Mission Accomplished!! - Page 3 - Dallas-Mavs.com Forums

alexamenos · 07-14-2008, 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by purplefrog

Imo, the reasoning behind WMDs was solid. It's still true today that there has been no accounting of the chemical and biological weapons that we know Saddam had at one time. The problem is that President Bush (along with the U.N.) decided to press Iraq by getting the inspectors back into the country. If you take that course of action then you are obligated to take direction from that source. Instead, the administration ignored the reports from inspectors that no WMDs could be found and invaded anyway. This was the biggest mistake in the whole enchilada. Imo, you either invade because it is necessary (stated reasons go way beyond WMDs) OR you send in the inspectors and take direction from them. Sending them in and then ignoring their work was an error in judgement that they could have avoided. The data appeared to change, but the course of action remained the same.

two points on this...

1. I think the trumpeting of DUBYA EMM DEES was a bit of propaganda genius on the part of Bush and Abu-Cheney of the desert. It completely framed any discussion about Iraq in such a way as to invariably elicit a response of, "EEK! Weapons of Mass Destruction!!!! How very scary!"

A few jars of some WWI vintage mustard gas??? "EEEK!!! Weapons of Mass Destruction!!!"

Never mind that 99% of the so-called evidence were neither weapons nor were they capable of mass destruction -- certainly the dreaded chemical and biological arsenal of S. Hussein and Company were no more capable of causing mass destruction than a few (hundred) JDAM missiles, and the collateral damage caused by such things is no less indiscriminate than the killing effected by economic embargoes.

2. The funny thing is....and this has been understood all along but kind of shushed under the desk as if it's irrelevant....

...in the very same judgments which the CIA and the rest of the "intelligence community" said that, in their judgment, Hussein et al were likely still pursuing some sort of chemical and biological weapons program, they also said that the only way in hell Hussein would use them against the US was if we launched some full frontal assault with the intent of ousting him from power...

While "everybody knew" Hussein had CBW's, or at least some form of chemical precursors, everybody also knew that Hussein's primary two concerns were Iran and a Iraqi Shiite uprising, and he was only interested in getting the US off his back, not agitating the US.

dude1394 · 07-14-2008, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

That's funny. I thought you said it took two months to win in Afghanistan?

I could care less if we "win" in Iraq. And no, I don't want us to "lose" either. Iraq has nothing to do with us, which is why we should never have gone over there in the first place. It has cost thousands of lives and billions of dollars to build someone else's nation. Meanwhile, we lose lives and the dollar is going to sh*t. Funny how our government cares about some Middle Eastern country first, and its own citizens second.

Furthermore, what is the significance of this "victory"? Will we withdraw the troops, stop the bleeding, stop the spending, and perhaps save the dollar and our economy? Hell f*cking no. I fully expect the Bush administration to simply use this as fodder for sending everyone into Afghanistan, Iran, and wherever else they feel like telling people how to run things. Our plan is proven to work now, right?

MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!

dude1394 · 07-14-2008, 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

Get back to me when China is the world's economic powerhouse and we're groveling at their feet for mercy on our debt. It ain't gonna be long.

How long do you say? I'd like to take your money, like I'm going to take chums.

wmbwinn · 07-14-2008, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dalmations202

As far as WMD go, the funny part is #1 above and #2 above are not the only answers. Just the only ones that most people see.

#3: There is and was more going on than has ever been released to the media, and there really were WMD's at the time, in Iraq.

What made Congress agree so easily? (screw the spin today -- what made them agree then?)

What part did Russia, France, and Germany play in it?

Did China have anything going on with it?

Thanks for adding that Dalmations. It is entirely possible that we found stuff that incriminated other countries and we immediately classified the findings. Thanks for those thoughts. I would certainly prefer that my #1 and #2 were minimal issues.

wmbwinn · 07-14-2008, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dalmations202

A country with excess oil and gas needs nuclear energy why? How much of the worlds oil and gas supplies does Iran control?

Again, our intelligence community is so inept that they don't know where they are doing this at?

Russia is sending nuclear scientist to Iran to help them with this nuclear energy why? What are they getting out of it?

Again, nice points. It is obvious that Iran is an exporter of energy and doesn't need nuclear energy for any purpose whatsoever.

It is also clear that Russia is their ally.

It is also accurate that if Russia could put nukes in Iran, then suddenly Russia is a very serious player in the Middle East.

This would also explain their opposition to the Missile Shield plans in the Eastern Bloc that are aimed at taking down Iranian missiles...

All of this makes sense to me.

wmbwinn · 07-14-2008, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShaggyDirk

What a ridiculous and naive way of thinking. Ask Japan how that worked out for them.

We're not going to lose. The Japanese situation is nothing like ours.

wmbwinn · 07-14-2008, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alexamenos

two points on this...

1. I think the trumpeting of DUBYA EMM DEES was a bit of propaganda genius on the part of Bush and Abu-Cheney of the desert. It completely framed any discussion about Iraq in such a way as to invariably elicit a response of, "EEK! Weapons of Mass Destruction!!!! How very scary!"

A few jars of some WWI vintage mustard gas??? "EEEK!!! Weapons of Mass Destruction!!!"

Never mind that 99% of the so-called evidence were neither weapons nor were they capable of mass destruction -- certainly the dreaded chemical and biological arsenal of S. Hussein and Company were no more capable of causing mass destruction than a few (hundred) JDAM missiles, and the collateral damage caused by such things is no less indiscriminate than the killing effected by economic embargoes.

2. The funny thing is....and this has been understood all along but kind of shushed under the desk as if it's irrelevant....

...in the very same judgments which the CIA and the rest of the "intelligence community" said that, in their judgment, Hussein et al were likely still pursuing some sort of chemical and biological weapons program, they also said that the only way in hell Hussein would use them against the US was if we launched some full frontal assault with the intent of ousting him from power...

While "everybody knew" Hussein had CBW's, or at least some form of chemical precursors, everybody also knew that Hussein's primary two concerns were Iran and a Iraqi Shiite uprising, and he was only interested in getting the US off his back, not agitating the US.

the above is not consistent with history. If Sadam wanted to appease the US to get them off his back, he could have. He did not. There were dozens of violations of the terms established by the UN regarding the ending of Iraq I that allowed for force to be re-considered.

Sadam was not trying to appease us or avoid a clash with us. Usually, I agree with you. Not this time.

wmbwinn · 07-14-2008, 07:37 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan
That's funny. I thought you said it took two months to win in Afghanistan?

