Our president has just told us that we need an additional $87 Billion dollars for Iraq. I don't think I can comprehend how much that is. I tried dividing $87 Billion by the number of U.S. citizens - roughly 300 Million. I got $290 for every man woman and child in the country. But I'm not sure my answer is right, as I am not used to doing math with so many zeros.

My questions for you are would you have supported this war if you knew ahead of time that it would cost so much? Do you think we could have better spent that money at home? How much salmon recovery could we buy with $87 Billion dollars?

Do U really need to go there?

I think you know the answer or are just looking for a 6 page thread on people arguing and bashing...

Surely this can't be a serious question.
Surecatch, you don't honestly think that the money our president is asking for is going to be handed over to the Iraqis do you? Right here in our state there are companies that will benefit from this wartime budget as they work solely on defense conctacts.

I'm not professing to know even a little about where all of this money is going to be spent but I think it's pretty ignorant to blindly believe that none of the $87 Billion will be spent here in the US.

How much is 87 Billion? Probably about as much as we spent every year in our arms race wtih Russia. Of course now we can actually see what we are spending money on, not just "$500 toilet seats for the pentagon."

BTW, this relates to fishing how?

I think maybe I'll just make up a big batch of popcon and watch this from a distance.

Cast and Blast: The NFR in the title stands for Not Fishing Related.

Or looked at another way... $87 billion is only 4% of the federal budget..... the $2.2 trillion dollar budget amounts to $7,300 spent per man, woman and child and only $290 is going to clean up Iraq.

May end up being the best $290 our government has ever spent.

1. Rebuilding iraq: 87 billion

2. Cutting the french off from the oil supply: Priceless



seriously though I'm sure we'll get a sweet deal on oil once everything is in operation again.

would be good to see it back at a buck and change a gallon again....

surecatch-

Thanks for keeping this stuff in the public eye and for asking critical questions that most people seem to take for granted....

First, to the NFR bashers....why did you click? Why don't you do everyone that appreciates varying conversational topics a favor and go put your head back in the sand?

Here is my take for what its worth...

No, it's not worth the money or even more importantly, the cost in human lives both American and Iraqi. Did anyone see the images from the Mosque that was blown up during prayer services the other day?

For a party that is supposed to value 'fiscal responsibility' so highly, they sure keep asking congress for lots of money....seems we are already operating at a deficit as it is, now they want to spend more money we don't have?

The most galling part of the whole conversation, excuse my digression here, is that the party responsible for perpetrating this war on Iraq is supposedly based on Christian values...

...like turning the other cheek...

I think Dubya forgot to ask himself WWJD?

Either that or the truth is, he doesn't give a flying rat f*** what jesus would have done and he is using the power of christianity for pure politics and voter mobilization.

Nothing in my opinion is worse than some schmuck claiming to have religious values on the one hand and thumbing his nose at the same values with the other...

Wonder how much napalm we could buy for 87 billion

Surecatch

And you got the gonads to flame me!

That's exactly why you have such a low creditability on this board. At lease I am sincere in what I post. All you want to do is Pi$$ off people so that you can set back and rock your onwn boat!

Give us your name in home town if you really got the guts! and then start your usual BS!

First and last post on this issue for you baby! You're peeing in your own bed now! Maybe your mommy didn't tell you about dipper burn….you think?

It looks like all but a few know exactly where you are going (it's really hot down there) ....we here call it "nowhere"!

Cowlitzfisherman

cowfish,

Lay off. You're stepping over the line with the name and hometown bullsh!t.

If your opinion differs, then lay it down.

First off; CFM, what the heck was that all about? You're gonna pop a vein, man.

Next; From the AP news:
Yeah, a lot of it will indirectly go to companies in the US, mostly Halliburton. The only Washington company, that I know of, is one doing the stevedoring in that port over there.

As a side note to our local economy, the 3rd brigade (Stryker) from Ft. Lewis is headed over to Iraq in October. That's roughly 4,000 money-spenders leaving the area. Additionally, some of those troops will send their families to live with loved ones in other states.

As far as seeing gas come down in price, don't hold your breath. Iraqi crude will be traded on the world market and controlled by OPEC just as it was before the war. If you want gas prices to come down you need to do something to limit the American refineries gouging the US public.

Pmartin- the last Iraqi thread was 8 pages. I'm hoping we can get 9 out of this one.

All I know is that ever since the war my Ira and 401 has gone up almost 15%...


Mr. Bush shall I write my check out to you or Mr Powell...

Just hold on to it. The IRS will ask for it back, as well as your $400/child tax refund, when it's time to pay off the $87 billion.

The Feds giveth and they taketh away.........

Dan S

My boy was born in June...
I will be paying double since I didn't get the refund last year...

Piper; You must have loved Bill Clinton. Under his administration the stock market made it's all time best runup. In fact, all the recent decrease came under Bush. Truth is, presiodents have little to do with economic cycles. But they always take credit for the good and balme the bad on someone else.

I just saw on the news that more than 1/2 of the Washingtion congressional delegation are unsure if they will support the president's $87 Billion request. Interestingly two fo the undecideds are republicans.

One congressmen helped put it in perspective by saying the $87 Billion would pay for all veterans programs for a year and would cover all transportation programs for a year and a quarter. I think this debate is just starting.

Actually I thought he was a putz...

Dont forget He started the biggest decline of the stock market as well...

:p

WARNING

Before posting here go back and look at the last political thread and see the same names with the same opinions....Read the old before starting this all over again.

That's interesting, Surecatch. From what I've read today it sounded like Congress was going to approve it, but they were going to ask a lot more questions this time about where the money was going. I agree the debate has only started, and I don't think the money will be approved nearly as quickly as it was in April.

Hopefully the UN will get tired of saying, "I told you so" and start to pitch in.

On the bright side, no US soldier has been killed by hostile fire in the last 7 days. That could be mostly due to Rumfeld's order of no troop leaving the compound without a general officer's approval.

But it's so much fun watching them get all wriled up!

<img border="0" alt="[wall]" title="" src="graemlins/wall.gif" />

I think its funny that some people think that us being there is costing American and Iraqi lives, so we should leave.

I probably shouldnt go to far, as I'm really just dragging myself into this, but....

1) 3,000 people died in 9/11.
2) 9/11 was performed by Taliban/Al Quada.
3) Taliban/Al Quada are sponsered by who??

Gee, looks like Bush really screwed up there, going after the source and all... For anyone thinking that the Taliban/Al Quada were the specific terrorists that we should be targeting, here's a question... Who would Saddam sponser next? There is always someone else.

Just my $.02...

Curtis

P.S. h2o, there are plenty of nations going to war in the Bible.... Whats your point? Are you saying that going to war is unChristian?

terrorists are like seals.....to damn many of them

So we've spent 79 Billion to date and Dubwa is asking for another 80+ Billion 'cause it's what we need to rebuild...Let's see, 79 Billion in 6 months and another 80+ billion total? Didn't they say it was going to take 5 years to rebuild?

Does the Dubwa regime think we're so fricken stupid not to figure out that 80+billion is still not enough???

We have 73% of our military over in Iraq right now and the idiot still wants to take on Korea.

That same idiot who pissed off the rest of the world by saying "F-YOu! We'll go it alone" and now has the cahones to go back and say:

"oh, will you please join in the reconstruction 'cause it sure does cost alot to rebuild something that we destroyed..." What a fricken retard!!!

So to date:
1.Worst economy in at least 40 years
2.No WMD -never was and now they admit it. They lied about the WMD to gain approval.
3.Casualties now higher than after the war was declared over.

Last night they showed the innocent people in Iraq who were killed by Saddam in the early 90's for rising up against him...oh yea, the U.S. told those poor folks to do just that, but then we walked away from them and now they're dead...who's fault is that?

So are you still going to vote for him next election???

I'd pay whatever it takes to eliminate these folks who spread terrorism around the globe. We are the only real superpower left with the ability to project a presence anywhere in the world. We need to step up and be the world's policeman, because the UN doesn't have the stomach for it.

When an organization says that their main goal is the destruction of the US way of life, I say great. Thanks for making yourself a target.

I would personally be quite okay with the elimination (I mean killing) of anyone who is directly involved in any terrorist organization, anyone who supports a terrorist organization with monetary contributions, or anyone who supports their actions verbally.

It is us or them. It isn't pretty, but then again, war never is. Can you imagine people whining like this in World War 2, on December 4th 1943? (Three days before the second anniversary of a horrific sneak attack.)

Sorry for candy coating my feelings on this issue, but hopefully you can read between the lines and figure out how I really feel.

Andy

Republican Rep. Zach Wamp (news, bio, voting record) of Tennessee said, "It's a huge number, and Congress needs to step up to its constitutional responsibility to vet the request and put as many questions to the president as we can."

The first question should be...

"Are you sure that is enough?"

Twig...

How many have we lost to date? Is that more then the amount Saddam Houssein and his sons had a DIRECT part in killing?

Youre right, we should just sit back and watch people get killed... Hey, it's them, not us...

