Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: SOB on October 26, 2004, 05:19:30 PM
-
I just don't believe that invading Iraq has made the U.S. any more secure, and I don't think we've gained anything. And while I do feel sympathy for the Iraqis who had to suffer under Saddam, I don't feel 1,110 American lives and $280 Billion dollars worth of sympathy. We're not the keepers of the world, or at least we shouldn't be. And where does it end?
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6617215
Bush Could Seek Up to $75 Billion in War Funding
Tue Oct 26, 2004 02:46 PM ET
By Adam Entous
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Bush administration, faced with a growing insurgency and record fuel costs, plans early next year to seek $60 billion to $75 billion in emergency funding for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, administration and congressional officials said on Tuesday.
The White House Office of Management and Budget said it was premature to discuss the size of the upcoming supplemental spending request, which would bring total U.S. funding for military operations and reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan to as much as $280 billion.
Officials acknowledged that rising fuel costs could add billions of dollars to the price tag in Iraq. World oil prices have skyrocketed 70 percent since the start of the year, in part because of the turmoil in Iraq.
The White House said President Bush, if re-elected on Nov. 2, would submit the funding request to the U.S. Congress in late January or early February, following a full assessment of the Pentagon's needs in the coming months.
White House officials initially said Bush could seek $60 billion in new funding for military operations, though actual outlays may be closer to $50 billion. But officials said the final package could grow to closer to $75 billion, and possibly more, if the anti-American insurgency intensifies and the United States is forced to send additional troops to Iraq.
"It's too early to be discussing amounts, but the figures will sustain current operations overseas," said Pentagon spokeswoman Rose-Ann Lynch.
The Pentagon is considering delaying the departure of some troops in Iraq and speeding the arrival of others already due to deploy to boost force levels for the January elections, officials said.
UNDERSTATING COSTS?
Democratic critics accused Bush and his top advisers of understating the costs to bolster support for war.
Before the invasion, then-White House budget director Mitch Daniels predicted Iraq would be "an affordable endeavor," and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz assured Congress: "We are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon."
Yet so far, Congress has approved $120 billion for Iraq and another $60 billion for Afghanistan, according to White House estimates. On top of that, Congress has set up a $25 billion contingency fund for the Pentagon.
"This is the incredible price of going it almost alone in Iraq," Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said in Wisconsin. "How much more will the American people have to pay?"
House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California blamed the administration's "poor planning," adding, "Incompetence has a cost."
Administration and congressional aides said the increase in funding comes in response in large part to the spreading insurgency in Iraq, where some doubt the security situation will allow voting across the country.
Under financial strain, the Pentagon said last month that it was already tapping into its $25 billion "contingency reserve" fund.
The Pentagon said $2.2 billion of the $25 billion fund was being used to ramp up production of armored Humvees and to buy body armor and bolster fuel supplies.
Another $5.2 billion from the reserve fund has been earmarked for the Army to cover its "cash flow" needs over the next three to four months.
So far, $966.3 million has been set aside for fuel costs, the Pentagon said. Rising fuel costs could add another $3 billion to next year's bill, sources said.
Officials said the size of next year's supplemental would depend on the Pentagon's needs, and how much of the $25 billion contingency fund can be applied to next year's spending needs. Congressional aides doubted much of that money would be left.
Administration officials said Bush would provide whatever money the Pentagon needs. "Like the $87 billion supplemental request for 2004, our 2005 request will be absolutely critical to supporting our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq," White House budget spokesman Chad Kolton said.
-
I'm guessing it ends maybe 5 years from now, with a slowly increasing drawdown to that point.
Was it worth it? Short term, probably not. Probably not in my lifetime. ;)
Over 50 years? Maybe it will. Maybe.
All depends on whether or not this is the pebble that starts the avalanche of democracy in the middle east.
Of course, it could also start the shirtslide of Islamic extremism, too.
Enjoy.
