certain people insist on spewing forth. My favorite is how the economy is *improving* well, duh! When it hits rock bottom it can't go anywhere but up! It needs to improve to the level at least equal to what it was when Bush took over.

[SlyHunter]

As long as people keep it accurate I think it is a great way to debunk the crap certain people insist on spewing forth. My favorite is how the economy is *improving* well, duh! When it hits rock bottom it can't go anywhere but up! It needs to improve to the level at least equal to what it was when Bush took over.
I guess 9/11 had nothing to do with it.
I wouldn't call 5.7% as rock bottom and I'm sick and tired of people complaining of not having a job. I pass a guy every day holding up a will work for food sign not more than 2 blocks from a place that will hire anyone who walks in thier door for 10 bucks and hour.

McDonalds hiring for 7 an hour. Dump truck drivers make 10 bucks an hour and they will hire you if you have a valid drivers liscence their desperate doing road construction and they can't get enough drivers. Their paying 7 bucks an hour to stand around with a yield sign and wave at people if you can hold a will work for food sign then get a real job.

Our economy is good.

[Neserk]

I guess 9/11 had nothing to do with it.


The economy started to suck *before* 9/11... :rolleyes: As soon as the dollar heard another Bush was taking office it ran and hid :p

[blackfox]

The economy started to suck *before* 9/11... :rolleyes: As soon as the dollar heard another Bush was taking office it ran and hid :p
In fairness, the economy was failing before Bush took office, there is generally a 10-12 year recession cycle...it is a coincidence that both Bush presidents served in them..
that said, neither Bush dealt with them well, GW...moronically...his irresponsible spending will haunt for years to come...
BTW Good post, Numediaman...

[idkew]

The economy started to suck *before* 9/11... :rolleyes: As soon as the dollar heard another Bush was taking office it ran and hid :p

more like cliton left office just in time. get your facts right. the feds have actually thrown around the idea to move the beginning of this recession to during cliton's reign. i suppose this has not happened due to the possible political ramifications in an election year.

[Neserk]

more like cliton left office just in time. get your facts right. .

I have them right. THey were fine when Clinton was in office. In fact they were fixed from Bush Sr's reign of terror right around 6 months after Clinton got in and within two months of Bush Jr.'s reign of terror it took a nose dive. To see the real economy you need to be looking for a job. I was doing so during both of these terms (new college graduate and just relocated).

[idkew]

I have them right. THey were fine when Clinton was in office. In fact they were fixed from Bush Sr's reign of terror right around 6 months after Clinton got in and within two months of Bush Jr.'s reign of terror it took a nose dive. To see the real economy you need to be looking for a job. I was doing so during both of these terms (new college graduate and just relocated).

thank you, i have, and still am, looking for a job.

amazing an economy can react to a simple change in power after 2 months. maybe it was because if terror, but not bush's. remember the two buildings that had a lot to do with our economy getting destroyed? who was in office when this attack was planned?

call it what you want, but it doesn't make it true.

[skunk]

who was in office when this attack was planned?
Osama Bin Laden

[Neserk]

thank you, i have, and still am, looking for a job.

amazing an economy can react to a simple change in power after 2 months. maybe it was because if terror, but not bush's. remember the two buildings that had a lot to do with our economy getting destroyed? who was in office when this attack was planned?

call it what you want, but it doesn't make it true.

Repeating yourself over and over doesn't make it true. When Clinton was in office the attempted attacks were thwarted. After Bush was appointed the attacks happened because he only cared about attacking Iraq and ignored or possibly even allowed them to happen.

That aside, Bush single handledly managed to not only destroy the economy upon stepping foot into the whitehouse he also managed to give us a record deficit; take us into an illegal, immoral, unwarranted war; and take more vacation time than any president to date.

The economy being destroyed had nothing to do with 9/11. It has everything do with a "president" who is completely incompetent and cares about nothing but his wallet and the wallet of his friends.

[zimv20]

After Bush was appointed the attacks happened because he only cared about attacking Iraq and ignored or possibly even allowed them to happen.
though i think gore's administration would have had a better chance at stopping 9/11, i'm not convinced it would have.


The economy being destroyed had nothing to do with 9/11.
while i agree that bush's economic policies have been disastrous, i think it's important to recognize that 9/11 did cause a significant financial hit. though its effect would have been minimized if we'd still been running a budget surplus.

[blackfox]

I have them right. THey were fine when Clinton was in office. In fact they were fixed from Bush Sr's reign of terror right around 6 months after Clinton got in and within two months of Bush Jr.'s reign of terror it took a nose dive. To see the real economy you need to be looking for a job. I was doing so during both of these terms (new college graduate and just relocated).
As I said above, this is largely coincidence...the current recession began in Nov 2000, before Bush had taken office...the last recession was over by 1990, which was only halfway through Bush Sr's term of office...there were also recessions in 1981 and 1957, the one in 1981 a result of deliberate fiscal policy to combat inflation...I do not know about the late 60's, we were a war economy...(speaking of, economic growth in the US currently is at 4.2% because of current war effort)...so again, recessions happen every 10-12 years, regardless of who sits in the whitehouse...although Bush has made sure that future generations will pay for his defecit spending...do you know when we will probably feel those full effects?...around 2010...again 10 years apart...Bush has done enough actual bad stuff,, that you shouldn't unfairly pin this on him...

[IJ Reilly]

As I said above, this is largely coincidence...

Yes, but what is the Bush solution to every economic problem? Tax cuts. When the federal government was running surpluses, the money had to be refunded through tax cuts. When energy rates soared, tax cuts were to help Americans pay for higher-priced gasoline and heating oil. When the economy stayed in the tank, the rationale for even more tax cuts became economic stimulus. Yes, some of this is fate, but what kind of economic manager thinks every problem has the exact same solution?

[SlyHunter]

Yes, but what is the Bush solution to every economic problem? Tax cuts. When the federal government was running surpluses, the money had to be refunded through tax cuts. When energy rates soared, tax cuts were to help Americans pay for higher-priced gasoline and heating oil. When the economy stayed in the tank, the rationale for even more tax cuts became economic stimulus. Yes, some of this is fate, but what kind of economic manager thinks every problem has the exact same solution?
The people who earned the money should be able to keep as much of it as they can and the government should only take enough of it to keep the government running, handle international trade, and handle defense (which could include highways so our tanks can't get around etc). Any more than that is irresponsible.

[Thomas Veil]

Our economy is good.
:p

[kuyu]

The economy being destroyed had nothing to do with 9/11. It has everything do with a "president" who is completely incompetent and cares about nothing but his wallet and the wallet of his friends.

Actually, the president is in charge of fiscal policy (budgets, etc.). The FED controls monetary policy. The "economy" as everyone thinks of it, is the monetary side. The president has nothing to do with it.

Economists contend that the recession started in the waining days of Clinton's administration, but that Clinton had nothing to do with it.

People need to understand that the executive branch of the government does not run the federal reserve system. The board of governors and some of the FED bank presidents control the monetary policy of this country.

Also, are economy is fine. Unemployment is low, GDP is rising, CPI is stable, long term inflation is at ~2.5% and falling, deflation is a non-issue, proprietorship is at an all time high, the markets are strong, bullish, and most importantly... not a bubble. Taxes are down, corporate earnings are up, consumer confidence is up, consumer spending is up, new hirings are up, prime rate is low and holding, bond market is decent, municipal bonds are strong, futures are skyrocketing, currencies are stable, dollar is set to gain, and the transistion to a service economy is in full swing.

But, half the politicians out there don't want us to think that the economy is strong. Once again... the president does NOT have magic economy levers in his office... the FED runs the economy!

[idkew]

well said kuyu.

[IJ Reilly]

Put on a happy face. Don't worry, be happy. Etc.

Budgetary and fiscal policy are linked. Clinton made a deal with Greenspan to reduce budget deficits and keep interest rates low. This kind of cooperation is more than possible, it's smart.

At the risk of reopening an old debate, unless you happen to be a CEO, GDP is an almost meaningless number, as is the unemployment rate.

Also, inflation is not down, it is up, due mainly to sharply higher energy costs. The dollar is only "set to gain" because it has nowhere else to go but up.

The "transition to a service economy" is an old shibboleth. I believed in it, once upon a time. The "transition" process started during the 1970s and was supposed to fix our employment and wage problems, and by the '90s it even looked like it was happening. But when you look at wage growth, especially now that we find that even service jobs can be off-shored, I think it's easy to see that an economy bereft of industrial employment is an economy that doesn't provide real wage opportunities for a great many Americans, and probably never will.

These problems don't go away simply by pasting a happy face on them.

[idkew]

The dollar is only "set to gain" because it has nowhere else to go but up.

I am tired of these "no place to go but up" analogies.

The dollar can still lose a lot of value. The economy can still go further south.

Until the dollar is worth absolutely nothing, it can still go lower. Until the US falls into anarchy and everything is destroyed, the economy can get worse.

[wwworry]

Let's check the database!

Speaker: Bush, George - President

Date: 10/17/2003

Quote/Claim:
"If this were a spending contest, I would come in second. I readily admit I'm not going to grow the size of the federal government like [Gore] is."

Fact:
"The numbers are astonishing. Congress is now spending money like a drunken sailor. And I've never known a sailor, drunk or sober, with the imagination that this Congress has." - John McCain (R-AZ), Fox News, 11/30/03 "Conservative Republican frustration over the failure of the Bush administration and the House Republican leadership to restrain federal spending has boiled over in recent days, producing a rare confrontation between GOP lawmakers and party leaders." - The Hill, 12/3/03

(remember responsible balanced budgets???)



Speaker: Bush, George - President

Date: 10/16/2003

Quote/Claim:
"I came to this office to confront problems directly and forcefully, not to pass them on to future Presidents or future generations."

Fact:
“When the Treasury Department tallies up final figures later this month, it is expected to show a federal budget deficit between $370 billion and $380 billion for 2003,” one of the biggest debts passed onto another generation in American history. - Wall Street Journal, 10/9/03



Speaker: Bush, George - President

Date: 1/29/2002

Quote/Claim:
"Our budget will run a deficit that will be small and short term….”

Fact:
"The federal deficit will hit a record $477 billion this year and get worse if lawmakers cut taxes or increase spending, the Congressional Budget Office projected Monday." - CNN, 1/26/04 "The idea that this is manageable or that we are going to grow our way out of the problem is just flat false." - U.S. Comptroller General David Walker, LA Times, 10/7/03 "The U.S. government's budget deficit came under fire on Wednesday from two global institutions (OECD and the IMF) saying a plan to halve the record gap by 2009 may not be enough to stop long-term damage to the world economy." - Reuters, 4/14/04


Speaker: Bush, George - President

Date: 4/24/2003

Quote/Claim:
"This nation has got a deficit because we have been through a war."

Fact:
The Bush Administration's own budget analysis conflicts with his statement. According to Government Executive Magazine, "The Office of Management and Budget-prepared baseline shows that the deficit will decline precipitously without the changes in tax and spending policies the White House is proposing. In fact, the baseline shows that the budget will be in surplus starting in 2006 and that the surplus will increase every year thereafter. But S-3 also indicates that implementing the Bush budget would greatly increase the deficits in 2003-2005 and obliterate the projected surpluses in 2006-2008." - GEM, 2/12/03

[Neserk]

I am tired of these "no place to go but up" analogies.


Does the truth bother you that much?

[Neserk]

Let's check the database!

Speaker: Bush, George - President

Date: 10/17/2003

Quote/Claim:
"If this were a spending contest, I would come in second. I readily admit I'm not going to grow the size of the federal government like [Gore] is."

Fact:
"The numbers are astonishing. Congress is now spending money like a drunken sailor. And I've never known a sailor, drunk or sober, with the imagination that this Congress has." - John McCain (R-AZ), Fox News, 11/30/03 "Conservative Republican frustration over the failure of the Bush administration and the House Republican leadership to restrain federal spending has boiled over in recent days, producing a rare confrontation between GOP lawmakers and party leaders." - The Hill, 12/3/03

(remember responsible balanced budgets???)