Ugh, you anti-bush guys are the same people who will be crying for help when the bombs are going off inside the US. The same people who said that 9/11 is all a conspiracy, that Bush saw it coming, right after you praised him for his noble actions concerning the aftermath of the attacks.

Curtis

BBVD: I am curious where you get your facts from? Can you post proof that Saddam and/or Iraq sponsored terrorism? The reason I ask is that you would be the very first person in the entire world to actually show some proof of that statement and it would be quite the scoop.

I just have one question: Where's the beef George? A 15 seceond sound bite wrapping yourself in motherhood doesn't justify asking for 200 billion. George needs to come clean and speak to the American people as though were not a bunch of mindless drones who will believe anything just because our commander and chief says so. Give your specifics with regards to links to Alqeda with Iraq..... I've given up on the the WMD....

During the Presidents speach, they showed the mass graves of people who rose up against Saddam and were killed back in the 90's. The problem is that the U.S. encouraged those people to stand up against Saddam and then we walked away...disgusting.

If the issue is that we're going to police the world, then we need to help out folks like Liberia and many of the countries in Africa. They are no worse than Saddam, but they don't have oil so you can do the math...

Third, there is still no connection to Al-Quieda so if we're trying to get rid of terrorists, we're still in the wrong place. So as for 9/11, I think the name of the guy who directed this was somebody name Osama Bin Laden. Yeah, that was it ;)_!

I know a kid over there, he say the Iraqis love us..

the country is crawling with foreign terrorist and we are "weeding" them out.

God bless that kid and all that are by his side , at war as well as at home.

Damn, this is ugly.

These threads can actually be interesting if people post something new, or at least a well constructed argument. On the other hand, the juvenile sarcasm and statements of opinion as fact just make it annoying. C'mon, you guys, try using the internet as a tool for growth rather than a rock to hide behind while you throw stones.

My opinion? I'm reserving it for when I get the facts, which many of you seem to already have.

$87M would be a small price to pay for security, but seeing as how we haven't got proof that we've accomplished ONE of our professed goals of this campaign, I'm becoming a little jaded.

Whatever happens in the mean time, I'll certainly express my opinion come election time.

The way I see it, we dont know anything unless Bush wants us to. We could know less then 1% of the information against Iraq.

I'll hold out for that 1%... Either way, we got rid of a terrorist. Who can deny that the man was NOT a terrorist?

Next, who can possibly deny that he sponsered terrorism? His regime alone was self sponsered. And if Bush says he was sponsering Al Quada, I dont need to see proof. That's why we hired him in the first place. Judgement.

Curtis

Once again no facts coming forth.
We didn't hire him. The majority didn't vote for him. And we sure wouldn't have for his "judgement" based upon his resume.
Your argument seems to be if you can't prove he's not a terrorist or sponsored terrorism then he must be a terrorist. I for one will deny that he's a terrorist until I see proof otherwise. Bush needs to start sharing the facts which all of this is supposedly based upon. In fact he would be in a lot less hot water had he done so which tells me there are no facts to substantiate those claims and without that we have an unjust war. Plain and simple. In one single post you have lost all credibility on this subject BBVD.

I know how much that is.......it's 21,804,511,278 green / glow Grand Slam Bucktails! Man that's a lot of Bucktails!!

In one respect, Dubya has done a fine, fine job.....using the media to draw a connection between 'terrorism' and Iraq. I believe it was a CNN poll I saw the other day that said 70% of Americans believe Saddam Hussein was involved with the 9/11 attacks...

??...according to every shred of evidence gathered in that case, there is absolutely zero justification for such belief...

There is no political power in America greater than relying on the American people's complacency...seems to be working quite well for Dubya...

Sounds like each of us needs to make a little trip to the ole sandbox and ask a few of the locals if he was a terrorist or not...

Isn't it all hearsay if you dont hear it for your self??

"The way I see it, we dont know anything unless Bush wants us to. We could know less then 1% of the information against Iraq.

I'll hold out for that 1%... Either way, we got rid of a terrorist. Who can deny that the man was NOT a terrorist?

Next, who can possibly deny that he sponsered terrorism? His regime alone was self sponsered. And if Bush says he was sponsering Al Quada, I dont need to see proof. That's why we hired him in the first place. Judgement."

I'm doing my best not to laugh here.

1) I'm thinking only an idiot would withhold information that would improve his standing with the voters. You can't seriously believe what you're saying....not without having actually given it some critical thought.

I agree Saddam is a terrorist, but as far as we KNOW, his terrorism has been limited primarily to his own people and his neighbors that we turned out backs on.

2) We don't know that we've gotten rid of anyone. For all we know Saddam is kickin' it with Osama. Or, he's running from Osama. Who knows? I haven't seen his corpse or any claims that we've identified his body.

3) You can believe what you believe, but don't tell me it's fact just because you believe it to be true. What's the proof that he's sponsored Al-Quaida?

4) You're one of those guys that believes everything an elected official tells you if you voted for them, and don't believe anything they tell you if you didn't, aren't you?

Grandpa and others - please get out the baseball bat and hit me repeatedly about the head and shoulders. I must be insane to get into this discussion again, but like a moth to the flame, I rise to the bait.

I am fervently against what our President is doing. He knew full well that the cost (approx. $150 Billion to date) would be immense. Yet, he still pushed through a tax cut thus leaving it to our kids and grandkids to pay the bill. And that does not begin to talk about the absolute lack of a coherent policy towards Iraq.

I have pasted an article here that addresses some of the issues brought up in this thread. It's important to note that the author of this piece supported our actions in Iraq - I believe this lends credibility to his arguement.

Mission Creep
Bush's perversion of the "war on terror."
By William Saletan
Posted Monday, September 8, 2003, at 1:54 PM PT



A $87 billion misrepresentation

For more than a year, President Bush has framed Iraq as part of the "war on terror." And for more than a year, he has produced no evidence for that claim. No evidence of a link between Iraq and 9/11. No evidence of an affinity between Saddam Hussein's secular tyranny and the fundamentalists of al-Qaida. No evidence of a terrorist presence in Iraq greater than in other Arab or Muslim countries. No evidence that Iraq offered weapons of mass destruction to terrorists.

In his address to the nation Sunday night, Bush offered two new arguments for declaring Iraq "the central front" in the war on terror. If you buy those arguments, he's right. But before you buy them, stop and think about how far afield they would take us from the war we embarked on two years ago.


Bush wants us to support his postwar Iraq policy as reflexively as we supported the war on al-Qaida in Afghanistan. That's why he delivered this speech just before the anniversary of 9/11. "Nearly two years ago, following deadly attacks on our country, we began a systematic campaign against terrorism," he recalled in his opening remarks. "America and a broad coalition acted first in Afghanistan … and we acted in Iraq."

How was our action in Iraq part of the campaign against terrorism? The old argument, which Bush repeated Sunday, was that Saddam "sponsored terrorism." But again, Bush offered no evidence that Saddam had done so in a way different from Iran, Syria, or even Saudi Arabia. Instead, Bush argued that regardless of whether terrorists in Iraq were at war with us two years ago, they are today. As Bush put it,

Five months after we liberated Iraq, a collection of killers is desperately trying to undermine Iraq's progress and throw the country into chaos. … Some of the attackers are foreign terrorists, who have come to Iraq to pursue their war on America and other free nations. … The terrorists have a strategic goal. They want us to leave Iraq before our work is done. They want to shake the will of the civilized world. In the past, the terrorists have cited the examples of Beirut and Somalia, claiming that if you inflict harm on Americans, we will run from a challenge. In this, they are mistaken. ... We will do what is necessary, we will spend what is necessary, to achieve this essential victory in the war on terror.

Second, Bush argued that ousting Arab tyrants is inherently necessary to the war on terror:

The Middle East will either become a place of progress and peace, or it will be an exporter of violence and terror that takes more lives in America and in other free nations. The triumph of democracy and tolerance in Iraq, in Afghanistan and beyond would be a grave setback for international terrorism. The terrorists thrive on the support of tyrants and the resentments of oppressed peoples. When tyrants fall and resentment gives way to hope, men and women in every culture reject the ideologies of terror and turn to the pursuits of peace.

Think for a minute about what these two arguments entail. The first justifies any war in which, as a result of our actions, terrorists attack our troops. Imagine an invasion of Cuba, whose dictator has long rankled Bush and would be easier to topple than Saddam was. No doubt al-Qaida and other terrorist groups would send agents to try to kill the occupying troops. Bush could then defend the occupation as part of the "war on terror."

The second argument is equally fraught with implications. Yes, tyranny breeds terrorism. But if the "war on terror" requires us to overthrow tyrants just because they're tyrants, we'll be at war for the rest of your life.

If you opposed the Iraq war because you saw no connection to 9/11 or because you didn't trust Bush, his creepy redefinition of the "war on terror" vindicates your suspicions. But if, like me, you supported the Iraq war for other reasons, Bush's linguistic revisionism still matters. I supported the Iraq war because Saddam repeatedly violated the disarmament and inspection agreements that constituted his probation after the Persian Gulf War, and because the U.N. Security Council showed no willingness, even at the brink of a U.S. invasion, to embrace a serious timetable for enforcing those agreements. We did what had to be done. But it didn't have to be done to protect the United States from an imminent threat. It had to be done to preserve the credibility of international law enforcement, such as it is.