-
I imagine there were articals like this in 1946 and 47, and we are still in both Germany and Japan....
I am with Toad on this, only time will tell.
-
Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but the true answer to that will only be decided by history. As toad pointed out, it is a part of a larger long term objective.
-
This is a good link. (http://www.costofwar.com/)
You can scroll to see what each state is paying.
-
Short term, American is not any more secure due to the war in Iraq.
Was it worth it?
Well, I'd say it was necessary in light of what we understood at the time. I have never been upset that we have found no WMD. We did the only thing we could do given the intelligence and warnings we had received regarding Iraq. We had to take out Saddam and put end to his game.
If we had not gone in, Saddam would still be playing games today would be making WMD again at some point.
Long term I believe it will be a watershed event in history, for the good.
I don't think the view now is going to seem as bad to people against the war, after a few years have passed.
-
Was it worth it ?
That's going to depend on whether trying to establish democracies in the Middle East reduces the attraction of Islamic Extremism and bring stability to the region and conversely threats to the Western World. It too early to tell at this point.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Of course, it could also start the shirtslide of Islamic extremism, too.
That's the part I fear the most.
-
Toad, if Iraq can actually maintain a democratic system of government after we pull out, then I could probably stomach the bill, but do you really think that'll be the case? Honestly, I hope so, but I just don't believe it. Either way, it's hard to justify the American lives lost, but I suppose there are very few things you can make a solid comparison of worth vs human lives. WWII would probably be one of them, but I think any comparison of Iraq to Nazi Germany and what happened in WWII is, at the very least, a stretch.
-
What definition of democracy are we talking about? The USA version of what's right for the Iraqis? What if THEY want a Theocratic religious fundamentalist Islamic state? Democracy is different things to different people/cultures. Iraq has a 60% Shi'i population. Once they start truly free elections, guess what kind of gov't they're going to vote in?
-
history will prove that it was worth it
$$'s will be paid back tenfold, it's the lives that can't be replaced, on all sides
-
Originally posted by Nash
This is a good link. (http://www.costofwar.com/)
You can scroll to see what each state is paying.
As of this posting, Wyoming has only paid 193 Million. Cheney is from Wyoming... coincidence? I didn't realize the conspiracy was this deep.
-
The first election is actually going to be a faux election.
Who votes? Right now, it's all up in the air - but it also looks like not the entire country, and by the time election time over there rolls around it will be based on safe areas. Rationalize that however you wish, but it's still not a real election.
So in the mean time - it appears it could be a democracy. In the long run... well the worst could happen. If I were a betting man, that's where I'd put my money.
Was it worth it? The money I am displeased with being allocated to that, it could have gone to our debt. The lives, no it wasn't worth it. If a people aren't willing to fight for their own freedom, I don't believe their freedom is worth another people's blood.
-SW
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
I imagine there were articals like this in 1946 and 47, and we are still in both Germany and Japan....
That was not a war of choice like Iraq.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
As of this posting, Wyoming has only paid 193 Million. Cheney is from Wyoming... coincidence? I didn't realize the conspiracy was this deep.
Homeland Security funds distributed to each state
Wyoming leads the pack, receiving $40.60 per person while New York ranks 35th in 2004 funding at $10.03 per person.
coincidence?
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Short term, American is not any more secure due to the war in Iraq.
We are LESS secure.
The information about WMDs came from the administration, and it is obvious that they put pressure on the intelligence agencies to tell them what they wanted to hear.
-
Originally posted by -MZ-
That was not a war of choice like Iraq.
Sure it was. We could have just forgiven Japan for it's indiscretion, and sent a diplomatic delegation to Tokyo. Germany would not have been compelled to declare war due to the Axis agreement, and we could have stayed out of the whole thing.
-
Originally posted by Torque
Homeland Security funds distributed to each state
Wyoming leads the pack, receiving $40.60 per person while New York ranks 35th in 2004 funding at $10.03 per person.
coincidence?