Speaker: Bush, George - President

Date: 10/16/2003

Quote/Claim:
"I came to this office to confront problems directly and forcefully, not to pass them on to future Presidents or future generations."

Fact:
“When the Treasury Department tallies up final figures later this month, it is expected to show a federal budget deficit between $370 billion and $380 billion for 2003,” one of the biggest debts passed onto another generation in American history. - Wall Street Journal, 10/9/03



Speaker: Bush, George - President

Date: 1/29/2002

Quote/Claim:
"Our budget will run a deficit that will be small and short term….”

Fact:
"The federal deficit will hit a record $477 billion this year and get worse if lawmakers cut taxes or increase spending, the Congressional Budget Office projected Monday." - CNN, 1/26/04 "The idea that this is manageable or that we are going to grow our way out of the problem is just flat false." - U.S. Comptroller General David Walker, LA Times, 10/7/03 "The U.S. government's budget deficit came under fire on Wednesday from two global institutions (OECD and the IMF) saying a plan to halve the record gap by 2009 may not be enough to stop long-term damage to the world economy." - Reuters, 4/14/04


Speaker: Bush, George - President

Date: 4/24/2003

Quote/Claim:
"This nation has got a deficit because we have been through a war."

Fact:
The Bush Administration's own budget analysis conflicts with his statement. According to Government Executive Magazine, "The Office of Management and Budget-prepared baseline shows that the deficit will decline precipitously without the changes in tax and spending policies the White House is proposing. In fact, the baseline shows that the budget will be in surplus starting in 2006 and that the surplus will increase every year thereafter. But S-3 also indicates that implementing the Bush budget would greatly increase the deficits in 2003-2005 and obliterate the projected surpluses in 2006-2008." - GEM, 2/12/03


:eek:

[wwworry]

look up "economy - Taxes"
speaker " George Bush"

you'll find some good ones in there. A lot of people (like SlyHunter) don't care that the president is always lying.

[Neserk]

you'll find some good ones in there. A lot of people (like SlyHunter) don't care that the president is always lying.

I've noticed. He also lied when he said he was going to restore integrity to the white house.

[Dont Hurt Me]

100 billion and counting in Iraq. I dont know if Dubya has a money tree but i would guess we will get the bill for the 100 billion spent in Iraq sooner or later. we could have had a Space Program, or a National Healthcare package started, sheltered and fed children but instead a war squandering away lives and 100 billion dollars of our money. This Administration sucks and i dont care how many flags they wrap around themselves. November is coming and i would vote for Clemcuddle-hopper if i had to.

[zimv20]

100 billion and counting in Iraq.
over $112 billiion now

we could have had a Space Program, or a National Healthcare package started, sheltered and fed children
- Instead, we could have insured 48,142,107 children for one year
- Instead, we could have built 1,604,508 additional housing units
- Instead, we could have provided 2,848,842 students four-year scholarships at public universities
- Instead, we could have paid for 15,879,494 children to attend a year of Head Start

http://www.costofwar.com/

[idkew]

Does the truth bother you that much?


what was that thing that happened on October 29th, 1929?


was that a better situation than now?

[Dont Hurt Me]

over $112 billiion now


- Instead, we could have insured 48,142,107 children for one year
- Instead, we could have built 1,604,508 additional housing units
- Instead, we could have provided 2,848,842 students four-year scholarships at public universities
- Instead, we could have paid for 15,879,494 children to attend a year of Head Start

http://www.costofwar.com/one of the worst things i have done was vote for this arrogant president, i wont next time but thanks for the updates zimv20. 112 billion and what did we buy?

[idkew]

what about the $92 billion given to Israel before 2001?

$62 million to Uganda

$185 million to displaced afghan refugees.


.............

the war in iraq is not the only optional cost we incur.

[zimv20]

what about the $92 billion given to Israel in 2001 alone?

?!??!?!?!

where did that figure come from?

[idkew]

sorry, read it wrong. not just 2001, through 2001.

link (http://www.hotpolitics.com/tax4israel.htm)


did find it hard to believe, myself.

From that article:
U.S. Aid to Other Countries in the Region:*
This impressive amount of aid becomes even more so when compared with the aid given to other countries in the Middle East. The $3 billion in annual aid to Israel-according to the most conservative estimate-compares with bout $2 billion for Egypt, $225 million for Jordan, and $35 million for Lebanon. U.S. aid to the Palestinian Authority (PA) is not earmarked, but it has been running at about $100 million a year.*

[zimv20]

sorry, read it wrong, not just 2001, through 2001.

phew!

still, it's a lot of money...

[IIvan]

A lot of people (like SlyHunter) don't care that the president is always lying.

Believe it or not...Ive talked to many people who feel safer now that Bush is in office.... as in...

WE DONT ****ING CARE WHAT GOES ON AS LONG AS WE ARE FIGHTING THINGS AND NOT NEGOTIATING LIKE PUSSIES (because only weak people accept compromise and peace)

:( :mad:

[IIvan]

over $112 billiion now


- Instead, we could have insured 48,142,107 children for one year
- Instead, we could have built 1,604,508 additional housing units
- Instead, we could have provided 2,848,842 students four-year scholarships at public universities
- Instead, we could have paid for 15,879,494 children to attend a year of Head Start

http://www.costofwar.com/

EXACTLY!!!

[numediaman]

over $112 billiion now


- Instead, we could have insured 48,142,107 children for one year
- Instead, we could have built 1,604,508 additional housing units
- Instead, we could have provided 2,848,842 students four-year scholarships at public universities
- Instead, we could have paid for 15,879,494 children to attend a year of Head Start

http://www.costofwar.com/

Great link, Zim. I'm surprised I hadn't come across this site.

Of course, from Bush's perspective, improving the education of the masses is probably considered counterproductive to staying in power. Better to say you want "no child left behind" than to actually work to improve public education.

[Krizoitz]

The people who earned the money should be able to keep as much of it as they can and the government should only take enough of it to keep the government running, handle international trade, and handle defense (which could include highways so our tanks can't get around etc). Any more than that is irresponsible.

You say that as if the people earned the money with absolutely no help from the government whatsoever. Without infrastructure, tarrifs, law enforcement and defense you could have a factory and no way to get products to market, no one to protect you from theft, no one to protect you from being over run by some foreign government and no form of currency to handle transactions with.

In addition without funding things like medical research you wouldn't have as good of a medical system, no cures for diseases etc. Hard to sell to corpses. Without job training programs and unemployment you wouldn't have people able to get new jobs and contribute to the economy. Without public education you wouldn't have a better work force able to compete with the international markets and create new products.

So where exactly is this money being spent irresponsibly? To provide medical aid and support to our elderly? To help those who are too poor to help themselves because the rich just keep getting richer and the poor poorer? Maybe its being wasted on trying to get kids of the streets in inner cities and provide them with an education. Or stupid mass transit systems that reduce pollution and traffic congestion.

But thats ok, I'm sure that all those people who are out of work because our economy hasn't improved can go get minimum wage jobs at McDonalds. Then they can support their families and help improve the economy by buying all those frivolous things like food and clothes. The kids don't need shots, who gets tetanus these days anyway. And if they get in an accident, well insurance is just for bad drivers right?

Gimme a break. Just admit that you are greedy and don't want to think about anyone else but yourself. You know it amazes me how a political group which so identifies itself with Christianity has forgetten one of the main precepts. CHARITY. Didn't Jesus admonish the wealthy man to give up his wealth? Don't see G.W. Bush giving up much of his millions to the poor. But thats ok the rich pay their fair share of taxes right? WRONG. They use their influence to get all sorts of loopholes put in and then pay lawyers to keep them from paying their fair share.

Forgive me if I won't count on the goodness of the rich to contribute to the needy of our society. They tried that in the past, you know what happens? Feudalism. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

You prove to me that you in no way benefited from a strong government that you earned every cent of money on your own with no outside benefits (pretty tough considering all our money is basically there because the government exists to back it up) and then I'll agree to lowering your taxes.

You seem to have this idea that those out of work all do so cause they don't want to work or can't find work. Well I got news for you, that ain't true. Our economy is in the worst shape its been in in decades and it ain't getting better. Meanwhile our President has lied to us moretimes than I can count and is busy giving more money back to the rich. You know that whole trickle down economics theory? The idea that if you tax the rich less it somehow benefits the poor? Its crap, instead they keep their money, don't raise wages, and raise prices instead.

But lets stop having to pay taxes and see how well our country does. See how many jobs there will be, see how well the wealth gets distributed and see how many consumers you have left to buy your products so you can earn your living. Gimme a break.

[SlyHunter]

In addition without funding things like medical research you wouldn't have as good of a medical system, no cures for diseases etc. Hard to sell to corpses. Without job training programs and unemployment you wouldn't have people able to get new jobs and contribute to the economy. Without public education you wouldn't have a better work force able to compete with the international markets and create new products.

I said Federal Government. Education and other stuff like that can be paid via taxes by the state government. National government taxes should be as low as possible and still keep it running.


So where exactly is this money being spent irresponsibly? To provide medical aid and support to our elderly? To help those who are too poor to help themselves because the rich just keep getting richer and the poor poorer? Maybe its being wasted on trying to get kids of the streets in inner cities and provide them with an education. Or stupid mass transit systems that reduce pollution and traffic congestion.

Technically we would be a stronger society if we spent less on medical care. The sicknesses we get and overcome thru our own antibodies makes us stronger and in turn make our future generations stronger. The use of medical technology to keep those alive who couldn't live without it risks weakening our society as a whole especially if they reproduced. So logically medical aid for disease and stuff might not have been such a great idea.

Then again what kind of people would we have to be to follow such a strategy. Mentally and otherwise.

Mass transit increases traffic congestion. Buses don't pull off the road they stop in the middle of the lane and then everyone else has to figure out how to get around them or sit and wait. True this is only true for buses you might have a point about other mass transit systems.



Gimme a break. Just admit that you are greedy and don't want to think about anyone else but yourself. You know it amazes me how a political group which so identifies itself with Christianity has forgetten one of the main precepts. CHARITY. Didn't Jesus admonish the wealthy man to give up his wealth? Don't see G.W. Bush giving up much of his millions to the poor. But thats ok the rich pay their fair share of taxes right? WRONG. They use their influence to get all sorts of loopholes put in and then pay lawyers to keep them from paying their fair share.

BTW I said before I don't have a couch yet in my living room because I'm still saving up for one. So I'm not one of those greedy capitalist pigs but I hope to be someday.

Big difference between the government taking money by threat of force (don't pay your taxes and you'll see that force) and giving to others and giving it to others on your own. One is theft the other is charity there is a difference. I see nothing wrong with charity.


You seem to have this idea that those out of work all do so cause they don't want to work or can't find work. Well I got news for you, that ain't true. Our economy is in the worst shape its been in in decades and it ain't getting better. Meanwhile our President has lied to us moretimes than I can count and is busy giving more money back to the rich. You know that whole trickle down economics theory? The idea that if you tax the rich less it somehow benefits the poor? Its crap, instead they keep their money, don't raise wages, and raise prices instead.

I seen a guy with a will work for food sign on the street corner. Two blocks down the road is a business hireing anyone who walks into their door for 10 bucks an hour. You know why he won't go there to work? Because he makes over 20 bucks an hour off of idiots thinking he needs their help. If I lost my job today I would have another tomorrow. We have plenty of jobs 7 bucks an hour and more. With a valid drivers liscence I can get you a job driving a dump truck for 10 bucks an hour. Don't tell me about no CDL liscence that only cost 15 bucks and a test based on 6 pages of the drivers handbook.

[Krizoitz]

I said Federal Government. Education and other stuff like that can be paid via taxes by the state government. National government taxes should be as low as possible and still keep it running.

We went through the whole stronger state govt/stronger federal govt thing about 150 years ago. It was called the civil war. Besides the Federal Govt funds public education in addition to local funding. Otherwise almost no one would be able to pay for college with the costs these days.