An invasion undertaken for that reason entails a postwar policy very different from the one Bush has pursued. Having done the part of the job others refused to do—ousting Saddam—we should return the rest of the job to the Security Council. That means surrendering authority as well as responsibility, which Bush has refused to do. Instead, he drags his heels on relinquishing to our allies the influence they demand in exchange for sending troops and other resources. In their absence, the burden falls to us, in the form of more dead soldiers and Bush's request for another $87 billion in deficit spending.

To justify this burden, Bush tells us it's still about 9/11. He tells us terrorists are trying to "inflict harm on Americans" to make us "run from a challenge" in Iraq. He tells us we must be "resolute in our own defense." He tells us we must "spend what is necessary to achieve this essential victory in the war on terror." He conflates enemies. He spins circular logic. He appeals to our pride. He continues to misrepresent the terrorist connections on the basis of which he justified the Iraq invasion, and he expands the definition of the "war on terror" so that Iraq can be crammed into it anyway, along with dozens of other countries. Two years after 9/11, he has so thoroughly twisted the meaning of what happened that day that, in effect, he has forgotten what it was.

That's exactly what the Bush Admin wants...they don't want you to think for yourself. They want you to believe whatever they say. If it makes you feel better to just believe in the almighty Dubya, then good.

One things for sure, Haliburton/Cheney and Bush have a nose for oil...but that's not what this is about... LOL!!!

Saudi Arabia. What's your point?

Curtis, I think it's fabulous that someone your age is interested in politics and takes notice of the geo-political scene. However, it's disconcernting that you sound so neoconservitive before you're even old enough to vote.

Stlhead made a good point. You need to have some kind of reference when making a statement that goes against what's already been reported. I have pages and pages of documentation dispelling the link between Saddam and al Queda.

And who's opinion would be in that documentation...

Piper, the documentation comes from various news sources around the world. So it's no one's single opinion, but most of the information is derived from the CIA, FBI, and State Department. Even the Pentagon has begrudgingly admitted that fact now.

That's what I thought... and we all know how biased the media is...

So Piper, which way is the media biased? To the left or to the right? There are arguements on both sides of that question.

I know what you're saying, but I don't think the newspapers are as biased as they used to be. Of course if a person only reads the opinion page and lives by what the liberal or conservative pundits write then, yes, that person will probably end up with the same opinion.

However, I read a lot from the Associated Press, Knight Ridders, and Rueters from Asia, Russia, England, Germany, as well as the US.

When I read the opinion page I take most of it with a grain of salt and can usually tell when they're just whining to hear themselves.

you are probably right go harley it isn't as bad as it used to be.

But still no matter what is published there is always the bias of the author(s) to be taken into consideration... I question if anything has ever been published that hasn't in some way been biased one way or another just by the fact that it is "people" doing the publishing and "people" are biased by nature...

the liberal media preaches to the left and the left believe its true

the conservative media preaches to the right and the right believes its true...

even the middle of the road guys are biased one way or another depending on there views...

This issue will be argued and argued and argued and I doubt anyone will change their views... that is the nature of arguing politics... kinda fun isn't it??

Anyway I'm just funnin with you guys...

Piper, I think you have analyzed the situation correctly.

Anyone want to discuss religion?

Make Em STOP DAddy!!! Make Em Stop!!!!!

Eddie..that's your kids calling you...........Not POLITICS AGAIN Daddy!!!!! NOooooooooo

Here's a piece that's very interesting written by a credible source. You'll notice the facts noted are referenced.
War on Terrorism Bogus

It's lengthy, but taking the time to read something is what separates the informed from the ignorant.

I've read about the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) on several different occasions. It's kind of scary, and surreal, how everything is neatly fitting together; almost like a Clancy book.

The spoiled people of America beleive what they want to hear.I believe that what you want to hear has to do alot with how you were raised.Fortunatly for our spoiled sorry arses you can find just about anything you want to hear.Very little to do with the facts.kind of like the science used to controll..explain mother nature.

Dang BBVD-

Sometimes I forget your in High School! I'll bet you kick butt and take names in civics! You're holding your own here!

Keep it up.

It's a cheap price to pay to see that our children/grandchildren don't have to deal with it later. Take care of busisness and keep taking care of busisness!

Isnt the ol U S of A great!!!
freedom of speach!
Try that in Hussien land!


You bleeding heart liberals are all the same..Clinton let our own navy ship get bombed and all he did was drop a bomb in the middle of the dessesrt to retaliate..Why dont you look into who gave campaign money to the clinton family!!!!!


H2O- before you start talking about what Jesus would do you better read the bible..He told many to go to war!!

I believe in what we are doing by kickin there arss 100%..
we need to rid the world of terrorists and we just nipped a big chunk of change that supported them..

I read that article that I believe goharley linked me to. Besides the few grammar errors in the document itself, I found a few fictionous statements as well.

Here's what some basic surfing pulled up...

http://www.newamericancentury.org/defense-20021006.htm

You can actually download the report right here:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

So what you have is a report written to a non profit organization, who really nobody paid attention to...

Well anyways, that article just didnt do much for me. I've only been in high school journalism for one year, and even I can see it was poorly written and completely one sided.

All it did was what the rest of you guys are doing, bringing up small tidbits of information to be anti-bush.

Stlhd, or whatever your moniker is... You have a strange way of defining the word "terrorist".

\Ter"ror*ist\, n. [F. terroriste.] One who governs by terrorism or intimidation. --Burke.

I'd say that sums up Houssein rather nicely.

Curtis

gooooooooooo BVvD!!!!!!!!!

c'mon BVVD is in highschool and he has a better understanding on the subject then alot of you all i think it is kinda funny(in my opinion)no offence to any of you at all. I dont have alot of recolection of this but he has some valid points that i understand...
Brendan

I didn't realize BBVD was only in High School so I apologize for treating him like an adult. Just ribbing you BBVD.

But....your simplistic definition describes GWB to a tee which makes him a terrorist. Your words not mine. Governs by intimidation. In fact it describes the US past and present and almost any other country plus the Catholic church.
This brings up another problem I have with the current regime and many in the general population. ...the very loosely defined terrorist label. It has strong similarities to the McCarthy era. It's getting to be the Kevin Bacon principal....if Ashcroft can link you or your business to a friends girlfriends second cousins hairdresser whom is suspected of donating money to an organization that sent the money to feed the poor in Ethiopia but the local head of the organization took a trip to the middle east in the 1960's then you can be labeled and jailed for supporting terrorism. Now if they could just make Liberal = Terrorism stick they'd be able to bring out the street sweepers and have a big bon fire.

Howard Dean, the front runner for the Democrats in the 2004 election race , wants all the troops to come home so he can spend the 87 billion on his socialized medical plan for "all" Americans. Hopefully if he gets elected he will include a provision in his plan to compensate the families of those who will be killed by radical muslim terrorists after he takes office. He could put Jimmy Carter in charge of delivering all of the checks...That'd keep Jimmie busy for a loooong time.

I loved Al Sharpton's quip last night on the Congressional Black Caucus' debate. He was referring to Bush, of course, but it applies to the usual suspects on this thread as well:

The old James Brown classic:

"Talkin Loud, Sayin Nothin"

Anyone who pays the families of martyrs (suicide bombers in Isreal) $25,000 is supporting terrorism. Swat him like a fly. Keep him on the run, and hound him and what is left of his regime.

It would be nice if we lived in a kinder, gentler world, but we don't.

300+ lives spent to free the world of vermin like him, plus what has been budgeted and spent to date is cheap. (I am on no way devaluing the brave souls who have lost their lives, or those who will lose their lives in the future). These costs have already saved the lives of countless people who would be tortured by Saddam in the future. Do you really think one day he would have said, "Enough killing, I think I'll devote the rest of my life to freeing the oppressed around the world. Maybe I'll become a spokesman for Feed The Children, just like Sally Struthers!"

This is the American way, and we have fought for freedom since our beginning.

It is kind of cute the way these guys keep encouraging you, isn't it?

To begin, the PNAC was written BY a nonprofit group, not TO one. It was presented to both the Clinton and Bush administrations. The Clinton administration didn't do much with it because it was recognized as a neoconservative plan for global domination. However, you'll notice that some of the authors now work for Bush.

Secondly, the author of the original article is a former Minister of Parliment. He made his living writing to, and addressing the public. I hardly think your one year of preparatory journalism justifies your critique.

Finally, those "small tidbits of information" are commonly known as facts. We adults use those to make sound informed decisions and to which upon are based opinions. If you constantly construe those facts as being "Bush bashing" perhaps you should speak with a counselor about delusions of persecusion.

Hey grandpa............you want to compare how you spend your time and how Carter spends his time to see who is doing more for the good for the country?

Bad-mouthing Carter is a fool's game. Not much of a President, but IMO the only decent man to hold that office in the last 30 years.