I could care less if we "win" in Iraq. And no, I don't want us to "lose" either. Iraq has nothing to do with us, which is why we should never have gone over there in the first place. It has cost thousands of lives and billions of dollars to build someone else's nation. Meanwhile, we lose lives and the dollar is going to sh*t. Funny how our government cares about some Middle Eastern country first, and its own citizens second.

Furthermore, what is the significance of this "victory"? Will we withdraw the troops, stop the bleeding, stop the spending, and perhaps save the dollar and our economy? Hell f*cking no. I fully expect the Bush administration to simply use this as fodder for sending everyone into Afghanistan, Iran, and wherever else they feel like telling people how to run things. Our plan is proven to work now, right?
----------------------

go back to the original post to separate out who said what originally.

1)We did not go into Iraq in any relationship to 911 and their was no pretense that they were related.
2)The UN approved the attack
3)The US Congress approved the attack.
4)The value of the dollar was depreciated on purpose. The depreciation is not really related to Iraq at all.
5)I'm sorry you get so upset with our success.
6)Winning in Afghanistan= destroying Al Qaeda training bases; Removing Osama from being anything more than a symbol; Establishing a new regime; Turning over control to the Afghannies and letting them fight it out; removing the Taliban; Maintaining our ties to Pakistan even if it means Osama can hide there, because Pakistan is Nuke capable and had been a source of black market parts and technology to N. Korea and to Iran which enabled them to accomplish what they did. the relation with Pakistan is more important that killing Osama

Are we successful? Yes, on every point above.

Will Afghanistan ever be like a state in the US? Not any time soon. Doesn't mean we aren't successful.

ShaggyDirk · 07-14-2008, 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

We're not going to lose. The Japanese situation is nothing like ours.

ok

wmbwinn · 07-14-2008, 08:34 PM

There are too many ShaggyDirks that want us to lose and fail. Disgusting. Treasonous.

Dirkadirkastan · 07-14-2008, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

The point of the thread was, "Look how much better things have gotten." Our troops are awesome.

With this picture at the top, who are we glorifying?

When I look at this picture, a see a man that spent money he didn't have on a mission he didn't need to pursue. It's like he just put a $30,000 car on a credit card and you guys want to crown him one of the greatest presidents ever.

wmbwinn · 07-14-2008, 08:56 PM

Liberal Democrat debate strategy 101:
change the topic when you can't win a debate. Find something sorta related that you can attack. Attack it with raw emotion and show how there is a victim in the situation. Rant and rave with emotion. Don't worry about real content in debate.

dude1394 · 07-14-2008, 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

With this picture at the top, who are we glorifying?

The guy who had the stones and the willingness to go against all those who would condemn him because he thought he was right. And he was.

dude1394 · 07-14-2008, 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alexamenos

two points on this...

1. I think the trumpeting of DUBYA EMM DEES was a bit of propaganda genius on the part of Bush and Abu-Cheney of the desert. It completely framed any discussion about Iraq in such a way as to invariably elicit a response of, "EEK! Weapons of Mass Destruction!!!! How very scary!"

A few jars of some WWI vintage mustard gas??? "EEEK!!! Weapons of Mass Destruction!!!"

Never mind that 99% of the so-called evidence were neither weapons nor were they capable of mass destruction -- certainly the dreaded chemical and biological arsenal of S. Hussein and Company were no more capable of causing mass destruction than a few (hundred) JDAM missiles, and the collateral damage caused by such things is no less indiscriminate than the killing effected by economic embargoes.

2. The funny thing is....and this has been understood all along but kind of shushed under the desk as if it's irrelevant....

...in the very same judgments which the CIA and the rest of the "intelligence community" said that, in their judgment, Hussein et al were likely still pursuing some sort of chemical and biological weapons program, they also said that the only way in hell Hussein would use them against the US was if we launched some full frontal assault with the intent of ousting him from power...

While "everybody knew" Hussein had CBW's, or at least some form of chemical precursors, everybody also knew that Hussein's primary two concerns were Iran and a Iraqi Shiite uprising, and he was only interested in getting the US off his back, not agitating the US.

I think I'll defer to bubba..

Quote:

Bill Clinton put it in 1998, “The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow.”

ShaggyDirk · 07-14-2008, 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

There are too many ShaggyDirks that want us to lose and fail. Disgusting. Treasonous.

You're funny. I know you are joking, so I won't respond to the last part. But, don't naively categorize someone with absolutely no basis. I can quickly sum up or tell you what I feel necessary on a message board to communicate. I believe in facts, not editorials, nor a photo shop that a 5 year old could construct. But no, we have a bunch of parrots listening to talk radio, searching the Internet for any piece of crap thing in which they can say "buYAA GOTCHA"!!

"Well, we are here...blah blah blah...liberals are a bunch of pussies...blah blah blah...republicans have ruined this country...blah blah blah....questioning your leaders is unpatriotic....etc" When no one seems to address the fact that this administration spends more time thinking about "preserving the American family", whatever that means, than tackling the real issues of our time.

Also, if it is so blatantly obvious that republicans have ruined this country then why in the hell isn't this a runaway for the Democrats? The answer is we have smart people in this country making decisions based on facts and not what some buffoon is sayng on the radio.

None of these represent a political "side" in which you are trying to put ME in. You just sound ignorant. (not saying you are, but you sound that way)

wmbwinn · 07-14-2008, 10:13 PM

ShaggyDirk:
"The answer is we have smart people in this country making decisions based on facts and not what some buffoon is sayng on the radio. "

Expand on this. Tell me who we have that is smart that is working on real decisions and solutions?

It isn't Obama or McCain. I have some ideas of a few who do have decent ideas. They aren't running for President.

Agree that a lot of what is on TV is "buffoon" content.

wmbwinn · 07-14-2008, 10:18 PM

ShaggyDirk:
"I can quickly sum up or tell you what I feel necessary on a message board to communicate. I believe in facts, not editorials, nor a photo shop that a 5 year old could construct. But no, we have a bunch of parrots listening to talk radio, searching the Internet for any piece of crap thing in which they can say "buYAA GOTCHA"!! "

So, go back to post 59. The article quoted is not an editorial. It portrays a great many facts. My short "editorial" is simple.

What think ye? You did not comment earlier although I dropped it in this thread specifically for you.

Does it not answer your protest for real content? Does it not present good support for the thesis that the US is having success in Iraq as measured by the Iraqi units taking on more responsibility and more missions successfully and doing so well, that they are talking about asking us to leave?

I didn't post a "no content" "buYAA GOTCHA"!!

Dirkadirkastan · 07-14-2008, 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

Liberal Democrat debate strategy 101:
change the topic when you can't win a debate. Find something sorta related that you can attack. Attack it with raw emotion and show how there is a victim in the situation. Rant and rave with emotion. Don't worry about real content in debate.