Mass transit increases traffic congestion. Buses don't pull off the road they stop in the middle of the lane and then everyone else has to figure out how to get around them or sit and wait. True this is only true for buses you might have a point about other mass transit systems.
You're kidding me right? They INCREASE congestion? You show me ONE piece of evidence to support that and I MIGHT just believe you. Lets see a small bus can carry about 40 passengers. Assuming that you have two people per car (not usual, most commuters don't carpool) and you have 20 cars or one bus. Add up the multiple routes and you're taking alot of cars off the road. Oh and I've never seen a bus that stops in the middle of a road, they stop on the sides sure but not the middle, and bus stops are clearly marked.


BTW I said before I don't have a couch yet in my living room because I'm still saving up for one. So I'm not one of those greedy capitalist pigs but I hope to be someday.

Big difference between the government taking money by threat of force (don't pay your taxes and you'll see that force) and giving to others and giving it to others on your own. One is theft the other is charity there is a difference. I see nothing wrong with charity.

You don't pay your taxes yes you suffer the consequences. Why? Because a free (rights) society isn't free (cost) you belong you pay your fair share. You don't pay you don't play. And its not like the govt just makes up the taxes, you're representative government comes up with it. Besides the US is the LEAST taxed industrialized nation in the world so I hardly see us as being taken over by the Government.


I seen a guy with a will work for food sign on the street corner. Two blocks down the road is a business hireing anyone who walks into their door for 10 bucks an hour. You know why he won't go there to work? Because he makes over 20 bucks an hour off of idiots thinking he needs their help. If I lost my job today I would have another tomorrow. We have plenty of jobs 7 bucks an hour and more. With a valid drivers liscence I can get you a job driving a dump truck for 10 bucks an hour. Don't tell me about no CDL liscence that only cost 15 bucks and a test based on 6 pages of the drivers handbook.

Oh great so we can all drive dump trucks, there is a career with great potential for improvement. So you are saying that I spent five years pursuing a degree, working my butt off and building up a $25,000 debt in loans so I can drive a dump truck? You are saying that people who have spent 20 years working in inudstry who lose their jobs because GW Bush won't protect American jobs can raise his family on $10 an hour driving a dump truck. Bull. The economy continues to fail, not enough jobs are being created, and we are losing more and more of them overseas so corporate bigwigs can make a higher profit using cheap international labor. Why? Because they don't give a rats behind about the American worker, just their own pocket books. It sickens me. Gay marriage isn't destroying our country. Greed is.

[zimv20]

Krizoitz, it's useless arguing w/ sly. he finds one example of someone out of work and one example of someone hiring and he declares 1) all out of work people are lazy and 2) the economy is great.

he doesn't understand:
1) sample size
2) scaling problems
3) fluidity
4) that there is a dept of labor which keeps track of real statistics

further, he exhibits signs of a martyr complex. he works hard but his lazy sisters get to have a good time. his great contribution to our society is to do without a couch (a fact of which he's reminded us several times), which somehow is supposed to demonstrate the proletariat struggle. he believes taxes stand between him and real wealth (which includes something to sit on, i presume), never acknowledging the fact that people have gotten wealthy playing under the same rules he does, and under much higher tax rates.

any gov't service from which he does not directly benefit is deemed a waste of money, and probably several from which he does or did benefit.

if the system benefits the "fat, lazy slobs" as much as he believes, it would make much more sense for him to quit his not-quite-dump-truck driving job and live off the fat of the state. but he does not, indicating to me that he knows his rants are empty and, despite his claims of a healthy economy, he really must hold on to his job.

sly, good luck with all of that. and keep trading! my investments had a really good year in 2003; it must be somebody's money i'm taking.

[SlyHunter]

We went through the whole stronger state govt/stronger federal govt thing about 150 years ago. It was called the civil war. Besides the Federal Govt funds public education in addition to local funding. Otherwise almost no one would be able to pay for college with the costs these days.

Actually if federal contributions to the public education system was decreased or removed taxes paid to the federal government could also be decreased. Then States could raise taxes at the state level and make up the difference. Where do you think the Fed government got the money from? From people who live in the State. They are not adding additional money to the state they are taking it from people who live in the state and then giving a little bit of it back. Lets get rid of a few middle men where they are not needed.


You're kidding me right? They INCREASE congestion? You show me ONE piece of evidence to support that and I MIGHT just believe you. Lets see a small bus can carry about 40 passengers. Assuming that you have two people per car (not usual, most commuters don't carpool) and you have 20 cars or one bus. Add up the multiple routes and you're taking alot of cars off the road. Oh and I've never seen a bus that stops in the middle of a road, they stop on the sides sure but not the middle, and bus stops are clearly marked.

I drive close to 80,000 miles a year. I constantly see problems when a bus pulls to the side of the road in Downtown Orlando, Downtown Cocoa village and elsewhere and cars swerve to get around it causing increased congestion. I look around me and see the traffic jam caused by waiting on the bus to do its stop and then look in the bus and at most holds 40 people. Most of the time its not even 1/3rd full. To make things worse when the buses are running ahead of schedule they'll sit there parked in the right of way for up to 15 minutes waiting for the schedule time to come by before moving. Many a time I swung around a bus make my right turn in front of it where I needed to turn and it starts up right there almost t boning my car. I see lots of examples of it as I drive along the roadway.


Oh great so we can all drive dump trucks, there is a career with great potential for improvement. So you are saying that I spent five years pursuing a degree, working my butt off and building up a $25,000 debt in loans so I can drive a dump truck? You are saying that people who have spent 20 years working in inudstry who lose their jobs because GW Bush won't protect American jobs can raise his family on $10 an hour driving a dump truck. Bull. The economy continues to fail, not enough jobs are being created, and we are losing more and more of them overseas so corporate bigwigs can make a higher profit using cheap international labor. Why? Because they don't give a rats behind about the American worker, just their own pocket books. It sickens me. Gay marriage isn't destroying our country. Greed is.
It is not the governments job to make sure you have a job. You chose to follow the career path you did. You chose which degree to pursue. It is not the governments job to make sure that particular job type would still be available when you graduate. I know a fellow driver he is a full fledge Philosophy professor. He complains how this job is beneath him yet he does it because it pays more. Its his own fault if he cares more about the money then the career path then he should've of picked a more lucrative career path. It is not up to the Government to tell people how much to pay for what job. That is what the market is for.

If you don't think working 10 bucks an hour is enough to take care of a family then don't make one while you are working for 10 bucks an hour. Wait until your career progresses and you are making more money before getting anyone pregnant.

[SlyHunter]

if the system benefits the "fat, lazy slobs" as much as he believes, it would make much more sense for him to quit his not-quite-dump-truck driving job and live off the fat of the state. but he does not, indicating to me that he knows his rants are empty and, despite his claims of a healthy economy, he really must hold on to his job.

I actually have family members up north living on GA who told me to do just that and don't understand why I keep working so hard. They have more than I do without working for it. I just think its wrong. I think its wrong to be a leach on society and you should do everything in your power to not be. I also want more of a life than what they have in that town with no cable 1 gas station and nothing much else.
Oh and I don't drive dump trucks for a living.

sly, good luck with all of that. and keep trading! my investments had a really good year in 2003; it must be somebody's money i'm taking.
Actually my stock is doing pretty well too until Greenspan started talking about interest rates.

I doubt its "somebodys" money your taking in the stock market its not a closed system with a limited amount of funds. Our economy is growing along with your stock portfolio.

[pseudobrit]

Krizoitz, it's useless arguing w/ sly. he finds one example of someone out of work and one example of someone hiring and he declares 1) all out of work people are lazy and 2) the economy is great.

he doesn't understand:
1) sample size
2) scaling problems
3) fluidity
4) that there is a dept of labor which keeps track of real statistics

further, he exhibits signs of a martyr complex. he works hard but his lazy sisters get to have a good time. his great contribution to our society is to do without a couch (a fact of which he's reminded us several times), which somehow is supposed to demonstrate the proletariat struggle. he believes taxes stand between him and real wealth (which includes something to sit on, i presume), never acknowledging the fact that people have gotten wealthy playing under the same rules he does, and under much higher tax rates.

any gov't service from which he does not directly benefit is deemed a waste of money, and probably several from which he does or did benefit.

if the system benefits the "fat, lazy slobs" as much as he believes, it would make much more sense for him to quit his not-quite-dump-truck driving job and live off the fat of the state. but he does not, indicating to me that he knows his rants are empty and, despite his claims of a healthy economy, he really must hold on to his job.

sly, good luck with all of that. and keep trading! my investments had a really good year in 2003; it must be somebody's money i'm taking.

I think you nailed him down. I'm sure his response merely confirmed your accusations, but fortunately I don't get the displeasure of reading his drivel anymore.

[ethernet76]

The people who earned the money should be able to keep as much of it as they can and the government should only take enough of it to keep the government running, handle international trade, and handle defense (which could include highways so our tanks can't get around etc). Any more than that is irresponsible.

There is a problem with your ideas.

First off, everyone, for the most part, starts off poor. I am one of those people. I have $10,000 in loans from just this year of college, this being my third year, I think I've managed to rack up 30,000 in debt so far. Making only $5,000 a year you can see that my net worth is probably a negative number.

However, the federal goverment, along with state and local goverments, have decided that it is fair that I pay part of my tax burden. To a sum of about 350 total when including SS and medicare. Two benefits I don't receive.

While the amount paid in taxes is only 7 percent, they aren't the ones that have to worry about eating.

I find that those who started with money - Bush, Cheney, etc. - seem to believe they should be able to keep their money, while those who have earned their way through difficulty, college, or up the corporate ladder tend to be more giving - Gates, Tigers Woods, etc.

Just like record companies subsidize young artists, the federal government should "subsidize" those who do not earn nearly enough to live.

The results of this failure can be seen in the 1929 crash of the economy when the top .1 percent of rich Americans controlled 34 percent of the nation's savings. The top .1 percent also made as much as the bottom 42 percent of U.S. population.

While middle and lower-class families typically have no savings, the upper-classes tend to save a large deal of their income even though their initial rates of taxation are so high. Most economists agree that saving does nothing to the economy, and the poor tend to drive the economy more with their spending than those with greater wealth. Bush's tax-cut plan exemplified this point dramactically.

The 2002 Bush tax cut plan relies heavily on the companies that are receiving the tax breaks to reinvest the money into the company. Hoping it will filter down to the workers, who will then put it to use buying goods and services. This unforunately is not how the American economy works.

The American economy by large is a consumer economy. The spending of the American population increases demand, increases profit, and eventually leads to an increase in jobs. The Bush plan is the complete oposite. By giving money to companies they hoped that companies would be able to hire more employees. Which would eventually lead to an increase in spending and an overall improvement of the economy.

However, unlike personal finance there many more options for companies with the use of the money. Some of the more common are: paying down short term debt, paying down long term debt, building up cash reserves, paying more to employees, or new hirings. The options for a person when it comes to personal spending are pretty much limited to spend or save.

A couple isn't going to say, "Gee, I think we should use this tax rebate to pay down our 30-year mortgage at an increased rate," or "I think we should give little Billy a larger allowance. His productivity has incrased so nicely over the past fiscal year." Where a company would say, "We should take this opportunity to pay down our long term debt so that we can aquire XYZ corporation, and increase our loan rating value to BB+."

[Krizoitz]

Actually if federal contributions to the public education system was decreased or removed taxes paid to the federal government could also be decreased. Then States could raise taxes at the state level and make up the difference. Where do you think the Fed government got the money from? From people who live in the State. They are not adding additional money to the state they are taking it from people who live in the state and then giving a little bit of it back. Lets get rid of a few middle men where they are not needed.

Except those taxes go to pay for you to go to ANY University, therefore doesn't it make more sense for them to be distributed at a national level?