You may not have seen my tongue implanted in my cheek. I think your statisticss have to do with the $3,518 sent to Wyoming is split up among Wyoming's 837 residents.
-
You guys crack me up!
Nuke take the blinders off.
Well, I'd say it was necessary in light of what we understood at the time. I have never been upset that we have found no WMD. We did the only thing we could do given the intelligence and warnings we had received regarding Iraq. We had to take out Saddam and put end to his game.
The intelligence was not the problem it was Bush's manipulation of that intelligence and blind eye to the truth. Hans Blix reported before we went to war that Iraq did not have WMDs. You honestly believe our intel didn't know it. :rolleyes:
As for the Democracy in Iraq - can anyone say Shaw of Iran. I hope to God that some miracle happens where the Iraq's actually are able to take control of their country and create a democracy and keep it. History has proven this hard to do in that area.
Personally I don't think Iraq was a problem, Iran, Korea that is a different story, but now that we are over committed in Iraq, Iran and Korea get a free pass.
I just keep praying, the rest is in Gods hands now.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
You may not have seen my tongue implanted in my cheek. I think your statisticss have to do with the $3,518 sent to Wyoming is split up among Wyoming's 837 residents.
LOL
-
What History Will Say....
Well let's see here:
Invaded a sovereign country to find Weapons of Mass De.... oops wait, I mean ..Remove an evil Hitler-like Dictator and RESTORE democracy.
It has cost us billions of dollars and too many of our own killed. Those Iraqis that we were saving? Some innocent civillians killed (mostly collateral), but hey, it was for their own good!
they have their first elections (of US approved candidates only).
Any and all US led infrastructure improvements will continue to get attacked as they don't want to see the US programs work.
We withdraw, the UN takes over the occupation.
Situation gets too unstable, the UN withdraws.
The US approved elected officials get assassinated.
Pro US Iraqis get killed.
Theocratic govt takes over power per new free elections.
They normalize diplomatic relations with their long time enemy in Iran.
The new Govt kicks out foreign oil corporations (nationalizes the oil fields and equipment) and shut off oil exports to the US.
....and so on.
But that's okay though, because in 10-20 years time some of us will still be here on this BBS claiming that it was the commie-pinko-leftists responsible for our not winning that one ("We won every single battle, therefore we really didn't lose the War!")
End result:
Cost us billions, if not trillions of dollars. Too many of our own killed. Too many of innocent Iraqis killed. Lost a source of oil. Created a nation that just hates the USA. Hopefully they don't get so fanatic that they start bringing some attacks our way on US soil.
I'd say it wasn't worth it. History will prove me right.
-
Unfortunately the war in Iraq actually created terrorists that wouldn't have otherwise been terrorists.
Indeed - the War on Terrorism is mirroring the War on Drugs...
-SW
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
What History Will Say....
Well let's see here:
Invaded a sovereign country to find Weapons of Mass De.... oops wait, I mean ..Remove an evil Hitler-like Dictator and RESTORE democracy.
It has cost us billions of dollars and too many of our own killed. Those Iraqis that we were saving? Some innocent civillians killed (mostly collateral), but hey, it was for their own good!
they have their first elections (of US approved candidates only).
Any and all US led infrastructure improvements will continue to get attacked as they don't want to see the US programs work.
We withdraw, the UN takes over the occupation.
Situation gets too unstable, the UN withdraws.
The US approved elected officials get assassinated.
Pro US Iraqis get killed.
Theocratic govt takes over power per new free elections.
They normalize diplomatic relations with their long time enemy in Iran.
The new Govt kicks out foreign oil corporations (nationalizes the oil fields and equipment) and shut off oil exports to the US.
....and so on.
But that's okay though, because in 10-20 years time some of us will still be here on this BBS claiming that it was the commie-pinko-leftists responsible for our not winning that one ("We won every single battle, therefore we really didn't lose the War!")