LOL

Who's being irrelevant here? I address the first post in this thread, while you speak of "liberal Democrat debate strategies", and I'm not even a Democrat! Wow, irony.

Look, my point is very simple. If you're going to go in huge debt to purchase a nice car, then it damn well better be a very nice car. But it can be a nice car and still be a bad purchase. Likewise, we don't have to "fail" in Iraq for the whole thing to be a mistake.

So whoop-de-dooey-hoo, a politician said something good happened during an election year. I still believe the whole thing to be a huge net negative.

wmbwinn · 07-14-2008, 10:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

LOL

Who's being irrelevant here? I address the first post in this thread, while you speak of "liberal Democrat debate strategies", and I'm not even a Democrat! Wow, irony.

Look, my point is very simple. If you're going to go in huge debt to purchase a nice car, then it damn well better be a very nice car. But it can be a nice car and still be a bad purchase. Likewise, we don't have to "fail" in Iraq for the whole thing to be a mistake.

So whoop-de-dooey-hoo, a politician said something good happened during an election year. I still believe the whole thing to be a huge net negative.

My point is that you attack on the fringes and ignore the core issue of success in Iraq.

And, then, you post "whoop de dooey hoo" that something good happened.

And, you say it better be a very nice car and worth the investment.

I am glad you finally admitted that good things are happening in Iraq.
It is significant that we are succeeding there.
It is a nice car.
It is worth the investment.

I have posted in greater detail earlier about those basic points.

But, at least you have now finally come around to addressing the core point of the thread which is that the US is succeeding in Iraq. You think that the success is no big deal, too expensive, and not worth it. So, expand and explain your views about why the success is not important and not worth the cost.

You still haven't addressed post #59

rabbitproof · 07-14-2008, 10:53 PM

Name calling and party bashing aside, which some people seem to love, the core issue is what we were investing in, what we are investing in and what we could be investing in instead.

For some, the administration bowled three strikes, for others, it's been three strikes at bat.

ShaggyDirk · 07-14-2008, 11:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

ShaggyDirk:
"I can quickly sum up or tell you what I feel necessary on a message board to communicate. I believe in facts, not editorials, nor a photo shop that a 5 year old could construct. But no, we have a bunch of parrots listening to talk radio, searching the Internet for any piece of crap thing in which they can say "buYAA GOTCHA"!! "

So, go back to post 59. The article quoted is not an editorial. It portrays a great many facts. My short "editorial" is simple.

What think ye? You did not comment earlier although I dropped it in this thread specifically for you.

Does it not answer your protest for real content? Does it not present good support for the thesis that the US is having success in Iraq as measured by the Iraqi units taking on more responsibility and more missions successfully and doing so well, that they are talking about asking us to leave?

I didn't post a "no content" "buYAA GOTCHA"!!

I never said you did. If you never posted of the sort, relax. I will comment on your article when I get the time. I will PM you.

ribosoma · 07-14-2008, 11:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShaggyDirk

You're funny. I know you are joking, so I won't respond to the last part. But, don't naively categorize someone with absolutely no basis. I can quickly sum up or tell you what I feel necessary on a message board to communicate. I believe in facts, not editorials, nor a photo shop that a 5 year old could construct. But no, we have a bunch of parrots listening to talk radio, searching the Internet for any piece of crap thing in which they can say "buYAA GOTCHA"!!

"Well, we are here...blah blah blah...liberals are a bunch of pussies...blah blah blah...republicans have ruined this country...blah blah blah....questioning your leaders is unpatriotic....etc" When no one seems to address the fact that this administration spends more time thinking about "preserving the American family", whatever that means, than tackling the real issues of our time.

Also, if it is so blatantly obvious that republicans have ruined this country then why in the hell isn't this a runaway for the Democrats? The answer is we have smart people in this country making decisions based on facts and not what some buffoon is sayng on the radio.

None of these represent a political "side" in which you are trying to put ME in. You just sound ignorant. (not saying you are, but you sound that way)

I've run into the same thing here, brother. Any time you try to reason with people, it is likely that you will run into some serious conditioning. This can be seen in religion, politics, and just about anything we choose to distract ourselves with. The media structures its message for the most base aspects of consciousness in order to divide people and fragment the mind. For those whose Ego is tied to material constructs like nation, party, etc., this has worked very well. The good part of this is that for every step one has to go into insanity in order to accommodate what is plainly inhumane destructiveness to myself and others, a few more get off the bus and start asking questions. Perhaps for some, this inner evaluation will only come when their selfishness is silenced by economic collapse, or, like myself, a spinal cord injury.

Unfortunately, for those who will refuse to be accountable for themselves and the role they play in this world, history tells us, time after time, of the desperation as they mutter platitudes to one another as the ship goes down. For those who are not tied to the childish toys of nationalism and pure, unabated self interest, this time of the blind leading the blind to the beat of the war drum cannot end quickly enough. Having a father who experienced horrors in Vietnam and began to loathe those who sent him to kill his fellow men, women and children for their treasure, as well as cousins and close friends who have been conscripted to destroy ancient civilizations in the Middle East has had a profound impact on my perspective.

The bottom line for those who support this war, and apparently any and all wars, is one of self interest. If I posted pictures of children screaming in agony, they would probably do their best to have them removed... it is easier for them to slip into the memory hole that way. After all, Iraqi women and children aren't quite human, are they? And even though Donald Rumsfeld sold chemical weapons to Saddam, and even though he came to power with help from the CIA, somehow these dots aren't connected in the happy allegory of the American consumer.

One of my favorite readings during my recovery was the Kalki Avatar Prophecy in the Vishnu Purana of the Hindus. It was pretty overwhelming to look back over the global events since my birth and see how accurate the prophecy was. Many other Vedic prophecies relating to the end of the Age of Iron, or Kali Yuga, are sprinkled throughout the Puranas, but the Kalki Avatar Prophecy really opened my eyes:

“There will be rulers reigning over the Earth who will think of themselves as modern and superior; they shall rule through leaders of nations, and these leaders shall be men of vulgar, corrupt disposition, having a violent temper, and ever addicted to falsehood and evil. They will inflict death on women, children and animals (through their wars and plagues); they will seize upon the property of their subjects; they will be however of limited and temporary power only as they will for the most part rapidly rise and fall in meteoric short careers; the lives of these leaders will be short, they will be physically and mentally ill from their insatiable desires and habits; and they will display but little of spiritual conscience.”