I drive close to 80,000 miles a year. I constantly see problems when a bus pulls to the side of the road in Downtown Orlando, Downtown Cocoa village and elsewhere and cars swerve to get around it causing increased congestion. I look around me and see the traffic jam caused by waiting on the bus to do its stop and then look in the bus and at most holds 40 people. Most of the time its not even 1/3rd full. To make things worse when the buses are running ahead of schedule they'll sit there parked in the right of way for up to 15 minutes waiting for the schedule time to come by before moving. Many a time I swung around a bus make my right turn in front of it where I needed to turn and it starts up right there almost t boning my car. I see lots of examples of it as I drive along the roadway.

Annecdotal evidence is one thing but it doesn't prove that mass transit causes more congestion than cars alone would.


It is not the governments job to make sure you have a job. You chose to follow the career path you did. You chose which degree to pursue. It is not the governments job to make sure that particular job type would still be available when you graduate.

What a fool I was to go to college in hopes of being a productive member of society. Obviously its not the governments responsibility to just hand me a job, but I do rather expect that they will provide an economy in which I can reasonable compete and earn one. It is the govts job to provide for the welfare of the nation and its citizens and last time I checked employment was one of those things.


I know a fellow driver he is a full fledge Philosophy professor. He complains how this job is beneath him yet he does it because it pays more. Its his own fault if he cares more about the money then the career path then he should've of picked a more lucrative career path. It is not up to the Government to tell people how much to pay for what job. That is what the market is for.

I'm not talking about providing $100k+ a year jobs for everyone, I'm talking about taking steps to ensure that decent jobs are being created for Americans and not shipped off to some foreign country just so people like Keny Lay and Dick Cheney and Phil Knight can buy a new Beamer.


If you don't think working 10 bucks an hour is enough to take care of a family then don't make one while you are working for 10 bucks an hour. Wait until your career progresses and you are making more money before getting anyone pregnant.
Tell that to the guy laid off from his job of 20 years who allready has a family to support. I'm not talking about us entry level folk necessarilly, I'm talking about people who have spent their whole lives contributing to the economy only to watch it get hosed because GWB has his head too far up his rear to care about the American people. He's too buys flying jets to aircraft carriers (something he should have done while he was supposed to be in the Natn'l Gaurd) and giving massive tax breaks to his fellow fat cats to care.

[SlyHunter]

Annecdotal evidence is one thing but it doesn't prove that mass transit causes more congestion than cars alone would.




In spite of seemingly convincing data, public transit does not solve congestion problems nor is it cost-effective, according to the Heritage Foundation. Wendell Cox and senior economist Randal O'Toole analyzed the Texas Transportation Institute's 2003 Annual Urban Mobility Report and discovered discrepancies with the data.


If a car trip takes 30 minutes without congestion and 40 minutes with congestion, the TTI report counts the extra 10 minutes as the price of eliminating transit, even though the same trip by mass transit would take 60 minutes.
The report suggests that mass transit reduces congestion by giving people an alternative to driving; however, 70 percent of drivers already using mass transit do not have cars or driver's licenses.
The report indicates that mass transit has increased as a proportion of urban travel over 20 years, but, in fact, it has declined.
Public transit productivity fell 30 percent over the past decade -- considering the annual cost of public transit by all governments -- which increased by 28.8 percent over 10 years -- and the decline in the proportion of ridership -- with public transit's share declining 10 percent.
One of the problems with the report, notes O'Toole and Cox, is that the "positive" results of mass transit reported by TTI are skewed to a few major urbanized areas. For example, New York City is weighted heavily (Manhattan residents must have mass transit to get around), but 36 percent of the time savings attributed to mass transit is in New York City, with just five other urban regions comprising an additional 29 percent of travel time saved.

etc http://www.ncpa.org/iss/bud/2004/pd042804f.html

and

First let's compare the bus to the automobile. To make a long story short: the technology of both vehicles (rubber tires and internal combustion engines) is about the same. The percentage of seats occupied by people (load factor) is also about the same for urban buses and the auto. Thus the energy efficiency in terms of passenger-miles per gallon of fuel is about the same. Now for the details of the bus/automobile comparison along with some history. The bus technology should be somewhat more energy efficient than the automobile for 3 reasons:

1. The bus wheels are easier to roll (less rolling resistance) than the automobile because the tires are inflated to a high pressure of almost 100 pounds. This also results in more damage to the pavement. In rare cases, an auto tire may be just as efficient if it's both worn smooth (less rubber to absorb energy) and overinflated. Auto rolling resistance could be reduced by designing auto tires for higher pressure.

2. Most buses use efficient diesel engines which also tend to be noisy and polluting. At full torque (when the gas pedal of an auto is pushed to the floor) there is little difference in efficiency between a diesel bus engine and a gasoline auto engine. But at low torque the diesel is more efficient. Some bus lines are using natural gas as a fuel. These engines are just like gasoline engines and have no efficiency advantages although they are much less polluting. Automobiles have the same engine options as buses.

3. The bus has less wind force (aerodynamic drag) per seat. This force is mostly due to air (the headwind) striking the front end (including the windshield). The front end shields many more passengers than an auto's front end. However, the front end of a bus is both larger and less streamlined than an auto. As a result, an extremely well streamlined auto is not much worse than a bus in aerodynamic drag per seat. Furthermore, aerodynamic drag is not very significant at low speeds under 30 mi/hr and is of minor significance for urban buses on city streets.

Since automobiles could also enjoy the advantages of 1 & 2 above, only the 3rd advantage (less aerodynamic drag) is an intrinsic advantage of the bus over the auto. In spite of these 3 "advantages" the typical urban bus only gets about the equivalent of 3 miles/gallon (of gasoline) and carries 9 or 10 persons. This is 27 to 30 passenger-miles per gallon, about the same as a typical automobile in urban use getting 28 passenger-miles/gallon (1.4 persons x 20 miles/gallon). Actually the urban bus obtains 3.5 miles/gallon of diesel fuel. This figure is reduced to 3 for two reasons: 1. To compensate for the fact that diesel fuel has a higher energy content than gasoline. 2. To account for about half of the fuel used in driving the bus during non-revenue service (called "deadheading").

One reason for the low fuel economy of urban busses is that they consume much energy in the frequent stops they often make. Long nonstop freeway runs are an exception. Air conditioning also uses energy and it keeps running even when the bus is stopped. It wasn't always this way. In 1960 urban buses got 5.5 miles/gallon of diesel fuel (vs 3.5 today).


http://www.lafn.org/~dave/trans/energy/why_mt_wastesE.html

[ethernet76]

etc http://www.ncpa.org/iss/bud/2004/pd042804f.html

and

http://www.lafn.org/~dave/trans/energy/why_mt_wastesE.html

http://www.house.gov/transportation/press/press2002/release236.html

What about rail. I don't think NYC would be able to function without its subway system.

Edit: Still waiting for a response to my earlier post.

[zimv20]

chicago transit authority data (http://www.transitchicago.com/news/whatsnew2.wu?action=displaynewspostingdetail&articleid=132346)

here are the february 2004 CTA totals (most recent data):
- ridership, rail: 11,347,503
- ridership, bus: 22,913,770
- ridership, total: 34,261,273

over 1.22 million rides/day. that's a lot of people not driving cars. yeah, i'd say that's a pretty good thing.

and -- that doesn't include RTA (city/suburban rail) and PACE (suburban bus). the above is just the city totals.

[Krizoitz]

I haven't had a chance to go over the second set of statistics, so I'll hold off on commenting on those, but I have a problem with the conclusion below (I know that it wasn't made by you)

The report suggests that mass transit reduces congestion by giving people an alternative to driving; however, 70 percent of drivers already using mass transit do not have cars or driver's licenses.


Regardless of whether or not they have licences if there was no mass transit they would have to have them, so its not that it keeps people from using cars they allready have, it keeps people from having to use cars. If you eliminate busses you have to replace them with cars.

[kuyu]

Also, inflation is not down, it is up, due mainly to sharply higher energy costs. The dollar is only "set to gain" because it has nowhere else to go but up.

These problems don't go away simply by pasting a happy face on them.

Actually, in recent months the 10 year t-bill is losing ground to treasury inflation indexed securities. According to Fisher, this means that investors see long term inflation as a lesser threat as the months tick by.

I'm not trying to say that our economy is the best it can be, only that it's in decent shape. Also, Reagan, Bush, Clinton and W cannot take responsibility for it. However, many seem to be buying the spin that somehow a president can control monetary policy (I promise new jobs, etc.) when he can only control fiscal policy (No new taxes[ha!], etc.).

This is taken without permission from the Journal in order to illustrate how a president can INFLUENCE the whole economy, not control monetary policy.

If these new tax incentives are permanently left in place, as the president proposes, then the gap between actual and potential economic growth will narrow rapidly. As a result, so will the budget deficit. Installing tax incentives to generate a more rapid return to full employment throughout the economy is the most vital deficit-reducing action the government can take.
Importantly, a full-employment economy, with 3% long-term growth and 4% unemployment in the years ahead, will produce a new cycle of budget surpluses beginning in 2011. As the economic baseline used by the CBO falls well below full employment -- the CBO figures only 2.8% yearly growth and 5% unemployment -- today's long-range budget outlook appears much worse than is actually the case.

[numediaman]

I'm certainly glad you think the future budget outlook won't be as bad as it looks it will be. That's very encouraging.

I just want to know why is it that Republicans are now in favor of massive deficits? Why is it so important to destroy the nation in order to save it? Are these the lessons the Republicans have learned from Vietnam?

Whether it is the economy, foreign relations, or the environment, I see nothing that is better because of the Bush administration. Even the war on terror is going nowhere. Do you think the Republicans would be happy with Clinton if three years after 9/11 he did not kill or capture ObL?

(Just to refresh everyone's memory: the WTC bombing occurred on Feb. 26, 1993. By Sept. 13, 1993 four defendents were on trial. On March 4, 1994 the jury convicted the defendents, and on May 25th they were sentenced. In addition, On February 7, 1995, authorities in Pakistan arrested the prime fugitive wanted in connection with the bombing and subsequently rendered him to U.S. authorities. This suspect, the mastermind behind the bombing, was sentenced to 240 years in prison on January 8, 1998. That means that two years after the bombing, all the suspects had been caught and either were facing trial, or had already been convicted.

Now how many Al Qaeda fighters have been charged, convicted and sentenced for 9/11? Some war on terror, huh? Instead we invaded Iraq.)

Sorry for the rant.

[idkew]

(Just to refresh everyone's memory: the WTC bombing occurred on Feb. 26, 1993. By Sept. 13, 1993 four defendents were on trial. On March 4, 1994 the jury convicted the defendents, and on May 25th they were sentenced. In addition, On February 7, 1995, authorities in Pakistan arrested the prime fugitive wanted in connection with the bombing and subsequently rendered him to U.S. authorities. This suspect, the mastermind behind the bombing, was sentenced to 240 years in prison on January 8, 1998. That means that two years after the bombing, all the suspects had been caught and either were facing trial, or had already been convicted.


but what did imprisoning a few people do? this wasn't mcvey (sp?) and the nicholes (sp?) brothers. this is an organization, willing to sacrifice life for the greater cause.

seems to me the trail and sentencing was like cutting off a finger, but leaving the rest of the body free to plan and execute more attacks, kinda like 9/11.

[SlyHunter]

http://www.house.gov/transportation/press/press2002/release236.html

What about rail. I don't think NYC would be able to function without its subway system.

Edit: Still waiting for a response to my earlier post.
I wasn't talking about rail I did state that Rail and Airports are different. I was talking about buses. Also note one of the links I posted said the problem with allot of these statistics is that they use New York to skew the results. I don't live in New York. What works there doesn't necessarily work everywhere else.

[numediaman]

but what did imprisoning a few people do? this wasn't mcvey (sp?) and the nicholes (sp?) brothers. this is an organization, willing to sacrifice life for the greater cause.

seems to me the trail and sentencing was like cutting off a finger, but leaving the rest of the body free to plan and execute more attacks, kinda like 9/11.