End result:
Cost us billions, if not trillions of dollars. Too many of our own killed. Too many of innocent Iraqis killed. Lost a source of oil. Created a nation that just hates the USA. Hopefully they don't get so fanatic that they start bringing some attacks our way on US soil.
I'd say it wasn't worth it. History will prove me right.
Should have just nuked it.
-
Originally posted by SOB
Toad, if Iraq can actually maintain a democratic system of government after we pull out, then I could probably stomach the bill, but do you really think that'll be the case?
I don't know. Wish I did.
The Afghanis seemed to like the whole democratic election idea but who really knows if they'll be able to keep the ball rolling?
Remember US? Off to a great start, some really smart fellers writing the rules and we almost crashed and burned a few times too. That little Civil War thingie almost upset the applecart for sure.
Just depends on if they can see the benefits, see a different future for themselves.
If they can't, it's all been a waste.
My son has a close friend in Afghanistan right now. He just came home on his two weeks.
His comment on their future was something like.......... "3000 years and most of 'em still shirt in the streams they drink out of." (He's a medic that treats locals a lot.)
Just depends if folks can see and understand a better future for themselves and their kids.
-
America is less safe. And if a large military is what keeps a country safe then it will be much less safe when the financial bills for the invasion and occupation of Iraq become due. Someone will have to cut. They will have to cut the military big time. They will have to cut social programs they will have to cut health care they will have to cut infastructure.
The next phase is called "Peace with Honor". No matter the president that is elected that is what will have to happen.
Really it was easily seen in advance just from what we knew of the muslim enemy. For the western military there is an objective that must be accomplished and guidlines as to what can and cannot be done to accomplish them.
For the muslim fundimentalist the objective is to fight the US.
Iraq was really the best thing that could have happend from the Muslim fundimentalist world view, american aggression, americans to kill close at hand, and access to a country they had been kept out of for decades.
It was not worth the price. It is certainly not worth the total price at the end of the story.
People that compare it to WW2 are being silly. It is much more like Vietnam in that sense. No threat to the US no support from the population, invading based on lies and staying till peace can be won with honor.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
America is less safe. And if a large military is what keeps a country safe then it will be much less safe when the financial bills for the invasion and occupation of Iraq become due. Someone will have to cut. They will have to cut the military big time. They will have to cut social programs they will have to cut health care they will have to cut infastructure.
The next phase is called "Peace with Honor". No matter the president that is elected that is what will have to happen.
Really it was easily seen in advance just from what we knew of the muslim enemy. For the western military there is an objective that must be accomplished and guidlines as to what can and cannot be done to accomplish them.
For the muslim fundimentalist the objective is to fight the US.
Iraq was really the best thing that could have happend from the Muslim fundimentalist world view, american aggression, americans to kill close at hand, and access to a country they had been kept out of for decades.
It was not worth the price. It is certainly not worth the total price at the end of the story.
People that compare it to WW2 are being silly. It is much more like Vietnam in that sense. No threat to the US no support from the population, invading based on lies and staying till peace can be won with honor.
What price did the Canudians pay?
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
I think your statisticss have to do with the $3,518 sent to Wyoming is split up among Wyoming's 837 residents.
That is pure Colbert .
-
(http://www.d.umn.edu/~pete2358/pictures/warning%20-%20moron%20posting.jpg)
Originally posted by Martlet
Should have just nuked it.
(http://www.bourland.com/pics/doh.jpg)
...the (final) solution was right there and we missed it! :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by deSelys
(http://www.d.umn.edu/~pete2358/pictures/warning%20-%20moron%20posting.jpg)
(http://www.bourland.com/pics/doh.jpg)
...the (final) solution was right there and we missed it! :rolleyes:
BoooHooo. deSelys made fun of me. BoooHooHoo
-
YES.
-
It's up to pretty much $1000 per person now. Am I $1000 safer? Hell no. Whoever did the cost/benefit analysis on this should be hanged until half-dead, drawn, and quartered.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
I imagine there were articals like this in 1946 and 47, and we are still in both Germany and Japan....