“The peoples of various countries, influenced by propaganda of their leaders, will follow the example of their leaders, and the Barbarians of materialism will be powerful in their patronage of the leaders of the less materially advanced countries; the more pure-minded and spiritual tribes (and social groupings) of their peoples shall be neglected and exploited so that those peoples shall be enslaved, suffer and perish in great numbers.”

“In all nations, wealth and spirituality will decrease day by day until the entire world will be corrupt, crooked and depraved. Then property alone will confer rank or high reputation; money will be the only object of devotion and dedication in people; the vicissitudes of physical sexual desire will be the only and fleeting bond of union between the sexes; women will be regarded as nothing but objects of sexual gratification; and falsehood will be the only means of success in litigation.”

“The natural Earth will be venerated only for it’s mineral treasures (such as oil); nothing but the Brahmanical thread in India will be said to make a person a Brahman; external clothing will be the only distinction of the level of evolution of human beings; dishonesty instead of genuine productive work will become the short-lived means of subsistence for people everywhere; weakness and irresponsibility will cause more and more people to depend on charity and the state wherever they can; political menace, conformity and intellectual presumption will be substituted for education; immorality and personal corruption will be the new false religion; mere external bathing and showering will be the substitute for internal purification; easily breakable mutual assent will be the only marriage vow of parents for rearing children and divorce with broken homes will ever increase; fine clothes and bodily physique will be the only human dignity; and only water in far-away holy places will be sacred, for the local water will be increasingly polluted.”

“Amidst all the natural castes (or levels of human evolution) the strongest in wealth and brute force shall rule over all principalities and everything will be done in a faulty way. The common people, unable to bear the heavy taxation and other burdens of their greedy and oppressive governors and leaders shall take refuge in the remote countryside; more and more people will try to avoid polluted food, preferring to live on wild honey, herbs, roots and flowers, as well as the hunting of wild animals, fish and birds; but their poverty will increase as they are exposed to increasing extremes of freezing cold or hot droughts and fires from chaotic wind, sun and rain. All this will become so severe that in most regions the average lifespan of life will be only twenty-three years from all the deaths taking place from various conditions. Thus during the Kali Yuga Climax Period (just before the solar system enters the Ascending Dwapara Yuga) the general degeneration and destruction will accelerate to the point that the entire human race on Earth will be near annihilation.”

Dirkadirkastan · 07-15-2008, 02:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

My point is that you attack on the fringes and ignore the core issue of success in Iraq.

And, then, you post "whoop de dooey hoo" that something good happened.

And, you say it better be a very nice car and worth the investment.

I am glad you finally admitted that good things are happening in Iraq.
It is significant that we are succeeding there.
It is a nice car.
It is worth the investment.

I have posted in greater detail earlier about those basic points.

But, at least you have now finally come around to addressing the core point of the thread which is that the US is succeeding in Iraq. You think that the success is no big deal, too expensive, and not worth it. So, expand and explain your views about why the success is not important and not worth the cost.

You still haven't addressed post #59

Actually, I only said Iraq doesn't matter to me, which is why I don't really need to address post #59. I'm saying that even IF things are going as well as you say, it only says things are going well in Iraq, not America.

Almost seems as if you care more about Iraq than America.

Iraq's priority is Iraq, Germany's priority is Germany, Australia's priority is Australia, etc. But the UNITED STATES' priority is Iraq. It's really telling when we spend all our millions on Iraq while people in Iowa (you know, hard-working taxpayers who funded this stupid Iraq mission) don't get nearly the kind of rebuilding fund the all-important Iraqi's do.

It would be one thing if Benevolent Bush decided to donate his own earnings to the Iraqi's so they could be better off. Instead, he's taking my money, Underdog's money, ShaggyDirk's money, rabbitproof's money, ribosoma's money, and the money of 150 million other disgruntled Americans, and not even spending it on us or our fellow countrymen as governments normally do.

He's using it so he can play Sim City in the Middle East. Except he's cheating because in Sim City, you have to collect your taxes from the same people you're helping. Plus, in Sim City, you can't print money out of thin air.

wmbwinn · 07-15-2008, 07:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

Actually, I only said Iraq doesn't matter to me, which is why I don't really need to address post #59. I'm saying that even IF things are going as well as you say, it only says things are going well in Iraq, not America.

Almost seems as if you care more about Iraq than America.

Iraq's priority is Iraq, Germany's priority is Germany, Australia's priority is Australia, etc. But the UNITED STATES' priority is Iraq. It's really telling when we spend all our millions on Iraq while people in Iowa (you know, hard-working taxpayers who funded this stupid Iraq mission) don't get nearly the kind of rebuilding fund the all-important Iraqi's do.

It would be one thing if Benevolent Bush decided to donate his own earnings to the Iraqi's so they could be better off. Instead, he's taking my money, Underdog's money, ShaggyDirk's money, rabbitproof's money, ribosoma's money, and the money of 150 million other disgruntled Americans, and not even spending it on us or our fellow countrymen as governments normally do.

He's using it so he can play Sim City in the Middle East. Except he's cheating because in Sim City, you have to collect your taxes from the same people you're helping. Plus, in Sim City, you can't print money out of thin air.

The US government spends a ton of money in Iowa in farm subsidies and in the corn to ethanol program. Iowa is the Premier state in the union for corn production and for corn to ethanol production. Uncle Sam spends quite a bit in Iowa.
Uncle Sam spends quite a bit in Medicare and Medicaid and other social services across the USA.
The notion that Uncle Sam doesn't spend money on America is a stupid campaign slogan.
After all of your rants that these threads don't include enough facts and are full of only editorials, you have continued to only post short editorials and no facts.
And, succeeding in Iraq and Afghanistan is important to the future of America and Germany and Australia.

Do you want to look at Iraq purely in terms of finances? I think that is the lowest denominator.

But, if you want to examine Iraq in dollars, then consider that the elected government of Iraq is signing contracts with American and German (and other non Iraq companies) to improve the exploration, drilling, refining, and exportation of fossil fuels. Economically, the US will eventually get paid back.

Beyond the rants and raves of one Ron Paul, what evidence do you have that Uncle Sam just prints money to pay the interest on loans?

After all the rants you have had about only quoting editorials, it sure seems that you have bought into a lot of the stupidity of Ron Paul.

wmbwinn · 07-15-2008, 07:42 AM

Ribosoma, you did not have to go to India to find prophecies of that. They are replete in the Bible and the Quran and in editorials. These things are frequently spoken of.

The idea that money is being spent in Iraq that could be spent elsewhere is false. The money being spent in Iraq is being borrowed. The budget does not support it. The money would not have been borrowed to be spent in the US. So, that arguement should be tossed out and forgotten.