During the eight years of Clinton's administration less than 50 Americans died from acts by foreign terrorists. What would you have suggested the president do, invade Afghanistan? And you would have supported Clinton in this decision?

Instead, we have had two wars, only one of which had anything to do with terrorism. Over 700 Americans have died in Iraq, and we still haven't captured ObL, or his number two, or the head of the Taliban. But we captured Saddam. Big deal. Saddam didn't support the 9/11 hijackers. He didn't bankroll the Cole bombing. He didn't attack our embassies in Africa. But he is the one we attacked. I contend that the biggest supporter of Al Qaeda is George Bush -- he has done more to help Al Qaeda and Islamic fundamentalism grow than anyone other than possibly ObL himself.

[idkew]

i never said the iraq war was warranted. don't put words in my mouth. i guess you support OBL, or am I putting words in YOUR mouth?

Afghanistan WAS warranted. Terrorists were freely using that place as a training ground. Now the country is free(er) from terrorists and the people are free(er) to live their lives.



I bet few people died from terrorism under Roosevelt, but what does that prove?

[numediaman]

So, to defend the president's actions you contend that I am against the war in Afghanistan. Nice way to change the subject.

One question: how many troops do we have in Afghanistan? How many in Iraq? Now, who attacked us on 9/11?

(Answer: there are currently 11,600 US troops in Afghanistan according to the International Herald Tribune, versus over 115,000 in Iraq.)

[SlyHunter]

Instead, we have had two wars, only one of which had anything to do with terrorism. Over 700 Americans have died in Iraq, and we still haven't captured ObL, or his number two, or the head of the Taliban. But we captured Saddam. Big deal. Saddam didn't support the 9/11 hijackers. He didn't bankroll the Cole bombing. He didn't attack our embassies in Africa. But he is the one we attacked. I contend that the biggest supporter of Al Qaeda is George Bush -- he has done more to help Al Qaeda and Islamic fundamentalism grow than anyone other than possibly ObL himself.
He did reward relatives of suicide bombers in Palestine. Yes I do think that is the real reason we attacked Iraq as a support for Israel as well as another toe hold in the Middle East. But officially he violated the surrender agreement over and over again and thus the war was warrenteed irregardless for our real reasons for wanting to go in.

[idkew]

During the eight years of Clinton's administration less than 50 Americans died from acts by foreign terrorists. What would you have suggested the president do, invade Afghanistan? And you would have supported Clinton in this decision?



ok, you seem to be against the Afghanistan war in this comment, if not, try to be more clear. Yes, I would have supported that decision, in hindsight. Don't know about then. I was much younger and less wise. But, we would still prolly have 3,000 people alive and two large buildings if Clinton would have preemptively invaded Af. But, afaik, that was against his philosophy of containing terrorism. He wanted to be reactive, not proactive. I am not even sure of the intelligence we had then, but I would be surprised if we did not know they were training there.

Once again, you are arguing against no one. I never said the iraq war was warranted.

[idkew]

He did reward relatives of suicide bombers in Palestine. Yes I do think that is the real reason we attacked Iraq as a support for Israel as well as another toe hold in the Middle East. But officially he violated the surrender agreement over and over again and thus the war was warrenteed irregardless for our real reasons for wanting to go in.

As well as UN resolutions requiring force that other countries did not want to follow through with.

Maybe because they were making huge amounts of money from Saddam throwbacks in the Oil for Food program? Maybe because they liked selling nuclear tech. to Saddam? Maybe because the arms he was buying from them? Say all you want about the anti-war french and germans. They were lining their pockets with Saddam's money. No wonder they were against his ousting.

[idkew]

(Answer: there are currently 11,600 US troops in Afghanistan according to the International Herald Tribune, versus over 115,000 in Iraq.)

Different situations call for different forces.

Do you think the numbers should be switched? How many casualties would that cause in Iraq now? Especially since we need more strength there, not less.

[mactastic]

As well as UN resolutions requiring force that other countries did not want to follow through with.

Ohh are we paying attention to UN resolutions again? How many has Israel violated?

[numediaman]

Different situations call for different forces.

Do you think the numbers should be switched? How many casualties would that cause in Iraq now? Especially since we need more strength there, not less.

If the number of troops in Iraq were zero I guarantee you that the number of American who die in Iraq will decline. Why do we need more troops in Iraq? In order to hunt for ObL? To defeat the Taliban? To dismantle the WMD?

I'm glad Kerry finally admitted that the answer is not more U.S. troops. When he said this he received a standing ovation, and you could see that maybe he finally understood himself that a large segment of the American public does not buy into the argument that the answer to a failed policy is more of the failed policy. If we didn't learn this from Vietnam we learned nothing.

[pseudobrit]

ok, you seem to be against the Afghanistan war in this comment, if not, try to be more clear. Yes, I would have supported that decision, in hindsight. Don't know about then. I was much younger and less wise. But, we would still prolly have 3,000 people alive and two large buildings if Clinton would have preemptively invaded Af. But, afaik, that was against his philosophy of containing terrorism. He wanted to be reactive, not proactive. I am not even sure of the intelligence we had then, but I would be surprised if we did not know they were training there.

Clinton didn't have the political capital to take bold action. He launched cruise missles at terror camps in Afghanistan and at a chemical plant in the Sudan and was promptly accused of wagging the dog and bombing aspirin factories.

There was no way in hell he was going to get Congressional authorisation for a bona fide invasion force.

Further, I don't know exactly how you assume that invading Afghanistan in 1998 would have led to having "3,000 people alive and two large buildings" in 2001. AFAIK, none of the 9/11 hijackers were in Afghanistan during that time. Quite a number of them were already here.

[skunk]

Clinton didn't have the political capital to take bold action.
Besides, it needed 9/11 to happen to get support for the Afghani operation.

[zimv20]

[...] if Clinton would have preemptively invaded Af. But, afaik, that was against his philosophy of containing terrorism. He wanted to be reactive, not proactive

i don't think that's true. i read clinton's policies as proactive, but not in a overtly military way. i don't recall the exact number, but richard clarke, during his 9/11 testimony, mentioned how many terrorist attacks had been prevented. he also gave some examples, things i'd never heard before. such attacks were prevented through intelligence, police action and international cooperation.


I am not even sure of the intelligence we had then, but I would be surprised if we did not know they were training there.

of course that was known, as evidenced by the cruise missiles attacks. but look at the 9/11 testimony of the clinton officials and you'll see how extremely seriously they took AQ.

[Neserk]

There was no way in hell he was going to get Congressional authorisation for a bona fide invasion force.



the only way to do that was to lie...

[Neserk]

i things i'd never heard before. such attacks were prevented through intelligence, police action and international cooperation.




this being the key.. cooperation... I learned that word watching Seasame Street...

[IJ Reilly]

this being the key.. cooperation... I learned that word watching Seasame Street...

Sesame Street -- isn't that the liberal conspiracy to turn America's children into wimps?

[Sayhey]

Sesame Street -- isn't that the liberal conspiracy to turn America's children into wimps?

Yes, and Tinkie Winkie is gay! Good thing we picked up on it, IJ! Can't have a generation raised on this stuff instead of those good old cowboy shows we grew up on. We need more young boys raised to think the world's problems can be solved by a six-gun battle in the middle of the street. ;)

[IJ Reilly]

Can you say "collectivism?" I knew you could!

[idkew]

Why do we need more troops in Iraq?

I don't know why, but I would say, go ask the generals who are asking for more troops.

[skunk]

I don't know why, but I would say, go ask the generals who are asking for more troops.
Haven't the generals messed up enough? Time to sack a few, I think, "pour encourager les autres".

[idkew]

Haven't the generals messed up enough? Time to sack a few, I think, "pour encourager les autres".

You're kidding me right? This war has gone very well for the US. Few casualties, quick wins.

Yes, there is guerrilla resistance, but that is to be expected. Once again, anyone know how many soldiers died taking Berlin? How many taking Bagdad?

When did the US draw out of Berlin?

[numediaman]

You're kidding me right? This war has gone very well for the US. Few casualties, quick wins.

Yes, there is guerrilla resistance, but that is to be expected. Once again, anyone know how many soldiers died taking Berlin? How many taking Bagdad?

When did the US draw out of Berlin?

Yeah, things are going swimmingly in Iraq. I was thinking of vacationing in Basra. Taking advantage of the beaches, you know. Disney is thinking of building a Disney Fallujah where I will take the kids to see Goofy.

Wow, whatever you are on give me some, too.

Former Iraqi Soldiers Will Not Restore Order in Fallujah

By Rajiv Chandrasekaran and Scott Wilson
Washington Post Foreign Service
Sunday, May 2, 2004; 5:13 PM

FALLUJAH, Iraq, May 2 -- The U.S. Marine plan to have former Iraqi soldiers restore order in Fallujah ran into trouble Sunday as the former Iraqi general heading the new force denied there were any foreign fighters in the city, calling into question his commitment to American military objectives. A few hours later, the top U.S. military commander said the general would not be allowed to lead the scores of armed men he already has mustered in the city.


LA Times

Attacks across Iraq kill 11 American troops

. . . Meanwhile, 11 soldiers were killed in separate attacks, the military said, raising the U.S. death toll to 151 since a wave of violence began April 1. At least 753 U.S. troops have died in Iraq since the war began in March 2003.

Six U.S. service members were killed and another 30 were wounded in a mortar attack near the western city of Ramadi.

The city is about 60 miles west of Baghdad in Anbar province, which includes Fallujah. A military spokeswoman gave no further details and did not say whether the victims were Marines or Army soldiers, but most Americans stationed there are Marines.

Another U.S. soldier was killed and 10 were wounded in a bomb and small arms attack on a coalition base near the northern Iraqi city of Kirkuk.

Overnight, Shiite militiamen attacked a U.S. convoy with small arms fire and rocket-propelled grenades near the southern city of Amarah, 180 miles south of Baghdad. Two soldiers were killed, the military said. Through the night and into Sunday morning, Iraqis set fire to the long line of abandoned vehicles, jumping on the hoods and beating them with sticks.

An attack in northwest Baghdad killed two other soldiers and wounded two Iraqi security officers and another American, the military said.

U.S. troops also exchanged gunfire Sunday near Najaf with militiamen loyal to radical Shiite preacher Muqtada al-Sadr, who is charged in the murder of a rival cleric last year.

[idkew]

please numediaman, answer my questions.

[numediaman]

please numediaman, answer my questions.

Your point is what? That more people have died in other wars therefore Iraq is a brilliant example of what you on the right wing of society can accomplish if given the full power of the military?

Tell me, idkew, what are you the most proud of these past three years? The death toll caused by war? The deficit? The loss of civil rights in America? Tell me, idkew, I want to know. How is America better?

Ask our allies: is America more respected now? More admired? Or more pitied for the the poor leadership we hav exhibited?

Tell me, idkew, what is your point?: What are you most proud of?

[IrishGold]

Ask our allies: is America more respected now?

<off topic>
When were we ever respected by our allies? The whole world has a dang hate for us, even before all this bs.
</on topic>

[idkew]

Your point is what? That more people have died in other wars therefore Iraq is a brilliant example of what you on the right wing of society can accomplish if given the full power of the military?

Tell me, idkew, what are you the most proud of these past three years? The death toll caused by war? The deficit? The loss of civil rights in America? Tell me, idkew, I want to know. How is America better?

Ask our allies: is America more respected now? More admired? Or more pitied for the the poor leadership we have?

Tell me, idkew, what is your point?: What are you most proud of?

Point: You agree that the war has gone bad. I do not. This has NOTHING to do with if I agree with it.

Proud: I graduated a highly respected college with an above average GPA. The economy is turning around. More environmental protection awareness. People hate H2's...
Not proud: Patriot Act, support of Israel, lack of international support. Not enough environmental protection.

My point once again: the war has gone well, for a war. War is not good. But, when war comes, lets have as few people as possible die. As few civilians die as possible. As little collateral damage as possible. I don't recall ever saying I was for the war. I don't recall ever saying I was proud of everything going on. If I did, please show me where. But until you find it, stop insinuating I am proud of these things.