I think that comparison is too generous to the Iraqis. It took a lot of big-brother social conditioning to turn Germans and Japanese into animals. But it seems to just come naturally to muslims in that part of the world.
-
SOB,
I feel safer. Wanna feel me?
-
i think we should be in iraq. the people there need help and we can help them because we are a superpower. the USA is the #1 country in the world and it is our job much like it is the mailmans to bring freedom. president Bush is being guided by the Lord and he will lead us to peace and happiness.
-
All you guys have said all this already.
-
Originally posted by SOB
And where does it end?
Not in our lifetime (or at least what's left of it).
-
Some people carry on as though this is the worst war in the history of the world.
Think big picture. 258 billion? You think the history books are going to sight that as an important issue of our times?
Bush had no choice but to use the forces we deployed in the region. The forces we put on the ground made Saddam allow inpections again, yet he was still playing games with everyone.
Bush had intelligence from around the world which pointed to Iraq as a threat. We had the forces in place, we had what was presented by almost the whole world as a threat, we had Saddam fediddleing us around and we had a large force sitting on thier hands while Saddam played the UN like a cheap piano.
If I were Bush, I would have made the same decision. I repect Bush for making a difficult call.
And yes, it was a tough call. Bush had NOTHING to gain politically or economically in going to war in Iraq. He made the decision to not take a chance with Iraq. Too many things were unresolved rergarding Iraq's compliance.
The decision to go to war was made based on sound judgment using all the factors at the time, as well as the past 12 years of experience dealing with that Clown in Iraq.
If someone does not see this, I can't change their mind. In my mind, our President stood up to the plate and made the difficult, but necessary call to go into Iraq.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Bush had no choice but to use the forces we deployed in the region. The forces we put on the ground made Saddam allow inpections again, yet he was still playing games with everyone.
Step away from the Kool-Aid. This was absolutely a war of choice.
-
He had everything to gain politically, NUKE.
The electoral college aside, he received less votes than his opponent, making him a president ruling by technicality rather than plurality. The word 'democracy' can hardly be trotted out by one who rules without the majority of a nation voting for you.
He was the sitting president on September 11th, 2001, and the largest budget surplus in history was being plundered into the largest deficit in history, without any war yet.
His popularity was dropping rapidly 6 months after 9-11.
Going to war against anyone is good politics in such a case. It is not good statesmanship or stewardship of the nation, but cynically effective.
Americans will always rally around the president out of a sense of patriotism to their nation and troops. They trust that their president would not lie to them and has used sound judgement before commiting Americans lives.
I believe many are willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that he didn't lie about the reasons for war. However, the alternative is that he surrounded himself and heeded the advice of incompetent people, for which he is responsible for and no one else.
History is not too favorable toward Lyndon Johnson and his Vietnam legacy. And the simple lesson still not learned is that that all people will fight any perceived invader, regardless of who, or what the invader's intentions are.
You know, the administration specifically refrained from saying that 'democracy' was a goal in Iraq. There has never been any history of democracy in Iraq and the other arab leaders emphatically tried to discourage the president from invading because it would only create a quagmire and stir resentment against America. Notice how few arab troops are in Iraq? They know what they were talking about.
Leaders who rule from a minority position always try to limit those who oppose them. The Patriot Act, the banning of photos of American casualties and coffins, the refusal to acknowledge that any civilians have been killed or wounded is the stuff of pint-sized dictators, not of America.
When the first comment of the Secretary of Defense about the prison abuse is a smirking laugh that his first change is to ban cameras in military prisons, you have to ask yourself what kind of leadership this represents.
The most conservative estimates of Iraqi civilian deaths is almost 12,000. For each person killed, another 7 have been wounded for a total of over 80,000 civilians who have at least 6 friends and relatives who now hate America. That is almost 500,000 enemies in a culture of revenge... so far.