So, the real issue (purely from an economical point), is whether the investment in Iraq and Afghanistan is worth it.

But, quit saying that we are spending money in Iraq we should be spending in the US.

Absent 911, Afghanistan, Serbia, Iraq, etc., we would still be talking about how to have a nicely balanced budget and reduce the national debt.

When the national budget was balanced (mid to late 1990's), we had a Republican Congress who CUT spending on social programs and CUT taxes to balance the budget.

Obama wants to INCREASE spending on social program and INCREASE taxes. I don't think that will balance the budget. I do think it will send the US economy into a recession faster.
A US economy in recession will cause recession in other countries.

As I said earlier, the economy of Iraq will become stronger than it had been and it will be contracting with American, German, and other world oil/fossil fuel companies. The investment will reap economic benefit.

Before you lambast me on the problem of talking about all of this from an economic perspective, please note that I had not moved to an economic evaluation until several posters repeatedly pushed me that direction.

We are not in Iraq for economic gain.

wmbwinn · 07-15-2008, 08:17 AM

Now, for those of you who think we should spend more on social programs and increase taxes, here is an article to consider:

------------------------------------------

By TOM KRISHER and DEE-ANN DURBIN, AP Auto Writers
1 minute ago

DETROIT - General Motors Corp. said Tuesday it will lay off salaried workers, cut truck production, suspend its dividend and borrow $2 billion to $3 billion to weather a severe downturn in the U.S. market.

ADVERTISEMENT

GM said the moves will raise $15 billion to help cover losses and turn around its North American operations.

"In short, our plan is not a plan to survive. It is a plan to win," GM Chairman and CEO Rick Wagoner said in a broadcast to employees.

Chief Operating Officer Fritz Henderson said GM wants to reduce its total salaried costs in the U.S. and Canada by 20 percent.

A large chunk of the reduction, he said, would come from cutting health care benefits for salaried retirees. Those people would get a pension increase from the company's overfunded pension fund to help compensate for Medicare and supplemental insurance, the company said.

Several thousand jobs will be cut through normal attrition and retirements, and through early retirement and buyout offers, Henderson said. The company could resort to involuntary layoffs but does not want to, he said.

GM has 40,000 salaried employees in the U.S. and Canada.

Henderson said the company intends to reduce its truck production capacity by 300,000 units, 150,000 more than it announced at its annual meeting in June.

The company will speed up closures of its truck and sport utility vehicle factories in Janesville, Wis.; Oshawa, Ontario; Silao, Mexico; and Moraine, Ohio, and it will make thousands of job cuts at other truck assembly and parts factories, Henderson said.

He would not say if further plants will be closed, and said the company still must negotiate further cuts with the United Auto Workers.

GM said it will suspend its $1 annual dividend immediately, which will improve liquidity by $800 million through 2009. It's the first time the company has suspended its dividend since 1922.

The company also plans to raise $2 billion to $4 billion through the sale of assets, including its Hummer brand. It also plans to borrow $2 billion to $3 billion by pledging assets including stock of foreign subsidiaries, brands, stake in its finance arm and real estate.

GM and other auto companies have been hammered by high gas prices, the weak economy and a rapid shift in consumer tastes away from trucks and SUVs. GM's sales were down 16 percent in the first six months of this year, led by a 21 percent decline in truck sales.

GM is forecasting total U.S. sales of 14.7 million this year. That's down from 17 million as recently as 2005.

Just six weeks ago, GM said it would close the four truck and SUV plants and boost production of the smaller, more fuel-efficient cars that customers are demanding. It also announced production of a new car that could get 45 miles to the gallon and would go on sale in 2010.

But for an impatient Wall Street, those changes weren't enough, and the company's shares have hit a series of 50-year lows since July 2.

Analysts had speculated GM would need to raise more cash to get it to 2010, when it will start seeing the savings from its landmark 2007 contract with the United Auto Workers that cut hourly workers' wages and transferred billions in hourly retiree health care obligations to a union-led trust.

As part of its financing plan, GM will defer $1.7 billion in payments to that trust that had been scheduled for this year and next.

Some analysts have also speculated that GM would declare bankruptcy, but Wagoner said last week that bankruptcy isn't a consideration.

___

On the Net:

General Motors Corp.: http://www.gm.com
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080715/..._restructuring

-----------------------------------

Now, when President Obama (he will win barring an upset on the scale of the Patriots losing to the Giants) takes over, he intends to dramatically increase taxes on the wealthy (ie, GM).

So, what do you think GM will do when they have another loss due to taxation???

More layoffs.

Obama is going to take us straight into the next Great Depression.

Increased taxation is just not an option right now. Do it and the suffering will really begin for those of you in the middle class and below (economically; otherwise, we are all equal).

ribosoma · 07-15-2008, 01:56 PM

wmbwinn, I can clearly see by your posts that economics is important to you. The title of this thread involves a war that has cost 1.5 million Iraqis their lives. When you add to that figure the millions of children who were liquidated by destroying the infrastructure to feed them during the sanctions years, this is way past genocide, by definition. My notes above related to the selfish delusion of large chunks of this society covers this. You want a good economy and I want the mass ritual culling of population to cease. Compassion for living human beings is not supposed to be the third, fourth, or one hundred twenty-eigth on the list of a human's priorities, but such is the case for a country with a large sociopathic and narcissistic populace.

In relation to your confusion about the Puranas, they predate the Bible and the Quran. They are also presented as allegory, as opposed to outright fabrications of savage priesthoods bent on world domination through any means. And I may visit India some day, but I find reading about diverse cultures has a way of keeping me from buying large loads of BS about them when they are targeted by the West for destruction.

As Thomas Jefferson said:

"Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one-half the world fools and the other half hypocrites."

Janett_Reno · 07-15-2008, 02:53 PM

Obama said today and he is right, Obama: The central front in the war on terror was never Iraq.

So why is this adm so head strong on taking over Iraq and staying? They won't answer this nor will dude answer this. If they or dude tells you weapons of mass destruction, he was a mean man, or if dude tells you this is where Al Queda was or where the people was from that attacked us on 9/11 and was behind it, he is telling you all falsehoods. The only true thing was he, Sadam, was a mean man.

So do you know and this adm know other mean men? Now if he tells the truth and says, Sadam always threatned Israel and the way he talked he was a threat to Israel, then he is telling the truth. He also threatned Iran. Then again this adm or dude won't tell you this or the truth about Liberman. Why? Because then it is all about Israel. Greenspan, a republican says it was about oil. Sadam was a thron in many peoples sides because of the way he did and the way he chose to deal with his oil. Some have said it was a launching pad into Iran, some have said this was for Israel and some have said it was all about oil and you now see who has the no bid contracts.