BBVD

I am impressed that you are interested in politics and that you are willing tom take a stand for what you believe in. I was much like you when I was that age. I would like to offer some advise. I know non was asked for and you may consider it to be worth only what it costs.

As you form your political beliefs ask yourself how much of what I believe came from my independent discovery versus simply believing what my folks believe.

If your beliefs are your own, more power to you. But beware of simply adopting the beliefs of those around you. Ry really hard to read editorials written by those with whom you disagree. it is good to you to know what all sides think. I am a staunch liberal but I make it a point to listen to Rush, and to read George Will and other conservative writers. Sometimes they make me change my opinion. If you never can be swayed by others, perhaps you are a bit too rigid in your thinking. Also try to watch world news by BBC or any other broadcast that does not originate in the U.S. You will find that our newscasters do not even mention important world events if they don’t directly and immediately effect the U.S. And remember this, while we should respect the office of president and love our country, never forget that they will ALL lie to you when it suits their purposes. No one party has a corner on that market. Think, question and keep an open mind. And try to remember that neither political party is always right or always wrong. The truth usually lies in the middle ground.

Uh, BBVD..........just a note. Leave the grammar errors alone.........don't judge that paper on the grammar and we won't judge your posts on the spelling.

Okay...

PNAC IS a non profit organization for one... The report was NOT PNAC, the report was written FOR PNAC.

Next, I am allowed to believe whatever I want. My parents never enforced anything on me, and I am not a complete republican. Mr. Roach does not deserve the office he has IMHO. His interviews were all the political game of where he really had no idea what he was talking about, but won the crowd over with his smile.

And lastly, I am not writing a journalistic article here. I am not printing this for millions to see. This is a simple discussion forum. When I make reports for school or resumes or for a job shadow, I go over it with a fine comb to check for grammar/spelling mistakes.

Oh, and I need to end here with a question that is likely to get me a few more hot replys... If you live in a country governed by terrorism, but you are allowed to come and go as you please, then why are you still here?

Obviously there is SOMETHING you like about it. You at least have one up on the Iraq population. You can leave and never come back, go talk bad about the country, whatever... Nothing will happen to you or your family.

Curtis

This seems to be digressing into a "Republican vs Democrat" debate. The real issue is whether our President and his administration has been upfront and candid regarding the "real motives" for taking out Saddam and not holding back what he expects the taxpayers to spend to accomplish this. Now that we've essentially acted alone in taking out the existing Government of Iraq, Bush is trying to get international support to share the cost of this stabilization process. It seems highly unlikely that he's going to be successful now to that end. At some point, Bush is going to have to give up this "Nation Building" approach that he criticized the Clinton administration for or he won't be re-elected, unless he does actually have evidence that Saddam played a major role in terrorist activities.

Actually you are the one, with the narrow definition of terrorism, who labeled this country governed by terrorism. With that narrow definition there is no where in the world you can go to escape it.
The love it or leave it comment is another simplistic one and assumes that you either accept things as they are or leave. It always omits the third option that is the very foundation of what this country is about ...love it or leave it or change it. I'm definitely choosing door number three next November. I'm not sure this country can survive four more years of this crap.

Anyone remember these phrases that were pounded into our heads to justify the war -

1. Imminent Threat.
2. Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Both have proven to be baseless propaganda.

BBVD - in doing your research about the evil Saddam (yes, a truly awful nut case) you might look a little further back and discover that it was actually the USA that funded him and kept him in power - until he overstepped into Kuwait.

Finally, if we were serious about getting to the root of terrorism, we'd do an about-face and go into Saudi Arabia.

The British are much better informed than we are. The lies and the liars that lie are being unmasked in the press. The news is reporting that nearly 50% of the Brits now want their Prime Minister to resign after essentially lying to them of the need to join this war. A full 75% call for the defense minister's resignation.

Perhaps reflecting the US press's lack of critical analyses (simply repeating to us whatever the spin doctors say), in a Time/CNN poll conducted here, 63 percent believed going to war with Iraq was the right decision.

Still this administration's facade is cracking and now one of the greater threats to America is the Bushies are going to have to find a way to crank up the 'fear factor' to remain in control. Stay tuned.

This is all my opinion not supported by any facts whatsoever.... Flame me if you wish!

It is my belief that we may never know if sadaam played a role in terrorist activities. I believe that financial support of terrorism will never be discovered. No bank transactions will surface mainly because he had lots of cash at his disposal. What was it 100 million or something like that that he tried to escape with... probably a drop in the bucket. The easiest way to get something or someone is by cash... not very many terrorist take american express....

He was a bad man and he hated americans...


I recieved this by email, take it for what it is worth.... It may be a fabricationion for all I know.... But hey, If it is for real... it is all the proof that I need that what we did was right.

We need a translation, regardless of authenticity (which I seriously doubt...I'm sure that would have made the news).

Like I pointed out at the beginning of this thread, the same opinions by the same people.

Jimmy Carter is a good humanitarian with strong religious beliefs ....that should be enough to make most of you freak out...considering alot of the historical posts that are anti-Bush etc.....also anti-religion and anti-God. Does Jimmy get an exemption because he is a left wing Democrat? Religion is only evil if the religious are Republicans???

My reference to Jimmy was related to foreign policy where , in my opinion, he blundered badly. Check out his last effort in North Korea. I am quite sure he would have tried to reason with Saddam and Osama just like he did with Kim Jung Il in North Korea. And don't forget his support of Yasser Arafat...Didn't he get the Nobel Peace prize ....so did Jimmy didn't he?

Appeasers with weak knees and spines attract the people who want to kill us to attack us more and kill more of us. Isolation has proven to be a failed idea as well. The gang of 9 (Democratic contenders) are all soft on terrorism except Leiberman. Maybe Jimmy should build a house for Arafat and Saddam and Osama. He could win another Nobel prize for that humanitarian jesture I'm sure.

Nicely said grandpa2

Saddam Hussein is the modern day version of Hitler or Stalin.

He has stolen the resources of his own country to enrich himself. Prior to our most recent invasion, Saddamland and Iraq were the same country. He is a meglomaniac.

He has committed horrific acts against different segments of his own country, other sects of the Muslim religion including the Kurds and Shiite's. These acts include the use of death squads, and chemical and biological warfare. His actions have shown that he singles out minorities and kills them.

He has killed his friends, and even members of his own family.

Until he was removed from power, no Iraqi dared to say anything against him for fear of their life, or the lives of their family.

I don't know or care about these WMD. Never did. Don't think I even commented on them.

If he were to remain in power he would have tried to annex portions of surrounding countries like he tried with Iran in 1980 or Kuwait in 1990.

There are some pretty amazing similarities between Saddam, Hitler, and Stalin. History has a way of repeating itself.

Can you can honestly say that the world would be a better place with him in full control of his country? I think not.

Dogfish, there are a lot of us here that, while we don't care for the way things were/are being handled in Iraq, don't disagree with any of your statements.

My problem is with people that state their obvious opinions as fact, then slam anyone that disagree with them and label them all as "Bush haters", "bleeding heart liberals", and such.

I personally don't think being the world's police force is a good idea unless you have a world body that can effectively act as a judicial and executive branch. Otherwise there is no consensus, and you have what we're looking at right now. A candy assed UN trying to look valuable, a bully USA that is daring someone to knock the chip off it's shoulder, and a part of the world that continues to hate us more every time we turn around.

I'm very afraid that the hatred for us is going to far outweigh any attempts to make this a safer place to live.

I don't believe I have labeled anyone as such, and I know you are not saying that about me. Thank you for a good discussion on your part, SW.

The real issues, I believe, are the ones I have pointed out. Saddam is a very bad man. Nobody else has the power, ability, and interest (oil) to accomplish this. Sometimes you have to step up tp the plate, no matter how hard it is, to take the issue head-on because it is the right thing to do.

If we took the attitude at the beginning of WW2 (during the battle of Britain or after Pearl Harbor) that we were scared of the enemies we might make defending freedom, we wouldn't be the country we are today, and world politics would be completely different. The attitude you suggest goes against everything this country represents. Please don't take this as a personal attack, I am just refuting your argument.

Sometimes you have to "nut up" in the face of criticism to do the right thing and face the consequences afterwards.

The friend of my enemy is also my enemy.

Dogfish, I don't disagree with any of your points of fact, your predictions of what might happen of course can not be confirmed, but I believe that they are not totally out of the realm of possibility. Here is what I have a problem with: When a man (Pres. Bush) tries to sell me a duck but he tells me it is a dog, I lose trust in his capacity for honesty. Now, in my more cynical moments I have thought that honesty is not a needed value as a President, but I would sure like to have a bit of trust that my President is telling the truth. President Bush either lied or he was very mistaken about WMD and links to Al Quaeda. His inability to "come clean" with the American people will not earn him my vote in Nov. 2004. I'm pretty sure he can live with that and probably get a good nights sleep as well. That may be the biggest reason of all why he should not be reelected. My $.02.

One other thing, is the enemy of my enemy my friend? That attitude has got us in trouble in the past.

Hopefully we learn from the mistakes of the past so that we can avoid history repeating itself in the form of Hitler, Stalin, or Rwanda.