Now that I have answered your questions, please answer mine. Do I need to repeat them for you?
1: How many soldiers died taking Berlin?
2: How many taking Bagdad?
3: When did the US draw out of Berlin?

and i will add: answer your questions yourself please.

[zimv20]

You're kidding me right? This war has gone very well for the US. Few casualties, quick wins.

if that's how you define "going well," then yes. and i'd agree - from a purely military standpoint, there have been many successes.

but we're winning the battle and losing the war. the war is our maintaining our world standing, of leading by example, of being the responsible superpower.

battles are important, but the war is the thing by which the US will be judged. i hear that in vietnam the US never lost a major battle.

[idkew]

if that's how you define "going well," then yes. and i'd agree - from a purely military standpoint, there have been many successes.

but we're winning the battle and losing the war. the war is our maintaining our world standing, of leading by example, of being the responsible superpower.

battles are important, but the war is the thing by which the US will be judged. i hear that in vietnam the US never lost a major battle.


it will be a difficult war to win. i do not think it will be won on the battlefields. so far, our worst defeat is the prisoner abuse. we need arabs on our side, and the arabs are not surprisingly taking this as a personal insult. fortunately, the majority of iraqis are happy that saddam is gone, we just need to give them some power so they can start running things themselves.

[zimv20]

it will be a difficult war to win. i do not think it will be won on the battlefields. so far, our worst defeat is the prisoner abuse. we need arabs on our side, and the arabs are not surprisingly taking this as a personal insult. fortunately, the majority of iraqis are happy that saddam is gone, we just need to give them some power so they can start running things themselves.
my last post was vague (perhaps intentionally so on a subconscious level), but i was probably referring more to the war on terror, at least in the second paragraph:

but we're winning the battle and losing the war. the war is our maintaining our world standing, of leading by example, of being the responsible superpower.


the sad thing is, imo, the damage to the US reputation has negatively impacted the WoT. and doing so was not at all necessary. so while we may champion the low US casualties and precision targetting, in the end it doesn't mean jack ****.

if want to talk about getting the reputation back, that is an extra-military consideration. at this point, the military can no longer help in that regard, it can only continue to damage.

[skunk]

You're kidding me right? This war has gone very well for the US. Few casualties, quick wins.

Yes, there is guerrilla resistance, but that is to be expected. Once again, anyone know how many soldiers died taking Berlin? How many taking Bagdad?

When did the US draw out of Berlin?
Which war? Afghanistan? The one where you've lost control of two thirds of the country already and the puppet government you installed is almost completely powerless? Or the Iraqi one which is "over" but seems to be worse than ever? The one where your standing in the world has nosedived and your economy is buckling under the strain? Get real.

[wwworry]

1: How many soldiers died taking Berlin?
2: How many taking Bagdad?
3: When did the US draw out of Berlin?

This is kind of a bad comparison. Of course the US military was going to kick ass in Iraq. Was there any question? Our military and our economy is so very very much bigger than Iraq's. We spend more than the rest of the world combined on our military. Our forces are the strongest bar none. To compare it to WWII is practically meaningless.

Our military is doing and has done it's job very very well.

However, the political head that is running it has flubbed up all along.

1. They mislead Americans about the reasons for war. Let's not change our story after the fact; it was all WMDs before the war and the "immediate" danger Iraq posed to the US.

2. They flubbed up post war Iraq:

A. They had no plan for post war Iraq. In fact, it is well documented that the administration threw out a year of planning by the state department because of internal conflicts between the department of state and the pentagon. The department of Defence wanted no part of of any work done by state. Specific plans to protect Iraqi banks cultural institutions and ministries were tossed out. Eighteen billion dollars of looting decimated what little internal structure was left in Iraq. THere was nothing in place to fill the power vacume was our troops took Bagdad. We are still losing lives and spending money hand over foot because of that mistake.

B. They refused to have anything to do with existing Iraqi political or military structures. Radical clerics and rabble rousers took the lead and the voice of the Iraqi people. Now they hand over power to a former Iraqi general. How ironic is that??

C. They diverted forces and money earmarked for Afghanistan and used it in Iraq. Over a third of Afghanistan is controlled by warlords and former Taliban chiefs. Afghanistan has again become the leading producer of Opium. The taliban is regrouping. Outside of Kabul security is non-existent. Ossama Bin Laden is still on the loose. We started this whole thing to get Ossama, right? Right?


3. We have alienated our allies and the UN. Did you see what happened when the US finally asked the UN for help? Nada. practically zip. How are we supposed to fight the next war or become the honest broker in the next conflict or even alert the world to the next danger when our credibility has gone so far down the tubes. How are we to even pay for the next war when we have put the costs of this one on credit forcing our children to pay for a war initiated by lies?


It may be comforting for you to think about 1941 and Hitler's Germany. This is not 1941. This is what it is and it's time we faced up to it.

[skunk]

It may be comforting for you to think about 1941 and Hitler's Germany. This is not 1941. This is what it is and it's time we faced up to it.
Good post. well put.

[idkew]

This is kind of a bad comparison...


Actually, the reason I compare to germany is that Iraq was the most defended country (besides our allies) in the world. Berlin was the last capitol that was taken in a large war we were in. Hitler was the last dictator was over-through. Because 100,000 russians died taking berlin. because we still have troops posted in berlin, over 50 years later. those that think this was going to be easy and quick are too easily misled, and need to stop trusting the gov. and the media.


And, you all need to get this through your heads. NO WHERE DID I SAY I SUPPORT THE WAR. I am saying that this iraq war has gone well, no matter what the media (hummm, abc anyone?) leads you to believe.

[skunk]

Actually, the reason I compare to germany is that Iraq was the most defended country (besides our allies) in the world.
Evidently not.

I am saying that this iraq war has gone well, no matter what the media (hummm, abc anyone?) leads you to believe.
Gone well for whom??? :confused:

[idkew]

We started this whole thing to get Ossama, right? Right?

Do you actually believe that catching one person will affect anything? The success of Af. is that it has forced A.Q. to move to other places to continue it's training. Kalid Shak Muhammin (sp?) admitted that more attacks were planned directly after 9/11, but the swift response in Af. made these too difficult to undertake. If that isn't a victory, I don't know what is.

[skunk]

Do you actually believe that catching one person will affect anything? The success of Af. is that it has forced A.Q. to move to other places to continue it's training. Kalid Shak Muhammin (sp?) admitted that more attacks were planned directly after 9/11, but the swift response in Af. made these too difficult to undertake. If that isn't a victory, I don't know what is.
1 Al Qaida seems to be operating just fine at present.
2 Keep watching the skies.

[pseudobrit]

2 Keep watching the skies.

You too; Blair has cast your lot with ours.

[skunk]

You too; Blair has cast your lot with ours.
I know, and I'm not far from the Heathrow flightpath... :(

[idkew]

Evidently not.

So a swift "victory" proves that iraq wasn't well defended? I am not sure how your logic works here.

[pseudobrit]

So a swift "victory" proves that iraq wasn't well defended? I am not sure how your logic works here.

Oh, have we won?

[skunk]

So a swift "victory" proves that iraq wasn't well defended? I am not sure how your logic works here.
They had no air force, few air defences, no command and control capability, an absent commander, little armour and most of their troops were bought off or ran away. Stealing candy from a baby.

[skunk]

Oh, have we won?
Mission Accomplished! :rolleyes:

[idkew]

Oh, have we won?

Notice the quotes.

I was saying that b/c of skunk's post.

He implied that since there was a swift victory that iraq was not a highly defended country.

Also, i never said it was a fair fight.

[IrishGold]

Gone well for whom??? :confused:


The people who were oppressed by Saddam :D

[skunk]

Notice the quotes.

I was saying that b/c of skunk's post.

He implied that since there was a swift victory that iraq was not a highly defended country.

Also, i never said it was a fair fight.
Well, if it wasn't a victory, what are you crowing about?

[idkew]

Well, if it wasn't a victory, what are you crowing about?


things that you seem blind to.


go read some history. see how things have happened in the past. then come back and argue that things have gone horrible. that millions of men are dying. that attacks are happening every day in the us. that a.q. is growing stronger by the day.

[pseudobrit]

things that you seem blind to.


go read some history. see how things have happened in the past. then come back and argue that things have gone horrible. that millions of men are dying. that attacks are happening every day in the us. that a.q. is growing stronger by the day.

By your own admission, it ain't over yet. So we can't really compare this in a historical context now, can we?

[skunk]

things that you seem blind to.
Do tell, what things?

go read some history. see how things have happened in the past. then come back and argue that things have gone horrible. that millions of men are dying. that attacks are happening every day in the us. that a.q. is growing stronger by the day.
My historical knowledge is adequate to the task in hand, I think. Of course the death toll has not been of the order of WWII. That is surely not the appropriate criterion in this context.
Attacks ARE happening every day, but it's easier now, because the "US" includes the bit of ancient Mesopotamia, the cradle of civilization, which the US has appropriated by force.
Al Qaida does not seem to be suffering greatly: Madrid, the NATO summit plot, the Jordan thing, Istanbul, Bali, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, you name it. You've stirred up a hornets' nest with no idea how to deal with it beyond stirring it up some more.

[idkew]

You've stirred up a hornets' nest with no idea how to deal with it beyond stirring it up some more.


it is quite obvious what your missing. but, since you can't understand, you can't see your folly.


and how would you deal with this hornet's nest? just let it sit there and grow? ignore it? act like it isn't a threat? unfortunately it is not as simple as a large dose of insecticide. we could level iraq, and quell all resistance that way, but we have respect for the innocent civilians there who just want to get on with their lives. it is imperative that they be as safe as we can make them during the change of power from a dictator to a gov. run by the people.



but- i don't know why i am arguing here anymore. it is much more fun to do this with educated folk.

[skunk]

it is quite obvious what your missing. but, since you can't understand, you can't see your folly.


and how would you deal with this hornet's nest? just let it sit there and grow? ignore it? act like it isn't a threat? unfortunately it is not as simple as a large dose of insecticide. we could level iraq, and quell all resistance that way, but we have respect for the innocent civilians there who just want to get on with their lives. it is imperative that they be as safe as we can make them during the change of power from a dictator to a gov. run by the people.



but- i don't know why i am arguing here anymore. it is much more fun to do this with educated folk.
Oh boy! Do I feel humbled.

[pseudobrit]

but- i don't know why i am arguing here anymore. it is much more fun to do this with educated folk.

Go away please. And take your smug condescending attitude with you.

[takao]

and how would you deal with this hornet's nest? just let it sit there and grow? ignore it? act like it isn't a threat? unfortunately it is not as simple as a large dose of insecticide.

offtopic:
1. hornets are a dangered species
here it is forbidden to destroy a nest...
2.leaving them alone works best on hornets...they what they can't eat and don't attack you if you behave normal..
if hornets attack you...it's your fault
3. in fall all hornets die (except the queen) and you can remove the empty nest savely

and barbequing in front of the nest never was a good idea

and yeah a hornet nest can be removed easy without killing them ( they are doing this here all the time)

oh the endless paralells ...

[idkew]

By your own admission, it ain't over yet. So we can't really compare this in a historical context now, can we?


just an example of why this is getting nowhere:

how can you not compare something that is happening with history? isn't that what history is for?

[numediaman]

just an example of why this is getting nowhere:

how can you not compare something that is happening with history? isn't that what history is for?

You keep saying this over and over -- but what's your point?

You have yet to express a coherent argument about why you support this war. You seem to be saying that its a great war because we have had fewer deaths than WWII. So, this makes it a just war? A political triumph for George Bush?

[idkew]

You have yet to express a coherent argument about why you support this war.


more reasons this is going nowhere. can you get it through your head that i DO NOT support the war? i have said this many, many times in this thread.

do i need to quote them for you?


besides, answer my questions. i am beginning to think you are afraid of them. one more reason this thread is going nowhere.