The truth is, we can't police the world. Go in and tell people this is how we want them to do and live. The man in power in Iraq now wants us out. How much say so do we have on that oil and the country when he wants us out? Look who this adm has made alot stronger, Iran. Does this make Israel happy? Then dude you say Afghanistan doesn't matter. You are so wrong on Afghanastan and even Pakistan. They matter and who attacked us on 9/11 matters. Just like Obama layed it out today. Getting Al Queda and Bin Laden is important. Now if dude says it is about demorcracy and the world needs to be free, then how in the world does dude think we can free China, NK, Cuba, Syria, Lybia, Iran and many many more? It goes back to we can't police all the world.

The economy and for anyone to say Obama is taking us into the great depression. Have you opened your eyes lately and don't you think republicans, independents and democrats have eyes and a brain? What do you call now what we are in? Great happy and fun times. Not everyone has an oil well. Not everyone is the ceo of Haliburton. Inflation highre than it's been in 27 years. Recession, looks at our job market as W tells you we are in a booming enviroment. Speaking of Ford and GM, this adm has printed more money than the treasury has to bail out F and Gm year after year and they keep saying, give us more. Banks are failling. This adm does nothing about our infrastructure and they do nothing to invest outside of oil. It was easy to see when W was elected, buy oil stocks and gold and silver and get out of debt.

Obama does not believe in giving billions more of tax breaks to exon/mobile like McCain said he would. Obama won't tax the poor and middle class like maybe McCain would do. I also want to say this, you take responsibility like newt says and you stand for something and don't blame the other person. Do something. So when others in here say it's JFK, Carters and Clintons fault for the mess we are in, that is total nonsense and no one will believe a fib like that.

Why blame Obama now for GM and Ford? Why blame Carter, Clinton, JFK and Obama for the failing banks? What about this dollar that has fallen again and is at one of the lowest ever it has ever been but also dude says a weak dollar is great. Speaking of taxing the people, look how much this adm has taxed each household for the Iraqi war. Last i looked it was around 20 grand. Look who is getting richer and making money as the middle class and poor foot the bills. Now what this adm teaches you to do, go get more credit cards and charge them up won't work anym ore because the failing banks won't give you more. It's not like this adm borrowing more money from China each day.

This election, deal with the facts because the American public is paying attention and the one liners are gone. To close on, we need someone with faith and values to get us out of the great depression we are in and to change the wrong direction we are headed and thank goodness we have a choice. That is why i will not even consider flip flopper McSame with 4 more of the last 8 and i am going for change, someone with faith and values. With him we will come out of the great depression we are in and open your eyes and see who took us into the depression.

Flacolaco · 07-15-2008, 03:00 PM

Even if they've been taught their "faith and values" by a racist bigot for the last 20 years?

DirkFTW · 07-15-2008, 03:19 PM

Janet, you may want to read up on the Great Depression...

Quote:

Seasonally Adjusted

Unemployment Rate:
History 5.5% in Jun 2008

Change in Unemployment Level:
History +12,000 in Jun 2008

Change in Employment Level:
History -155,000 in Jun 2008

Change in Civilian Labor Force Level:
History -144,000 in Jun 2008

Civilian Labor Force Participation Rate:
History 66.1% in Jun 2008

Employment-Population Ratio:
History 62.4% in Jun 2008

Annual Averages

Unemployment Rate:
History 4.6% for 2007

Unemployment Level:
History 7,078,000 for 2007

US Dept. Labor Link

Quote:

1930: The GNP falls 9.4 percent from the year before. The unemployment rate climbs from 3.2 to 8.7 percent.
1931: The GNP falls another 8.5 percent; unemployment rises to 15.9 percent.
1932: GNP falls a record 13.4 percent; unemployment rises to 23.6 percent. Industrial stocks have lost 80 percent of their value since 1930. 10,000 banks have failed since 1929, or 40 percent of the 1929 total. Over 13 million Americans have lost their jobs since 1929.
1933: The free fall of the GNP is significantly slowed; it dips only 2.1 percent this year. Unemployment rises slightly, to 24.9 percent.

First Google Hit Link (searching "unemployment rate great depression")

Janett_Reno · 07-15-2008, 03:54 PM

The way i feel is times are bad now and another 4 years with someone in this adm will take us to the dumper. Even McCain said he did not know much in the way of econmics. Most republicans or many do not like his economic plan.

I feel we need a different direction and we need to invest in the United States Of America. If we invest in us then we will once again rise and be on top of the economic world and be looked up to and to get us back with a strong dollar.

Let's invest in Americans. We are in the mess we are in because of this adm. We have tried it the last 8 years and it hasn't worked and i know some doesn't care about our economy and only in the middle east, like dude but i do not think this is the right kind of thinking. We have to care about our people. He thinks i am shallow because he feels we must police Iran, Iraq, Syria because of Israel and that we must be the hammer to come down on them without anyone elses help. The problem this gets us into, it is many countries that should be policed and we can't all of them. We need allies. A group of countries that watches over wrong and bad and comes down hard on wrong and bad. Not just us.

Obama is right on winning the war in Afghanistan and against the Taliban and Al Queda and the people that was against us and attacked our country. He has the right vision and i feel he will put Americans back to work. Put us on the right path. The quicker we do, the faster we will come out of the recession and high inflation. It won't come quick but it will come.

wmbwinn · 07-15-2008, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ribosoma

wmbwinn, I can clearly see by your posts that economics is important to you. The title of this thread involves a war that has cost 1.5 million Iraqis their lives. When you add to that figure the millions of children who were liquidated by destroying the infrastructure to feed them during the sanctions years, this is way past genocide, by definition. My notes above related to the selfish delusion of large chunks of this society covers this. You want a good economy and I want the mass ritual culling of population to cease. Compassion for living human beings is not supposed to be the third, fourth, or one hundred twenty-eigth on the list of a human's priorities, but such is the case for a country with a large sociopathic and narcissistic populace.

In relation to your confusion about the Puranas, they predate the Bible and the Quran. They are also presented as allegory, as opposed to outright fabrications of savage priesthoods bent on world domination through any means. And I may visit India some day, but I find reading about diverse cultures has a way of keeping me from buying large loads of BS about them when they are targeted by the West for destruction.

As Thomas Jefferson said:

"Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one-half the world fools and the other half hypocrites."

We did not attack peace loving Hindus or Buddhists, although they themselves are in battle wtih Islamic forces.
But, the policies of isolationism did not work. The Peace and Love and anti war movements of the 1960s resulted in a military defeat in Viet Nam.