Do we know everything that Bush knows? No.

Is there a requirement that we do know everthing? No.

Is it realistic to believe that we must know everything that goes on behind the scenes, regardless of how the release of that knowledge would affect national security? No.

Were there statements made, based on flawed intelligence? Probably.

Do the ends justify the means? Sometimes yes.

What I am saying is that in this age of the sound bite, it has become necessary to win the hearts and minds of the American public prior to the US Government taking action. In the past, the government acted. Sometimes not so well (picking the wrong enemy of our enemy to make friends with), other times very well.

Does Saddam deserve to rule his country with an iron fist? Definitely no.

The argument that Bush didn't tell us the whole truth, or told us the truth as he believed it, has upset your feelings, while agreeing that Saddam is a very bad guy who needed to be dealt with is lame. Stop feeling hurt because someone didn't tell you the whole truth. Get over it.

Is the end the same as if Dubya took you aside, told you all of the secrets, then removed him? Yes.

Grandpa2: Jimmy Carter and North Korea? Are you talking about 1994 where he brokered an agreement to moth ball a North korean nuclear facility suspected of making weapons? Or are you talking about the past week or so where he was in Tokyo for humanitarian reasons that had nothing to do with North korea? Jimmy Carter is about the best we have right now on the foreign relations front. he is well respected throughout the world but this president shuns his use because of his party affiliation and, in my opinion, because he is a broker of peace not war. I thought Colin Powell was going to be the next great FR man but his wings were clipped and all credibility lost while towing the Bush isolationist policies. On religion....I don't recall seeing any anti-god anti-religion posts. I do recall posts that were anti-forced religion, seperation of church and state, which I completely agree with. Your religious beliefs are your own and should stay that way.
Dogfish: You have no patience for people who "assume" yet you are basing an awful lot and the lives of many americans on assumptions. Why was Saddam an imminent threat? Bush didn't tell the whole truth? So far it appears he didn't tell any truth. Did he believe he was telling us the truth? Evidence from the pentagon and the CIA show that it is very unlikley he could have not known his statements and "evidence" were false. So, either he is an extremely inept president, which is believable, or a liar. Of course there will always be a percentage of the population that believes there is evidence but it's top secret just like people who deny the holocaust but the percentage is rapidly shrinking.
Either way, we are now in a quagmire not unlike Russia's Afghanistan. This could very well be the first big step towards the fall of the last superpower.

Jimmy tried to appease the North Koreans and they snowed him and Bill Clinton and came back more crazy than before.

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman!"

Every modern day president has made mistatements or told lies to the US.

Lets put Saddam back in power then and walk away. I'm sure that he and Sally Struthers will meet up very soon to work on their plan for Feed the Children.

How many more people did we need to let him torture or kill before we acted? Did we only need to act if attacked us directly. How many more martyrs families were going to receive their $25,000 from him before it would be acceptable for you to act?

BTW, my assumption tag line is related to a number of baseless assumptions made by other folks here who basically called me a poacher or someone who doesn't follow the fishing regulations.

I'm really thinking we should be talking more about Osama Bin Laden and Al Quaeda and less about Saddam and the reasons for an operation that's already taken place.

You?

Or next thing you know there will be no voting at all. At some point decisions need to be justified.

Dogfish, how many lives did Clinton cost by lying about s*x? You do know he's been out of office for three years now don't you?
Was Washington lying when he said "I cannot tell a lie"? He probably was so that justifies both Clinton and Bush.

We are trying for nine pages here so maybe the new question should be: Should the president of the United States be required to justify waging war at all? If so why?

Dogfish, you said:

"What I am saying is that in this age of the sound bite, it has become necessary to win the hearts and minds of the American public prior to the US Government taking action. "

Actually I'd prefer a straight shooter.
If GW had said outright "we think he has WMD, we think he's supporting terrorists financially, and we all KNOW he's a murderous SOB, and we're gonna STOP him", I'd have appreciated his honesty and just set myself up for the bumpy road. I don't expect him to tell us everything, I just expect him not to bull**** me. I got enough of that from the last buffoon.

Incidentally, you're gonna have to work a lot harder than that to insult or offend me, Dogfish.

Dan S. - word.

But really, I'd prefer to hear that they've both been identified by their dental records.

What has not been decided by Congess is whether to grant the President the additional 87 million, ah excuse me billion. While most of us don't want to leave a bigger mess that we've already created, to simply burry our heads in the sand is short sighted, as this request for $$ won't be the last.... Remember, when George Sr. started this the 1st time, he spent 8 Billion.

Yes he does have to justify war to congress but ultimately to the American people.
Otherwise why make speeches? Too bad the entire process isn't done in secret. Couldn't very well accuse him of lying then.

The out of retirement senior member of the "liberal media" Cronkite has a good column today about the U.S. eating crow with the U.N. thanks to this administrations miscalculations. "This might be about as embarassing a position as this nation has ever suffered in international affairs."

That reminds me that there are still a lot more nations that we haven't made pay for 9-11.
Throwing a dart at the map I choose......China. Let's roll!!

How am I going to help cut the deficit by having my job (and a couple hundred others here) sent to China?

Pmartin-

Nice try, but try to stay on topic.

This has been discussed, and validated, numerous times, but for your benefit I submit the following (from NPR):

"If you repeat a lie often enough it becomes the truth" doesn't always work.

goharley

You almost make me physically sick. Sorry but that's the effect your attitude has on me.

Grandpa 2 - I second the sickness


Bush bashers SUCK!!!

Is it Bush Bashing to question weather or nopt there was a link between Bin Laden and Saddam? There has been absolutly no evidence of such a link. Don't you think Bush would quickly show us the evisdence if he had it? It seems to me that it is now prettyy unlikely that Saddam had those weapons of mass destruction we heard so much about. I actually beleived Bush on that. Now I beleive he was misinformed or purpously lied. Only tiime will tell on that, but it doesn't seem unreasonabl;e or unpatriotic to question this link that has not been shown to exist.

I do not think I am a Bush basher, just a person who knows that presidents lie to us. We know Nixon did, we know LBJ did we know Clinton did. Is there some reason to think Bush would not?

In fact we know that the Whitehouse made the EPA change their report on the safety of the air around the World Trade Center. It is a fact that there were many harmful chemicals in the air and the whitehouse lied about that.

Try to understand that even Presidents you voted for and support might lie.

Go Harley, I got to about, Nice try and already know what your babble is... Whole lot about nothin', changin subjects, and always negative. You're boring. Whatever babble you cut and pasted I'm sure was fascinating???


Unsurecatch. I and I think many don't care about some stupid link that we'll never find. Who cares about some link!!?? All I know is that some MF'r flew some planes into some big buildings in my home court and it's time to return the favor!! I could really care less if there is a connection! I am just happier than a pig is snot that we are over there kickin' some ASS!! Ya, we've lost some soldiers but as the saying goes, you play with the bull you're gonna get stuck with the horns!! I have yet to hear from one of you anti everything’s a better solution on how this situation could have been handled. Should we sit down and talk with them?? Gee, why did you fly those planes into those buildings? Was it that your daddy didn't hold you enough? Well, hold this...5.56 in the cranium! The heat is on Baby and we are in till we finish this mess! 187 bil...whatever, clean up the house and take the damn trash out!


Point I was trying to make is all was fine when they blow each other up. But the USA....nother story!

What did you people really expect us to do????


I know what Cliton would do....

Um, well, we have some delegates going to talk ......

It keeps going round and round, but the bottom line is that there is no connection between terrorism and Iraq. The two factions hate each other. They hate each other and they hate us but that does not make them a common enemy. As Goharley mentions, if a lie is told often enough, it becomes reality. Certainly there is enough press to validate any connections that the Bush administation would lead us to believe, and there isn't a press story out there that will confirm that!

We were then told to believe that war was imminiment. Bush was unable to convince any other country with the information that he had. Don't you think if the information was good enough that other countries (heads of state) would have bought in on it? Certainly they are at liberty to discuss classified issues and still, Bush could not convince them.

It is far easier to just believe in what the Bush administration wants you to believe than to actually have to think yourself and/or listen and research various sources to gain perspective on the matter. If you choose to simply be a believer, then fine, but accept that you are not able to process information on your own, that you simply believe something rather than have the capacity to observe something and come to your own conclusions.

So it sounds like you've taken the same approach as the Palestinians...they just walk into a crowded market and blow up whomever they can. Doesn't matter whether they had anything to do with it or not...

Don't you find it ironic though that the country that we decided to go after has lot's of oil??? If we were to just go after any 'ol country who is Islamic, then why not go after any middle easter or african country???

Please tell me you're brighter than that...

THAT MY FRIEND IS THE SOLUTION TO ELIMINATING SNAGGERS!!!

Any Volunteers?

The info I needed I saw.. The pics I posted above...


As far as the blind, such as yourself, they can not see.. Once again no answer to any question just ***** and moan... How do You think it should have been handled?