[skunk]

more reasons this is going nowhere. can you get it through your head that i DO NOT support the war? i have said this many, many times in this thread.

do i need to quote them for you?


besides, answer my questions. i am beginning to think you are afraid of them. one more reason this thread is going nowhere.
The only questions I can remember you asking were the numbers of dead in WWII and other wars. Look it up.

You maintain you do not support this war, and yet you claim it is "going well". I ask again, for whom?

[IrishGold]

You maintain you do not support this war, and yet you claim it is "going well". I ask again, for whom?

That was answered earlier in the thread.

[idkew]

The only questions I can remember you asking were the numbers of dead in WWII and other wars. Look it up.

You maintain you do not support this war, and yet you claim it is "going well". I ask again, for whom?

I am saying that goals are being achieved. Casualties are kept to a minimum. Iraqis are generally happy of the ousting of Saddam.

I am not saying it is going perfect. I am not saying there is not resistance. I am not surprised there is resistance.

I am asking numediaman to answer the questions he, himself asked me. Also, the questions I asked him. I know the answers to the questions I asked him, and only one was about loss of life in a single battle. (Not all wars as you hold that I asked. Which illustrates one more reason things are over your head.)

[skunk]

I am saying that goals are being achieved.
And what ARE those goals, exactly? Whose goals are they? How can you tell if they are "being achieved"?

Casualties are kept to a minimum. Iraqis are generally happy of the ousting of Saddam.
Whose casualties? Which Iraqis?

I am not saying it is going perfect. I am not saying there is not resistance. I am not surprised there is resistance.
LOL

I am asking numediaman to answer the questions he, himself asked me. Also, the questions I asked him. I know the answers to the questions I asked him, and only one was about loss of life in a single battle. (Not all wars as you hold that I asked. Which illustrates one more reason things are over your head.)
Besides the fact you are being more than a little abusive, I question whether WWII can be called a single battle. As for numediaman, I expect like me he is poised with his finger over the "ignore" button. Be civil or be gone.

[numediaman]

Which illustrates one more reason things are over your head.)

You're way out of line. If you want to make some sort of point, why don't you do it?

You say you haven't come out in favor of the war and you have posts to prove it. Well, I just looked through your posts and I didn't find a single post where you said you were against this war.

In fact, you have argued with everyone who has criticized the war and continue to do so, and usually in the most infantile way:

and you support saddam's return to power, murder of his citizens, and oppression of his people.

o you support O/Usama ad Hitler?

I don't see how the number of dead in Berlin has any relevance to this discussion. Are we next going to be asked to research the number of dead who died at Agincourt? What is your fxxxing point?

[skunk]

Are we next going to be asked to research the number of dead who died at Agincourt?
I'm on my way to the Public Records Office as we speak...I may be some time. :rolleyes:

[IJ Reilly]

I'm on my way to the Public Records Office as we speak...I may be some time. :rolleyes:

Agincourt, I was against that one. I even wrote a letter.

[idkew]

And what ARE those goals, exactly? Whose goals are they? How can you tell if they are "being achieved"?

Besides the fact you are being more than a little abusive, I question whether WWII can be called a single battle.

I do not make the goal. I would imagine both the generals and he sec. council work together on what those goals are.

casualties: has there been firebombing of entire cities?


when did i say ALL OF WWII? Show me! I said the Battle of Berlin. ONE BATTLE.

It is easier to respect your argument if you base it in reality.

[numediaman]

Agincourt, I was against that one. I even wrote a letter.

That's not true. I looked up your posts, too. In fact you wrote:

We have to stand in solidarity with the French, otherwise, 600 years from now people will make fun of their cuisine.

That was you, wasn't it? ;)

[idkew]

Well, I just looked through your posts and I didn't find a single post where you said you were against this war.

Post #56: War is not warranted.
Post #79: War is not good.
Post #86: No where did I say I support the war.

What more do you need to read?

btw- my questions are on post #74, and the ones you asked me to answer are in post #77. still, can you answer them?

[idkew]

That's not true. I looked up your posts, too. In fact you wrote:

We have to stand in solidarity with the French, otherwise, 600 years from now people will make fun of their cuisine.

That was you, wasn't it? ;)


Link me to the thread and the context

[IJ Reilly]

That's not true. I looked up your posts, too. In fact you wrote:

We have to stand in solidarity with the French, otherwise, 600 years from now people will make fun of their cuisine.

That was you, wasn't it? ;)

Well okay, but wasn't it Winston Churchill who called William the Conqueror a "cheese eating surrender monkey?"

[idkew]

You're way out of line. If you want to make some sort of point, why don't you do it?

In fact, you have argued with everyone who has criticized the war and continue to do so, and usually in the most infantile way:


I don't see how the number of dead in Berlin has any relevance to this discussion.

i have made my point many times: from a military standpoint, the war in iraq is going well.

you say i am for the war by saying it has gone well. incorrect. i am illustrating that type of thinking by saying that if you are against the war you must be on saddam's /ObL's side. See how it doesn't work that way?

Berlin has relevance b/c it is history. go read some. find out a bit about what has happened in past wars. a very simple and nearly free thing to do. you have been told by the media that this war is going horribly. if you educate yourself, you will find that it is not, in fact, going horribly. it is going quite as i have come to expect, after reading about occurrences and comparing these with previous events.

[Sayhey]

i have made my point many times: from a military standpoint, the war in iraq is going well.

you say i am for the war by saying it has gone well. incorrect. i am illustrating that type of thinking by saying that if you are against the war you must be on saddam's /ObL's side. See how it doesn't work that way?

Berlin has relevance b/c it is history. go read some. find out a bit about what has happened in past wars. a very simple and nearly free thing to do. you have been told by the media that this war is going horribly. if you educate yourself, you will find that it is not, in fact, going horribly. it is going quite as i have come to expect, after reading about occurrences and comparing these with previous events.

OK, idkew

No US forces died in the Battle of Berlin because they did not liberate Berlin, the Red Army did. Some 300,000+ people died on each side of the battle.

The US withdrew forces from Berlin after the fall of the wall in 1989, but over 100,000 troops are still in Germany.

The battle for Baghdad itself lost only a handful of US troops. The number of Iraqi people killed is still unknown.

If your point is the US Armed Forces are the most powerful in the world, you are arguing with a straw man. Our forces could never lose another soldier and still not win the geopolitical aim of building a pro-US, democratic government in Iraq. This is not so much a military struggle, but a political one. Something the Bush administration has yet to recognize.

Kindly get off your high horse and make your point.

PS - the highly relevant figures for Agincourt are 500 English dead and 10,000 French. idkew, in case you missed it, Agincourt has been raised to point out the absurdity of your comparison of the Battle of Berlin with the present situation in Iraq.

[idkew]

If your point is the US Armed Forces are the most powerful in the world, you are arguing with a straw man. Our forces could never lose another soldier and still not win the geopolitical aim of building a pro-US, democratic government in Iraq. This is not so much a military struggle, but a political one. Something the Bush administration has yet to recognize.

Kindly get off your high horse and make your point.


when did i say the war was going well politically? in fact, i think it is not going well on that front. as i stated before, the recent abuse of prisoners has been the worst defeat suffered so far.

i don't understand your point. what are you trying to get at?

my point, mentioned several different times in case you have missed it, is that militarily, the war is going well. this is especially evident when you compare it to other wars. as for Agincourt, i have not read up on that (yet), so i can not comment on it. i like to know somewhat what i am talking about before i enter into conversation.

[SlyHunter]

I may be wrong but I think idkew is saying he doesn't think the US should've attacked Iraq. But since we have those who complain about how disasterous it is going are wrong. First we went in and even tho Saddam had 13 months to prepare for us there were no major obstacles that stopped our progress. Now towards the end we do have problems in a couple of hold out towns. Compared to other wars like in Germany for example its nothing. Germany had many many more holdouts and headaches that lasted for almost 6 years after they were defeated. So the fact that we have to spend a few months cleaning up a few dissidents is not that bad of a thing. In comparisson to other wars its nothing. ie SOP.

[idkew]

I may be wrong but I think idkew is saying he doesn't think the US should've attacked Iraq. But since we have those who complain about how disasterous it is going are wrong. First we went in and even tho Saddam had 13 months to prepare for us there were no major obstacles that stopped our progress. Now towards the end we do have problems in a couple of hold out towns. Compared to other wars like in Germany for example its nothing. Germany had many many more holdouts and headaches that lasted for almost 6 years after they were defeated. So the fact that we have to spend a few months cleaning up a few dissidents is not that bad of a thing. In comparisson to other wars its nothing. ie SOP.

thank you. i think you have understood my point well.

i am not trying to argue politic in this thread, nor right or wrong. i am simply trying to argue what was said in the quote above.

[Sayhey]

when did i say the war was going well politically? in fact, i think it is not going well on that front. as i stated before, the recent abuse of prisoners has been the worst defeat suffered so far.

i don't understand your point. what are you trying to get at?

my point, mentioned several different times in case you have missed it, is that militarily, the war is going well. this is especially evident when you compare it to other wars. as for Agincourt, i have not read up on that (yet), so i can not comment on it. i like to know somewhat what i am talking about before i enter into conversation.

My point is that no one is arguing that the US military is not extremely powerful and capable of winning any battle it puts its resource into. Your argument on the military successes aren't being argued, but rather the point is what is the value of the military success in the face of losing the goodwill of the Iraqi people.

Agincourt, by the way, is the Battle depicted in Shakespeare's Henry V. It was in 1415 and has no relationship to anything going on in Iraq. Of course, neither does the Battle of Berlin.

[Ugg]

when did i say the war was going well politically? in fact, i think it is not going well on that front. as i stated before, the recent abuse of prisoners has been the worst defeat suffered so far.

i don't understand your point. what are you trying to get at?

my point, mentioned several different times in case you have missed it, is that militarily, the war is going well. this is especially evident when you compare it to other wars. as for Agincourt, i have not read up on that (yet), so i can not comment on it. i like to know somewhat what i am talking about before i enter into conversation.

War is the ultimate in political expression, it is sheer folly to separate politics from war. You claim that it is going well but the political decisions made by gw & co. prior to the start of the war are directly to blame for many of the problems now being experienced in Iraq. Given that, how can you possibly say that the war is going well?

[IJ Reilly]

Agincourt, by the way, is the Battle depicted in Shakespeare's Henry V. It was in 1415 and has no relationship to anything going on in Iraq. Of course, neither does the Battle of Berlin.

That's not quite right... Agincourt led directly to the French appeasement of Hitler, and of course to their unwillingness to participate in the US invasion of Iraq. Anyway, that's what I heard on Fox News, so it must be true.

[mactastic]

Actually, the reason I compare to germany is that Iraq was the most defended country (besides our allies) in the world.

I would venture to guess North Korea is a little better defended that Iraq was.

Berlin was the last capitol that was taken in a large war we were in.

Ok, I'll buy that. But only because Kabul doesn't really count, Panama wasn't a 'large war', we couldn't hang on to Hanoi, and because you didn't claim we were the ones who liberated Berlin...

Hitler was the last dictator was over-through.

You're kidding right? The US has overthrown or been involved with the overthrow of MANY dictators since WWII.

Because 100,000 russians died taking berlin. because we still have troops posted in berlin, over 50 years later. those that think this was going to be easy and quick are too easily misled, and need to stop trusting the gov. and the media.

We wern't the ones claiming this would be 'quick and easy'. That was the Bush administration. I've been saying for a long time that this would be hard and would severly test the will of the American people. You are trying to rewrite histroy (revisionist!) if you claim those of us on the left EVER said this would be a cakewalk, or a 'slam dunk'.

And you lecture other about their lack of historic knowledge!

[idkew]

War is the ultimate in political expression, it is sheer folly to separate politics from war. You claim that it is going well but the political decisions made by gw & co. prior to the start of the war are directly to blame for many of the problems now being experienced in Iraq. Given that, how can you possibly say that the war is going well?

i think it was foolish if one did not think there would be resistance by the ousted regime. these people resisting are in one of two camps: rad. islamic people, or former power holders who have lost this power. the latter will do all in their power to resist a change in government and loss of their influence and ill-bought comfort.