There is a balance between Peace/Mercy and Justice/War.

wmbwinn · 07-15-2008, 05:42 PM

"Obama said today and he is right, Obama: The central front in the war on terror was never Iraq."- Janet

---------------------------

Agreed. The main front was initially Afghanistan and Osama. We took care of Afghanistan quickly and effectively and have been able to turn most affairs over to the new Afghannie government. We have a small number of troops there that train, teach, lead, and provide air support and other technical advantages to the Afghannie Government military and police forces. Complete success. Is Afghanistan perfect? NO. But, it is not our issue. They are just a long ways from accepting of peace and avoiding civil war.
But, we have been completely effective in our goals EXCEPT that Osama may have escaped alive.

Theory is that Osama is in Pakistan. Pakistan refuses to allow us to go in and get him and refuses to allow us to fight the Taliban that have re-grouped among their family and friends in Pakistan.

We have to stay friends with Pakistan because Pakistan is NUKE capable and has a number of NUKES. Pakistan is the source of the knowledge and equipment that allowed North Korea to advance as far as they did. Pakistan was also instrumental in allowing Iran to get as far as they did. So, we need a permanent good relationship with Pakistan to prevent further dissimination of Nuke equipment and intelligence/knowledge.

And, Pakistan has not attacked us. Pakistan is officially allied with us. Pakistan has attacked the Taliban camps on the Afghannie border repeatedly. They, of course, are not as effective as we are.

Point is this:
We did everything we could with the primary targets related to 911.

Iraq is a completely different issue. The only connection is that Al Qaeda started up in Iraq after we were there just because they wanted to fight us and that was where we were.

For the record, the UN approved the invasion of Iraq by the USA for reasons that WERE NOT TIED to the WMD claim.

wmbwinn · 07-15-2008, 05:48 PM

"I feel we need a different direction and we need to invest in the United States Of America. If we invest in us then we will once again rise and be on top of the economic world and be looked up to and to get us back with a strong dollar. "- Janet

--------------------------------

There are two ways to invest in America:

1)tax the hell out of America let the government re-invest to meet their goals in the economy where they see fit
2)drop the taxes and let America's business world invest in itself to fix problems.

Option 2 works. Option 1 does not.

Now, you will probably say something like: We should take the money we spend in Iraq and spend it in the USA.
The money we spend in Iraq is borrowed from the World Banking industry. This is the group that you (Janet) scream about as the force that owns America due to our national debt. So, Janet: Are you proposing that we borrow money from China and invest it in Social Security?

If 911, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. never happened, then GW Bush would have been a force for balanced budgets, tax cuts, reductions in the size of government, etc. That was the structure in place in the Clinton years when we had a balanced budget. Clinton did not balance the budget. A Republican Congress lead by Newt Gingrich balanced that budget and Janet and others have singing the praise of Bill Clinton ever since then.

ribosoma · 07-15-2008, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

We did not attack peace loving Hindus or Buddhists, although they themselves are in battle wtih Islamic forces.
But, the policies of isolationism did not work. The Peace and Love and anti war movements of the 1960s resulted in a military defeat in Viet Nam.

There is a balance between Peace/Mercy and Justice/War.

There are plenty of peace-loving Muslims. I understand the psychological need to dehumanize a population you see no problem in eradicating in order to fit things into the template you choose to accept wholeheartedly, but your statements reflect a level of naivete' (artless, credulous, uncritical approach to life) that is all too common today. The same tactics have been used to persuade the populace of any country that has ever gone to war. In reality, there is only one war... and that is a class war. And when the time suits them, those responsible for the genocide in the Middle East will have no qualms about doing the same thing to you and your family.

The clique responsible for our foreign policy was also responsible for eugenics and the forced sterilization of 65,000 "inferior" Americans in 33 states in the 30's and 40's. Those forced to undergo this travesty included completely healthy African-American and Native American women. In the 1970's under Herr Bush 1 and the Family Planning Act he authored (quite appropriately), a new round of sterilizations targeting Native American women were documented before Congress. The result? 43% of Native American women were permanently sterilized. Go America!

And you chatter on about the economy...

It is entertaining to read the proposed solutions to the problems of America I see here. Should those Native American women sue? How much money is one's ability to create children worth? Perhaps, more importantly, how will that negative press affect the economy? From reading your stance on Iraq, I can see that those who are endowed with a little more pigment in their skin are open season for the Establishment, but maybe after reading 'Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee' and watching 'Last of the Mohicans' you greet the image of Native Americans with a certain level of nostalgia. You know, kind of like a puppy you had as a child.

wmbwinn · 07-15-2008, 07:17 PM

ribosoma tactic:

step one: quote me
step two: tirade having nothing to do with what was quoted and nothing to do with prior posts.
step three: completely change the topic
step four: assume my position associated with the changed topic
step five: attack me for my presumed position

You should run for president. You would fit in a presidential debate.

ribosoma · 07-15-2008, 07:54 PM

So does posting a reply about General Motors in a thread about the Iraq war count as changing the subject? How's about your tactic of not even addressing any questions I asked you? Are they too vague, or are you frightened by the implications of your answers?

You rail on about the need for a stable economy and which puppet will deliver what you want in a thread about war. I find this both distasteful and disgusting, but I see that you see the subject at hand to be whatever you say it is.

Perhaps a quick-fire posting of "funnyisms" about candidates that degenerates into racist humor that you later delete to save face would be better here. You first.

wmbwinn · 07-15-2008, 08:14 PM

1)turning to economics is a response to so many others indicating that we went to war for economy motives. My attention to economics was reactive. Go back and read the flow and you will that I started talking economics to react to other posters. I believe I began talking economics in post 104 and said that economics as a war consideration was the lowest denominator (least important consideration).

2)You have held up the ideals of Buddhism (I think; perhaps Hinduism, I am no scholar of Far East religion). Knowing little of that belief structure, it would be absurd for me to spend a lot of time responding to your detailed questions which came out of your belief structure. The best I can do is summarize your position as being one that espouses:
peace, love, tolerance, values not based on materialism/money, etc.

My experience is that folks that are pascifist are blessed to stay alive because someone who is not a pascifist protects you. But, I'm not going to argue about your religious belief.
So, I don't have a lot to say about the ideals of Far Eastern philosophy and religion.

3)I'm also unlikely to respond to generalizations such as (again summarizing/paraphrasing): "I am so far advanced in my mental/spiritual clarity that I laugh at your worldly/material motivations"

Beyond the basic "Make Love not War" mantra of the Hippies, I don't know what else to respond to from your posts.