Wait, I know what you'll say...Bush lied to us and Saddam is not connected to Bin... bla, blah Once again I say to you. Bush has NEVER been proven to lie, such as your hero Clinton, but he is doing what he as PRESIDENT feels best!!! That's how is works people...Get over it!! Next November you can try to change who is in the white house but until then go change your diapers and have a warm bottle..

May as well go back to sleep because it sure seems that they is a lot of day dreaming going on here...


Now you people know what all those sheep in those packs talk about.... Ever stick your head out to do something constructive??


Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out!


Piper you are the uncontested intellectual whiz... Your wisdom and knowledge are too profound for me so I may not be getting your full intellectual connotations.

Thank you for your input and calling question to ones intellect. Isn't everyone on this board a genius??? You apparently are. I am just a low down scumbag and my thoughts should not be heard right? Or is it that unless someone meets your specifications that they qualify in this debate?

Practice what you preach!! You may be old but definitely not wise!

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Pmartin:
[QB] Go Harley, I got to about, Nice try and already know what your babble is.

Unsurecatch. I and I think many don't care about some stupid link that we'll never find. Who cares about some link!!?? All I know is that some MF'r flew some planes into some big buildings in my home court and it's time to return the favor!! I could really care less if there is a connection!

So pmartin, let me see if I understand. You told Goharley, "I got to about . . ." Can you possibly translate that into English? I can see that you and you, didn't read any of what GOHarley had pasted into his message. I think that's a good idea. No sense wasting precious brain cells with facts. I bet your head is nearly full as it is! That must be so, as you and you don't even care who was responsible for 9/11, just as long as you and you get to kick somebody's ass. Jeesh I hope a bunch of right thinking Canadians, guys who try to stay on top of the issues like you, don't decide to bomb the U.S. if Libyan terrorists attack Canada. Hey, using your logic it would make perfect sense.

Here's an idea, why don't we try to find out who is really funding terrorists so we can stop them?

Well Thanks for the translation!! What an english whiz you are. Especillay for being an "outdoor writer' .. LOL

Unsure, you make me laugh. You really have nothin to say.. As, far as H's posts they all say the same thing! Ignant BS, just like you! The only reason I am even writing in this stupid post is that I'm half drunk and it's fun right now. You know, kind of like teasing your dog or cat, simple entertainment. Like you...Simple.

If you will ever answer the question that I have asked over many posts...

What do you think we should have done? Maybe you'll be getting somewhere???
I feel we did the right thing. U? Just moan some more about the kid who took your ball away...

A big 'L' 4 U

Let me guess.....You drive a mini Van and ALWAYS troll the other way?

Reprinted from the Drudge Report:
Author Ann Coulter

VERMONT Gov. Howard Dean has been issuing diatribes against the Bush administration that would surpass even Tariq Aziz with severe menstrual cramps. This strategy has made him the runaway favorite of the Democratic Party. Even Mr. War Hero, John Kerry, is getting shellacked by Dean. At times Kerry seems almost ready to surrender, making him look even more French. (If only Kerry had a war record or an enormously rich spouse to fall back on!)

In the wake of Dean's success, the entire Democratic Dream Team is beginning to sound like Dr. Demento. On the basis of their recent pronouncements, the position of the Democratic Party seems to be that Saddam Hussein did not hit us on 9-11, but Halliburton did.

Explaining his vote for a war that he then immediately denounced, Kerry recently said his vote was just a head-fake, leading some to wonder how many of Kerry's other votes in the U.S. Senate this would explain. He voted for war only to bluff Saddam Hussein into letting in the U.N. weapons inspectors. "It was right to have a threat of force," Kerry said, "because it's only the threat of force that got Hans Blix and the inspectors back in the country." But he never imagined that Bush would interpret the broadly worded, open-ended war resolution as grounds to start an actual war! "The difference is," Kerry said, "I would have worked with the United Nations."

None of the Democrats has the guts to come out and demand that U.S. forces turn tail and run when the going gets tough. If only one of them had the courage to demand cowardice like a real Democrat! So instead, they stamp their feet and demand that Bush go to the United Nations. Apparently it is urgent that we replace the best fighting force in the world with an "international peacekeeping force," i.e., a task force both feared and respected worldwide for its ability to distribute powdered milk to poor children.

Inconsolable that their pleas to "work through" the U.N. did not stop Bush from invading Iraq and deposing Saddam Hussein, now all the Democrats are eager for the U.N. to get involved so it can wreck the rebuilding process. Since we didn't let the U.N. lose the war for us, the least we can do is let them screw up the peace.

The idea that we would involve those swine in the postwar occupation of Iraq is so preposterous that it's under serious consideration as next week's slogan for the Howard Dean campaign. I hesitate to raise it to the level of a serious argument by offering a rebuttal, but as luck would have it, we have two models for how to occupy a country after a war. Getting "the allies" involved is not the winning model.

After World War II, the United States ran the Japanese occupation unilaterally. Without the meddling of other nations, the Japanese occupation went off without a hitch. Within five years, Gen. Douglas MacArthur had imposed a constitutional democracy on Japan with a bicameral legislature, a bill of rights and an independent judiciary. Now the only trouble Japan causes is its insistence on selling good products to Americans at cheap prices.

By contrast, the German occupation was run as liberals would like to run postwar Iraq – a joint affair among "the Allies," the United States, Britain, France and the Soviet Union. It took 45 years to clean up the mess that created.

The Soviets bickered with the French, refusing to treat them as "allies" (on the admittedly sensible grounds that they didn't fight). While plundering their zone, the Soviets refused to relinquish any territory to France. Trying to be gallant, the U.S. and British carved a French zone out of their own sectors. The Soviets then blockaded Berlin, built the Berlin Wall, and Germany was split for the next 45 years.

The British made Germany's war-torn economy worse by trying to impose socialism in their zone (as well as in their country). Predictably, economic disaster ensued. Over the next five years, the U.S. was required to spend the equivalent of about $200 billion annually in today's dollars to bail out Western Europe under the Marshall Plan. I note that there was no need for a Marshall Plan in Japan.

And the disastrous German occupation is the best-case scenario for "international peacekeeping." The less rosy picture involves the defaced corpses of American servicemen being dragged through the streets by dancing, cheering savages, as happened under "international peacekeeping" forces in Somalia in 1993. Showing that America is not a country to be toyed with, our draft-dodging, pot-smoking commander in chief responded by withdrawing our troops.

So naturally the Democrats are rooting for an international force in Iraq. The Democratic logic on national defense is: As soon as anyone in the military gets his hair mussed, we must pull out and bring "international peace-keeping" forces in. Our boys are in harm's way! People are dying! Bush lied when he said major combat operations were over! Let's run. That'll show 'em.

It was not lost on Osama bin Laden that it only took 18 dead in Somalia for the Great Satan to pull out. It should not be lost on Americans that this is what the Democrats are again demanding we do in Iraq.

The more I get to know Americans, the more I hate them..... And I am American.
You dumbass people go back and forth, back and forth, but are all so stupid and narrow minded that you fail to see the real problems. They are not Democrat or Republican, Iraqi or Al Quida..... IT IS PEOPLE!
Israeli's can drop a friggin 500lb bomb on a building to kill a Hamas leader and it is fine, "they are protecting their people". A man straps a bomb to his body to kill Israelis and "he is a lunatic". Americans side with Israel that acts no different than South Africa did during aparteid by isolating another race and keeping them in extreme poverty. We all condemned S. Africa for this same type of treatment of the blacks. Then we get Nelson Mandela freed from prison and help him end aparteid and rise to the status of President of that country and he now despises the USA and says that we deserve terrorist attacks. We are despised by other peoples because we whine about our "collapsing economy" yet even our poorest have more than most people in other countries could ever imagine having. I often complain that my boat is too small, yet how many people in other countries could never imagine owning a boat like the one I have? We cannot seem to solve the problems we have in this country, yet we think we can solve the problems of other countries "If they would only act and live the way we do". We say that all people are created equal, yet we live in a country that allows certain groups priviledges that others do not have. We base our self-worth on the amount of money a person has, or their beauty, or star status, not whether or not they are a good person. We send pot smokers to jail, yet the billionaire that bankrupted thousands retirement pensions sleeps wonderfully every night in his $100,000,000 home and Martha Stewart cries "I didn't do anything wrong, they are picking on me". We lose 3000 in on day and we will continue to feel sorry for ourselves for the rest of our history and make a spectacle of ourselves every year on it's anniversary (big deal, Bangladesh can lose 10,000 in one flood, or 250,000 in China in one earthquake. We are the best whiners in the world, yet we have the most. This is why the world, and certain groups of people despise us and think the world would be better without us.
Not siding with them, just making it clear that we have no right not understanding why we are despised........

MC

Thanks, AuntieM. I'm sure something will come up, what with my boyish charm, astronomical IQ, and appreciation of sarcastic humor. :p

The problem with Bush and his supporters is that they are not able to produce any proof that Iraq was involved with WMD's or ties to Terrorism. You'll remember that these were the foundation of the argument to invade Iraq. Your challenge is to find one story written by a credible journalist that ties this together.

Just like a court of law requires proof and not just heresay, the American public should demand the same thing from it's government. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof, and folks, there just isn't any.