[idkew]

I would venture to guess ...

And you lecture other about their lack of historic knowledge!

you may have me on a few points. i was wrong to say he was the last dictator. and nk slipped my mind.



i was not saying you in general, but many people seem astonished that there is still fighting and there is still occupation in iraq. do you deny this?


also- never trust the gov.

[skunk]

thank you. i think you have understood my point well.
Well. I'm glad SOMEONE did.

[mactastic]

i was not saying you in general, but many people seem astonished that there is still fighting and there is still occupation in iraq. do you deny this?

Not at all...
Rumsfeld told "Hardball" that there has been a higher "level of resistance than I thought (before the war). Absolutely."

also- never trust the gov.

Ok, but only because you said so... :D

[Sayhey]

i think it was foolish if one did not think there would be resistance by the ousted regime. these people resisting are in one of two camps: rad. islamic people, or former power holders who have lost this power. the latter will do all in their power to resist a change in government and loss of their influence and ill-bought comfort.

One could argue that may have been the case one year ago, it is impossible to do so seriously today. The attempt to impose a government of our choosing and the use of military means to accomplish political goals has led to the huge increase in the numbers of people opposed to the occupation.

[idkew]

One could argue that may have been the case one year ago, it is impossible to do so seriously today. The attempt to impose a government of our choosing and the use of military means to accomplish political goals has led to the huge increase in the numbers of people opposed to the occupation.

how do you suggest we remedy the situation?

no taking it back- it has already happened.

[Sayhey]

That's not quite right... Agincourt led directly to the French appeasement of Hitler, and of course to their unwillingness to participate in the US invasion of Iraq. Anyway, that's what I heard on Fox News, so it must be true.

I must have missed that Fox News special. I'll bet Bush came up with the St. Crispin's Day speech as well? Must have been while he was serving fake turkey.

edit: "We few, we happy few, we band of brothers" must be David Frum, right?

[Sayhey]

how do you suggest we remedy the situation?

no taking it back- it has already happened.

First and foremost we need to get rid of the people who got us into this mess by voting out Bush in November. Next we need to turn this over to an international authority and prepare for elections as early as possible. The only way out at this point is too be able to convince the Iraqi people that they will have their country back and US occupation will be over in short order. That means no US dictates on the outcome of elections.

[Krizoitz]

idkew-
If you're point is that the Iraq war hasn't cost as many lives as past wars then you are right.

However trying to compare this conflict to any from the past is like comparing apples to orangutans.

For one thing WWII was a war that was justified.
For a second when they fought the Battle of Berlin the war wasn't over. According to Bush we accomplished our mission over a year ago. Yet here we stand today with our sons and daughters, brothers and sisters fighting and dying with no end in sight. There is no clear strategy, no clear objective and no clear plan.

Oh and you may want to talk to some military historians before you claim that this war is going well militarilly. It may not have the high numbers of some past battles, but its not going well thats for darn sure.

[Sayhey]

hit the wrong button, sorry

[idkew]

First and foremost we need to get rid of the people who got us into this mess by voting out Bush in November. Next we need to turn this over to an international authority and prepare for elections as early as possible. The only way out at this point is too be able to convince the Iraqi people that they will have their country back and US occupation will be over in short order. That means no US dictates on the outcome of elections.

i agree with the basic idea of your post.

although i will be voting against bush (read: not FOR kerry, but he will be the candidate i vote for) mainly b/c of the patriot act and lack of environmental concern.

[idkew]

There is no clear strategy, no clear objective and no clear plan.

well, i *think* bush has the intent to start with a puppet gov. in the short term, and in the long term give complete control to the iraqis. i would call this a plan. w's objective would be to place a new (most likely us-friendly) gov. in power.

[Sayhey]

although i will be voting against bush (read: not FOR kerry, but he will be the candidate i vote for) mainly b/c of the patriot act and lack of environmental concern.

idkew, glad to hear it, both good reasons to vote against Bush.

[pseudobrit]

You're kidding right? The US has overthrown or been involved with the overthrow of MANY dictators since WWII.

And installed at least as many...

For one thing WWII was a war that was justified.
For a second when they fought the Battle of Berlin the war wasn't over. According to Bush we accomplished our mission over a year ago. Yet here we stand today with our sons and daughters, brothers and sisters fighting and dying with no end in sight. There is no clear strategy, no clear objective and no clear plan.

Oh and you may want to talk to some military historians before you claim that this war is going well militarilly. It may not have the high numbers of some past battles, but its not going well thats for darn sure.

Very good points, and I'll go further

The Second World War was declared and total. Every resource the nation had was put into victory, because to lose the war was to lose the world, lose our nation and lose everything. Every nation involved had committed everything it had to victory with this knowledge.

There was rationing and conservation at home and a draft to fill the ranks on the frontlines. A G.I. didn't have a tour of duty; his only way out of fighting was to win, die or lose a limb. Men in airborne divisions that had fought for a year in France and Belgium and swept through Germany as it collapsed were preparing for the big jump in Japan or China until the atomic bomb ended the entire war.

As we took cities in enemy territory, the regular troops were moved out and MPs moved in to keep order. There was a coherent plan formulated at the top and we knew our enemy's culture.

Now, name one fact above that holds true for today's "war on terror" and we can compare casualty rates and such from WWII. If not, kindly stop beating this drum.

[mactastic]

Now, name one fact above that holds true for today's "war on terror" and we can compare casualty rates and such from WWII. If not, kindly stop beating this drum.

Or we could start the comparisons to another war.... one that starts with a V.

[numediaman]

I'm sure that after this, Paul Bremer won't be getting a Christmas card from the White House:

Bremer Regrets Criticism of President

Associated Press

BAGHDAD — L. Paul Bremer III, the U.S. administrator in Iraq, said Sunday that he regretted a statement he made more than six months before the Sept. 11 attacks that the Bush administration was "paying no attention" to terrorism . . .

. . . At a McCormick Tribune Foundation conference on terrorism on Feb. 26, 2001, Bremer said, "The new administration seems to be paying no attention to the problem of terrorism. What they will do is stagger along until there's a major incident and then suddenly say, 'Oh, my God, shouldn't we be organized to deal with this?'

"That's too bad. They've been given a window of opportunity with very little terrorism now, and they're not taking advantage of it."

[mactastic]

Ah Bremer's just disgruntled because he's about to be out of a job. Besides, doesn't he have some weird sexual habits? He was never that great of an employee anyway. He had ambitions for the top job and was passed over. He's leaving to spend more time with his family.

Oh wait, we DON'T need to smear him.... nevermind. He's a loyal American, and we fully support his freedom of speech.

[wwworry]

I think Bremer wants a new job and is learning the GOP practice of revisionism.

[idkew]

let me just add a couple word in pseudobrit...


Nearly every iraqi resource the nation had was put into fighting, because to lose the war was to lose the world, lose our nation and lose everything. (in many of their minds, at least.)

There is talk at home and a draft to fill the ranks on the frontlines.

As we took cities in enemy territory, then regular troops were moved out and iraqis moved in to keep order.

[skunk]

let me just add a couple word in pseudobrit...
Unfortunately, your post doesn't seem to make much sense.

[idkew]

what do you not understand?

[skunk]

what do you not understand?
You missed out the "Coherent Plan". Quite an important consideration. The parallel falls rather flat without a plan.

[idkew]

You missed out the "Coherent Plan". Quite an important consideration. The parallel falls rather flat without a plan.

b/c i never said there was a coherent plan anymore

[skunk]

b/c i never said there was a coherent plan anymore
I give up. :rolleyes:

[idkew]

I give up. :rolleyes: :confused:

[zimv20]

:confused:
idkew, i've read through the thread and i'm never quite sure what you're on about. i was also confused by the recent post where you quoted someone, but i don't know who it was you were quoting.

not trying to judge you, just letting you know that, while it's obvious you have an opinion, it's not being stated clearly.

[skunk]

idkew, i've read through the thread and i'm never quite sure what you're on about.
I'm glad it's not just me :)

[idkew]

idkew, i've read through the thread and i'm never quite sure what you're on about. i was also confused by the recent post where you quoted someone, but i don't know who it was you were quoting.

not trying to judge you, just letting you know that, while it's obvious you have an opinion, it's not being stated clearly.


i am guessing that the post is the one where i am responding to psudeobrit's post... check his previous one out. it may explain my post.

i removed the quote=by part beacuse i edited the quote.

[idkew]

I'm glad it's not just me :)



great skunk. glad you can post something multiple times. at least i can tell it has been said multiple times, as opposed to others in this thread.

[idkew]

i am hoping that we can steer away from any v.

definitely the possibility is there. i just hope that we could have learned since then.

[pseudobrit]

what do you not understand?

Um, you changed the key components of my statement and now it doesn't make sense.

There is no parallel.

Nearly every iraqi resource the nation had was put into fighting, because to lose the war was to lose the world, lose our nation and lose everything. (in many of their minds, at least.)

You can't just change this to "Iraq" to draw a parallel to my statement about the US, unless you're drawing a comparison between the US in 1941 and Iraq in 2003, which you're not.


There is talk at home and a draft to fill the ranks on the frontlines.

There is talk of it, but there is no declared total war. There is no rationing. There are no GM plants being converted to manufacture HUMMWVs, M1s and B52s. It's not even ****ing close.

As we took cities in enemy territory, then regular troops were moved out and iraqis moved in to keep order.


Where has this been done effectively?

Your analogy is pathetic.

[idkew]

Um, you changed the key components of my statement and now it doesn't make sense.

There is no parallel.



You can't just change this to "Iraq" to draw a parallel to my statement about the US, unless you're drawing a comparison between the US in 1941 and Iraq in 2003, which you're not.




There is talk of it, but there is no declared total war. There is no rationing. There are no GM plants being converted to manufacture HUMMWVs, M1s and B52s. It's not even ****ing close.



Where has this been done effectively?

Your analogy is pathetic.


i never said it was perfect. you asked me to try, so i did.

[pseudobrit]

i never said it was perfect. you asked me to try, so i did.

I suppose that means it can't be done.

[idkew]

it is sure gonna be hard.



i hope we can give these people what was promised to them. if not, that would be the biggest failure; at least that is how is see it.

edit: had to add this for all you add words to mouth people:


lets give the iraqis fair and just government without control from the us, or any other country.

[Krizoitz]

i hope we can give these people what was promised to them. if not, that would be the biggest failure; at least that is how is see it.

edit: had to add this for all you add words to mouth people:

lets give the iraqis fair and just government without control from the us, or any other country.

Of course we can't just leave Iraq, but finishing what we started and just being there are two different things. If we really want to do the right thing we have to have a plan. Instead we just do whatever Georgie feels like. Its like playing with G.I. Joes on a global scale and its sad.

[idkew]

Of course we can't just leave Iraq, but finishing what we started and just being there are two different things. If we really want to do the right thing we have to have a plan. Instead we just do whatever Georgie feels like. Its like playing with G.I. Joes on a global scale and its sad.

and what is your plan of action?

[Krizoitz]

and what is your plan of action?

I don't have one, I'm not the President. I don't have the resources nor the intelligence data. Apparently neither does George W. Bush.

[skunk]

great skunk. glad you can post something multiple times. at least i can tell it has been said multiple times, as opposed to others in this thread.
?? WTF??

[idkew]

I don't have one, I'm not the President. I don't have the resources nor the intelligence data. Apparently neither does George W. Bush.


you seem to expect me to have one. come on, you don't have any ideas that could help the situation over there?

[idkew]

?? WTF??

Read posts #132:
Well. I'm glad SOMEONE did.

#156:
I'm glad it's not just me

You trying to antagonize me does not add to the conversation.

[skunk]

You trying to antagonize me does not add to the conversation.
Questioning your dubious analogies is not the same as trying to antagonize you. Get over it.