Perhaps you could "bless" me with a list of your questions that you think I should respond to.

dude1394 · 07-20-2008, 09:52 AM

Hear Hear!!

Quote:

Victory in Iraq
Editorial of The New York Sun | July 18, 2008

Surveying the Iraq debate here, it's understandable if the average voter is confused. Heck, it seems as if even the presidential candidates are confused. Just as Senator Obama appeared to be walking back his primary season embrace of retreat, he gives a speech this week affirming his old 16-month deadline for withdrawal. Just as Iraq's American trained army wins four straight battles, Prime Minister Maliki publicly calls for the Yanks to go home. And just after President Bush replaced the Centcom commander who sought to deplete forces in Iraq to send them to Afghanistan, the Pentagon appears to be doing just that. Even the steadfast Senator McCain now says he wants to send three brigades to the Afghan front, anticipating he will draw from the pool of troops returning home from Iraq.

So what is the source of all this confusion? One word: victory. America won, and Al Qaeda, the Ba'athists, and the Iranians lost. Nineteen months ago, when President Bush announced his new strategy for Iraq, very few people predicted that General Petraeus and our military would prevent what appeared to be a certain civil war, or guessed that our Marines and GIs in Anbar would find tribal sheiks who would displace Al Qaeda from their fiefdom in western Iraq. Now provincial elections for this year and federal ones for 2009 are on schedule. Today the Iraqi military, which two years ago was corrupt and infiltrated with terrorists, wins battles in Basra against Shiite criminal gangs affiliated with Moqtada al Sadr. There is a joke going around Basra that the Iraqi military is willing to offer training to the British forces who abandoned that fight in 2006.

The Iraqi government has met all but two of the political benchmarks Democrats trumpeted as proof of defeat six months ago. The casualty statistics for Iraq are now in the range of the first months of the war. Michael Yon, one of the best war reporters of his generation, on Tuesday put it thus: "A fair-minded person could say with reasonable certainty that the war has ended. A new and better nation is growing legs. What's left is messy politics that likely will be punctuated by low-level violence and the occasional spectacular attack. Yet, the will of the Iraqi people has changed, and the Iraqi military has dramatically improved, so those spectacular attacks are diminishing along with the regular violence. Now it's time to rebuild the country, and create a pluralistic, stable and peaceful Iraq. That will be long, hard work. But by my estimation, the Iraq War is over. We won. Which means the Iraqi people won." Even National Public Radio was reporting this week that the levels of violence in Iraq were the lowest they have been in four years.

These facts have changed the war Democrats like Senate Majority Leader Reid said was lost more than a year ago. They have also opened up military options for other fronts that did not exist when Iraq was on the precipice of disaster. Now the next president will not have to choose between Afghanistan, a front we are now losing as evidence by the daring Taliban raid this month on an American forward operating base, and Iraq.

Democrats, who have tried to frame the Iraq debate as one over troop levels and troop casualties, will see the coming draw downs in that theater as a political victory. But this is a half truth. The distinction between the two parties, and for that matter the two candidates on the Iraq debate, is that one of them sought to betray Iraq when most of its territory was controlled by Islamic supremacist gangs, while the other saw it as America's strategic and moral obligation to beat back those parties who deliberately sought a civil war. When President Bush and Senator McCain tried to prevent what Democrats said was inevitable defeat, the Democrats accused them of prolonging the war. Now that the surge strategy has succeeded so much that Senator Obama has removed language criticizing the strategy on his Web site, the Democrats seek to claim a political victory made possible by the military one they tried so hard to prevent.

Janett_Reno · 07-20-2008, 02:25 PM

Neocons think that investing in oil and in big oil is what we should do. They also think investing now in Israel and also investing in Iraq and other middle eastern countries is what we should do. Not the usa as they think the usa will just take care of itself. If it was a reason or no reason for going into Iraq, one reason for the future was to turn loose those oil fields and let the oil flow and it is big plans for that now.

Here are some negatives on this very risky investment. Just how much is the Iraqi gov in love with us? Will they be swayed by Lybia, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi, Russia, China, India or many other countries? Right now we are letting in big oil from the usa with no bid contracts and them talking about deals with the Iraqi gov. Guess why Iran wants us out and out now? It is also scarry that Iraq wants us out and is buddying up to Iran. Is this in our best interest and a good investment? Why do the neocons like dude say Afghanistan is not important? This is why. It is a big bunch of land that is mountains and hills and very, very rough terrain and i am guessing no oil or not much. The neocons do not want to be here or invest here but as soon as Obama called their bluff about a week ago and said Afghanistan is very important. Now not only is McCain flip flopping but Bush is. It again has turned into important.

Now Bush is talking like we are going to start getting out of Iraq. This is the same man that said no timetables and wouldn't talk about it but as the top gov official says we want you out, now W is like ok, we are going to get out soon.

I think investing in big oil with two big oil men is the wrong direction to go in. We are running out of oil. Plain and simple. The ones that get off oil and uses alternatives are going to be the countries to prosper most. Big oil does not want us off oil and they do not look for alternatives. They invest more into big oil. Now, you be the judge investing in Iraq, and the middle east countries are good investments. I would have rathered invest in the USA, it's people, infrastructure, and gone after Laden and did and do all we can to secure Afghanistan but remember my way of thinking is not oil, so i can't invest and think like a neocon.

On a special on CNN they are running a special on oil and we are running out. Try to watch this. It is good. They ask a head man at GM, why are we so far behind like a country in Brasil in running off eth'? He said we are not, we are there, we can do it and have cars now ready for these things and the reporter then said why? Start putting them out big time. He said it was very few gas stations across the usa equipped with eth tanks and other alternative fuels and the reporter ask whyyyyyyy? He said ask the big oil companies. Again do you think big oil wants us off of oil and are going to invest in alternatives and this is why they are in bed with the neocons. It is republicans and democrats fighting to get us off oil and investing in other ways but the neocons in control say nooooooooooooo.

Pelosi other day said why we are in the shape we are in is because we put two big oil men in office. This is also something, other day W said we are in this shape because of the democrats. They won't let us drill. I showed an article why alot and majority of republicans and democrats are against it but not the neocons. Like Newt says stand for something and do something and stop with the blame game but dude and this neocon adm loves the blame game. They can't stand a guy like Newt.

They are sitting on so many oil leases now, big oil and won't drill. They want to sign more oil leases and open up more where they can control more. I am not against drilling but i know we can't make a dent in what we are in with drilling.

So as this thread goes on and the discussions keep comming in, it is hard to agree because a neocons beliefs and investments is totally different than the common man and woman across the usa.