People keep mentioning "Well Clinton lied, and so has Bush." As though they are somehow equal. Clinton's lie should have been between himself and his wife. It's the same thing that 70% of the population do, they have affairs. Bush's lie, on the other hand, is a matter of National Security and National Integrity. Although both lies, one is much greater in magnitude. There simply isn't any comparison.

Bush and his supporters have failed the U.S.. It's for this very reason that the world continues to hate us. You should be embarrased.

The good news is that there are institutions out there that can help though, they're called Universities. They can help you muddle through the retoric and teach you how to think on your own, although it might be scarry to some the first couple of times...

PMartin - the only problem with "Kill 'em all and let God sort it out" is that I am part of the all and so are you. I'd prefer to stick around for a while.

Striking out against just anyone is an irrational approach that reminds me of a two year olds tantrum. Part of getting older (and hopefully wiser) is that we can start making distinctions based upon knowledge and experience.

I will vote against Bush in Nov. 2004 (Not sure that I'll be voting FOR anyone if you get the distinction). That does not mean I hate him, it does mean I believe he has failed the American people.

Grandpa, your posting of the Ann Coulter piece gave me a chuckle. I finally got who she reminds me off. Do you remeber Joe Pyne back from the 60's? Ann Coulter is Joe Pyne in a miniskirt. Better looking and she makes more money, but she inflames and makes noise for the sheer joy of it.

It is becoming increasingly apparent that we have targeted the wrong enemy. If we really want to "have a central front of the War on Terrorism" we probably have to look real closely at Saudi Arabia. And that truly creates some problems for America, regardless of who sits in the Oval Office.

eddie, thanks for the civil discussion. You too, Dogfish.

We're all emotional beings (as humans tend to be), but we really don't benefit much by allowing emotions to steer our online discussions, do we?

I believe we get to much info!!
We the people elect people to take care of this country!
There not elected to relay info to you to see if you agree with what they have decided to do to keep us safe..

I think that some of the info brought out before hand has put our people in danger!

Get a freekin grip you whiners!!!

PMARTIN: You wanted to know what could have or should have been done about Iraq? How about nothing for the time being. We had them contained and there was no imminent threat. Full concentration should have been on Afghanistan and Bin Laden.
Plus, we were containing Iraq not as the U.S versus Iraq but as the U.N. versus Iraq. It wasn’t our show. But, we have now made this our own personal war with all the cost and responsibilities that go along with it. Your [Bleeeeep!] for tat logic is exactly why there will never be peace in the middle east without some sort of nuclear holocaust. Now the U.S. is mired in, what I see as, a never ending war. Ten, twenty, thirty years from now our troops will still be dying over there. Our children’s children will most likely be subjected to terrorist bombings over seas and at home as a result. While we spread ourselves ever thinner abroad and approach bankrupting this country while off-shoring manufacturing and technology the EU and Asian conglomerate grow stronger by the day. I think it’s very clear where all of this can easily be headed and they see/saw it too…..the U.S. will no longer be a super power.

Is Saddam a bad man. Sure. There are a lot of nasty world leaders. To the world we have one right here in the good old US of A. But notice we didn’t kill Saddam. We killed Iraqis. Lot’s of them and we still are every day.

This thread is fun but sad. Anything negative towards this f’d up administration is merely Bush-bashing while burying your head in the sand and giving a politician the power of life or death over yourself and this country without question is patriotic.

People say “I trust Bush”. I ask what makes you trust?
People say “I believe in Bush”. I ask what makes you believe?
People say “he’s doing the right thing”. I ask how do you know?

To a tee the answers never contain a shread of anything resembling evidence to back up their beliefs. Some cannot answer without the name Clinton in there. Why? We are talking about Bush not Clinton. Others get down right hostile as if you are questioning the authority of the almighty supreme being. He’s not you know. Actually he didn’t even receive the most votes.
In my opinion we should be looking at impeachment. We can’t wait another year.

My favorite Homer Simpson quote “Facts schmacks. You can prove anything with facts.”

Wow Timberman...how communist of you.

stlhead- communist???

That was just a f*****g stupid comment!!!

Impeech? where the hell did clinton go when he was impeeched? NO WHERE

freekin liberals!!!

Grandpa and Pmartin -

I probably don't need to reply since many others have already pointed out the obvious. However, the obvious seems to be lost on you both. I'll try to refrain from confusing you with facts since your mind is already made up.

Speaking of facts, it seems that half the posters here base their opinions, trusts, and beliefs on fact; the other half on emotion, Drudge, and the view inside their rectum.

Timberman- I'm glad Jefferson, Adams, et al had more intestinal fortitude than you. Otherwise we'd still be swearing allegiance to the Queen. By the way, being impeached is not the same as being fired. It's merely an investigation into wrong doing.

MasterCaster - very good post with interesting insight. I'm sure you'll get the cliche "if you don't like it here, leave...." response from the self-appointed sergeant-at-arms wannabe.

Alot of you must be CIA

Because you sure act like you know everything that has happened and what has been found in investigations on Hussein...


This thread needs to be locked!
This is a fishing forum you want to argue polotics go to another forum!!!!

Then why are you posting? Isn't this way too much info anyway?

As far as I am concerned both Bushs have made big mistakes.
THEY STOPPED BOMBING WAY TO SOON!!!
They should have turned that place to the glass desert.
I say an eye for an eye or better yet 100,000 of there eyes for every one of ours.
GWB will get my vote again he is a man with guts and guts is what we need.
Not the yellow stripe some of you wear so proudly.

You've done it now!!! You're asking those people who are Pro War and Pro Bush to both read and to think...it's gonna hurt!!!

By the way, there are some BIG words in there, so for those that stumble, look them up!

If the US has got the whole thing in Iraq under control, then why is the US asking for help??? DUh.. which way did he go...

No no no... It's just that youre REPUBLICAN....

Pmartin, take to my new approach here... Don't argue with idiots, they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience!

No implications intended...

Curtis

CAUTION - grandpa and Pmartin; the following contains fact. You may not want to read.

Timber - you don't have to be CIA, you only need to read. There is so much information coming out disspelling what we were told six months ago it's hard to keep up with sometimes. Just read.

I'll agree we need a man with courage, but that surely isn't Bush. We need someone with the courage to do the right thing. Make sound decisions based on the welfare of our nation. Not take the most powerful nation in the world and attack the weakest nation in the Middle East simply to make a point.

If Bush had real courage (moral along with integrity) he'd stand before the American people and admit he made a mistake. He'd go to the UN and work out a deal even if that meant relinquishing military command. He'd quit cowing to Israel and Saudi Arabia.

Courage is not what Bush has; it's pride. Pompous, self-serving pride. And that selfish pride is killing America.

Thus far we've spent nearly 200 Billion dollars in Iraq with nothing but flag-draped coffins and increasingly global anti-American sentiments to show for it.

Imagine how far that 200 Billion would have gone towards increasing security along our borders, putting people back to work, or saving our declining salmon runs.

We should have completely finished Afganistan (which we have proof were behind 9/ll, along with Saudi) before we even thought about Iraq.

How can Iraq POSSIBLY be called the weakest nation in the Middle East?

I thought you said there were facts in that post!

Curtis

Name a weaker one? Are they surrounded and contained by military might? Is the world imposing a no fly zone on them? Which country is weaker than what Iraq was at the time we invaded?

Iraqs military was a shell of what it was at the start of desert sheld. It never was rebuilt ofter desert storm. Nobody could or would sell him weapons .

One thing after reading this thread has me wondering. How many of the anti-war, anti-bush, anti-America preachers here would be singing the same tune. If those four planes had hit here locally,If they had friends and loved ones die, If they had seen the smoke for months, And had to smell the burning buildings and burning flesh of the people they loved for months? Im almost willing to bet that some may be singing a little differant tune.
There was a day in this country that some of what has been said here would have been concidered what a traditor to the country would say. Or the words of a coward at a time of war.
Buy the way all four of those planes had parts that I built on them and I hate the fact they were used to kill Americans.

It disgusts me that people find disagreeing with american foreign policy, better yet expressing that disgreement as somehow anti-american. There is NOTHING more american than excersising your rights, especially your right to dissent ....what IS anti-american and an INSULT to every man, woman and yes, child that has laid down their life for this country, is suggesting otherwise.

Please do not think that my concerns over the misrepresentations by the Bush admin. Somehow make me unamerican. I think that what Osama did was unspeakable and I am all for an all out effort to find him and his filthy terrorists. We should kill every last damn one of them. So why are we screwing around in Iraq, where there is not one shred of evidence of any link between Saddam and Bin Ladan?

Now we are in Iraq, we must stay and help rebuild what we destroyed. Apparently we must do so alone as our leader has aleinated many of out traditional allies. Tony Blair is currently fighting for his political life becasue he swallowed G.W. bull sh**.

Nothing is more Amercian than expressing our freedom of speech. Yes, there was a day. . . it was the time of McCarthy. God I hope we never go back there.

I can't remember the exact words, but none other than Teddy Roosevelt said we should never quit questioning the acts of our president. Was he a traitor too?

And?

That's why we're us, and they aren't. Sounds like some are in a big ol' hurry to be just like Iraq, China, etc. Why would you want to be anything like those countries?


Free speech doesn't protect the speech you like, it protects the speech you hate.

Predictable that the anti-this and anti-that whining would start.

If those planes had hit here, locally, I'd probably be even more vocal about the folly of being in Iraq. Iraq and 9/11 have absolutely nothing in common. Why can't you neocons see that? It's well documented by no less than three government agencies. The very same agencies you pay such high homage to!

The main issue with those opposing the Iraq war is that we're wasting valuable resources in the wrong place. We should still be concentrating our efforts in Afganistan and getting tough with Saudi.

Additionally, since the inception of the Bill of Rights, it has NEVER been considered traitorous to question the decisions and agenda of the administrating government, especially in a time of war. A coward is more likely to keep their mouth shut and let the government do whatever they feel like without question.

AuntyM:

We are in total agreement on the Patriot Act. How like politicians to mask the stealing our liberty with a fine sounding name like the Patriot Act.

Six Months ago I debated this subject to the best of my ability and now I can hold my head up and say, "I told you so." Remember any of the concerns debated at that time? How about U N inclusion-exclusion regarding Irag War? Or WMD and delivery system? Link between Ben Laden and Saddam? Isreali, Palistinian uneven handedness? Anyone remember the song "Bomb Irag"? It can be found in the archives in the Irag discussion threads. I think that song sums it up for me.


I was hesitant about posting on this thread because of the name calling and attacks that some resort to when they can't offer up real facts as GoHarley pointed out so well. "duh", hello! Anybody home?


Now I will expect a flaming from the Usual Suspects. You know who I am talking about.

From my point of view, this thread is relevant because if the American people are satisfied that there is sufficient evidence linking the Iraq war with terrorism based on what has been divulgded by the Bush Administration, there is no reason for him to either fess up that the truth was stretched or come out and tell us the link. He will just be re-elected.

I for one, would stand behind the president if he could demonstrate such a link. I am not a liberal who opposes war at any cost, I just don't care to be patronized. This one is too big to just pass off as protecting sources by not divulging the evidence.

Just one more thing, on "Meet the Press" Dick Cheney was asked , "considering you were once considered a deficit Hawk, shouldn't the tax cut be scaled back to pay for this war and Cheney responded, No--that would hurt economic progress."

Here's a little irony for you: Powell visited a memorial for an estimated 5,000 people killed by the evil dictator of a country that we've killed an estimated 8,000 civilians in our pursuit to liberate that country from the evil dictator.

Hmmmmmm.....

goharley, not that I doubt you, but could you link me to your source on that number??

Certainly sounds like an interesting story.

Curtis

$87 billion is enough money to build apporximately 160 new stadiums for millionaires to play games in.

BBVD,

Here is the link that I believe that Goh gets all his info from...

GoHarleys fact page

Looks like it pretty much fits?

Here's a two of many:

Iraq Body Count

Powell Visit

Pmartin - Your input is a typical neocon response to something beyond your comprehension. However, thank you for clarifying your status of relevence to this and any thread to which you contribute. Your self-exhibited intellect of a buffoon has convinced me that you have neither the sincerity nor maturity to be taken seriously.

This is when you know a thread's gone waaaay beyond any useful discussion. People forget what they've said, and then step in their own **** trying to be cute.

Here's a classic:

"Thank you for your input and calling question to ones intellect. Isn't everyone on this board a genius??? You apparently are. I am just a low down scumbag and my thoughts should not be heard right? Or is it that unless someone meets your specifications that they qualify in this debate?

Practice what you preach!! You may be old but definitely not wise!"

Then he responds to a comment that he doesn't like, but doesn't have an argument to, with a link to a page with this header:

"Welcome to the

Stupid People Pages!!!"

because he doesn't actually have anything to intelligent to say. Nice. You get all pissy and defensive when someone questions your intelligence, then you do the same thing to someone else, but with twice the malice and the subtlety of a 4x4 in the forehead.

Looks like that body count page sure is a credible source... I am suprised that they don't have little pink piggys flying around that page... Sure you aren't reading the Muslims wake up page a little to much??

muslims

That's not a biased source...

Sky....


This is way too easy!!!

Yes pretty easy when you never have to prove or disprove anything nor offer any signs of intelligence. It's called escaping from reality.

Pmartin, that may very well be a biased source, but I don't see you caring enough about the deaths of thousands of civilians of a different faith from you to try and refute it.

What exactly are you calling easy? You mean the use of smilies as a means for "proving" you're right and someone else is wrong?

I was willing to give you a shot at intelligent discourse to prove you've earned the right to call someone ELSE stupid. I figured it was the least I could do since you were so insulted when someone else questioned your intelligence.

So far I haven't seen much proof. Can't you do better than smilies?

http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?bid=3&pid=949

Also, ABC News poll shows 60% disaprove of an additional $87 billion.

And I thought most of the ers
were getting there info from the National Enquirer or the Globe.

Next target:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,97472,00.html

Think this time they will provide evidence first?

Caring...That's funny...Take a look in the mirror

Saddam 400,000 deaths of innocent people in 15 years. Oh ya...Not all Muslims either..

Me and many others very glad the US had the gonads to step in and do something about it.....Priceless...or at least $87Bil

You and the few others that think " we should just sit back and wait a little longer" well, NUTZ. We waited 12 of those years. Could have saved around 300,000 lives. Would some lives be lost in the fighting...Yes. According to your way of thinking we should have just talked to Hitler about that gassing thing he was doing right?? We didn't, were there lives lost in battle there...Yes. According to your way of thinking maybe 12 more years of talking to Saddam would have saved those 8K (according to your reliable source) lives right....Don't think so. He is a bad egg and needed to be gone along with his cronies. Is the US going about it exactly the right way? I can't say for sure but at least we are doing something... And I believe that in the end when all is said and done...the people that you say I care nothing about, will be better off... Your plan will have them still dying under a ruthless dictator...

Quite ASSuming you joker you...Talk about sounding irrational and foolish....Sheesh

This is really pointless that this needs to even be explained to you... But, I guess with your superior intellect you probably still wont get it. I had to put this into laymen's terms... Will you be able understand this dribble... I tried for the last time...

I am sure with your superior investigative techniques you will be able to prove the numbers provided rather quickly...

PMartin, I have not heard anyone who has opposed Pres. Bush on this one try to make the arguement that Sadaam was not anything but a brutal dictator. I certainly feel that way. However, that was not the arguement that the Administration used to justify this war. The reasons I remember were:

Iraq posed an imminent threat to the US safety and securtiy because of WMD.

Iraq deserved to be paid back because of involvement with 9/11.

Now, I think the question on the table is why did the Administration not use the arguement that you outlined in your post. After all, it was well known that Sadaam was a brutal dictator, a devil on earth. Why didn't President Bush use that arguement? Why did his administration feel that it was necessary to use the other arguements? Arguements by their very nature required a substantial degree of risk that the "facts" would not be proven. This is the part that confounds me. I can't figure out what the game is. Oil? - possible, paying back Sadaam for what happened with his Dad? - possible. What am I missing? Do you think that the Administration had an internal arguement that they said the American people would not accept the arguement that we needed to get rid of Sadaam because he was a creep? Do you think that they thought the only way to sell this war was to scare the American public? Or do you think that they were hesitant to open the Pandora's box of removing the head of another sovereign state as justification for war? After all, that is a two way street, if N. Korea thought that the President of the US was a devil on earth and they had the power to take him out, would they be justified in doing so? My fervent hope is that you would answer no. If so, I would then ask you to examine your post again and see if you can see the Pandora's box that it opens.

Pmartin, you consistently make the same statements, over and over, and expect us to eventually agree. Has anyone ever told you that repeating the same act over and over again and expecting different results is universally accepted in the psychiatric community as neurotic behavior?

I don't take nearly as much issue with your politics as I do your belligerence, which is followed by whining because someone pulls the same act on you. As soon as someone calls bull**** on any of your comments you call them a Bush basher, a Clinton lover, a left winger, or something else equally as trite.

How do you treat the people you meet face-to-face whose views on politics differ from yours?

What if he tells you the Easter Bunny is making a special stop by your house to deliver some yummy candy?


KIDDING

No, all the whiners are being told what to think by Drudge and Coulter. Neocons don't like fact-based information - it only confuses their programming.

eddie - good questions and points. Wolfowitz admitted on "Face the Nation" (I believe) a couple months ago that the administration settled on WMDs as the reason to invade. Evidently, by his account, the administration couldn't all agree on a single reason at first.

Personally, I think the humanitarian issue is a load of bunk. I don't believe anyone could have cared any less how the Iraqi people were living 10 months ago. Americans were only concerned with the "imminent danger" they were convinced to fear. If it's truly humanitarian issues we're fighting for, there are far worse off people than Iraq.

As a matter of fact, I don't believe the Iraqi border was closed, so why didn't all those oppressed people leave? They did in '91 - why'd they go back?

I nominate DanS for funniest post of the year...

Thank you, thank you

I'll be here all the week........