Sarah McLendon, who covered the White House for 50 years and was an equal opportunity thorn in the side to every president since Eisenhower said, "This is the worst president we've ever had." And that was before Iraq.
I have a feeling she has a handle on presidential legacies.
-
Rolex, where do I begin?
What did Bush have to gain politically? How has the war in Iraq helped Bush?
After 911, we did not have the biggest deficit in US history, and we still don't today.
How is going to war "against anyone" considered good politics? I thought the war in Iraq was bad politics?
The reasons for war? Bush had more reasons given to him than any modern war you can list I'd bet. What wars do you consider to be justified in the past 40 years?
Democracy was never the goal in Iraq. Eliminating Iraq as a threat was the goal. Mission accomplished.
Leaders ruling from a minority position? Like Saddam? In the US, we have the Senate, the House and the Presidency....ALL voted into office by Americans. They all voted to go to war in Iraq. So much for your "minority"
Sarah, as a reporter means what to whom?
Wanna debate a point?
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Step away from the Kool-Aid. This was absolutely a war of choice.
Hindsight is 20/20
-
Yeah, "We shrecked up, but only could have known that after shrecking up."
What a rallying cry.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Yeah, "We shrecked up, but only could have known that after shrecking up."
What a rallying cry.
What did we fugg up?
-
"Wanna debate a point?"
I'll pass. Thanks for the offer though. We've both made our points and going back and forth won't settle or change anything.
We'll just have to wait and see what next week and the coming years bring.
-
Originally posted by Rolex
.
The electoral college aside, he received less votes than his opponent, making him a president ruling by technicality rather than plurality.
lol, yeah...the electoral votes are just a "technicality"
Hate to tell you this, but the electoral college decides the Presidency.
-
bush can kick my ass. Iraq was stupid no questions asked.
we probably will spend almost 1/2 a trilion on this war before we finally get out fully. Worth it no. Nonthing we can do now though so we are stuck with it. i really think it was a bad move that is going to cost more lives and money the US bargined for.
-
Originally posted by Rolex
"Wanna debate a point?"
I'll pass. Thanks for the offer though. We've both made our points and going back and forth won't settle or change anything.
We'll just have to wait and see what next week and the coming years bring.
Yeah, you made a bunch of incorrect statements and can't back them up. I'd say goodnight too.
Thanks for playing.
-
Originally posted by B17Skull12
bush can kick my ass. .
I agree.
My little sister could too.
-
Nuke: "What did we fugg up?"
Are you pretending that you don't know where I'm coming from?
Why do you continually shape the premise of my remarks into the form of a question; asked as if it were the first time you've heard such a thing. "How shocking, please explain." Or the naive guy: "Gee! That's something else! Can you explain that for me?"
It makes it oh so much easier to discuss current events if we didn't have to explain stuff we've already said a thousand times.
-
Originally posted by B17Skull12
Iraq was stupid no questions asked.
Iraq was stupid, no doubt about it.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Nuke: "What did we fugg up?"
Are you pretending that you don't know where I'm coming from?
Why do you continually shape the premise of my remarks into the form of a question; asked as if it were the first time you've heard such a thing. "How shocking, please explain." Or the naive guy: "Gee! That's something else! Can you explain that for me?"
It makes it oh so much easier to discuss current events if we didn't have to explain stuff we've already said a thousand times.
It's a legitimate question. What are you referring to that was hosed?
-
google it.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Nuke: "What did we fugg up?"
Are you pretending that you don't know where I'm coming from?
Why do you continually shape the premise of my remarks into the form of a question; asked as if it were the first time you've heard such a thing. "How shocking, please explain." Or the naive guy: "Gee! That's something else! Can you explain that for me?"
It makes it oh so much easier to discuss current events if we didn't have to explain stuff we've already said a thousand times.
Nash, we did not fugg up in my mind, so when you say we fugged up I want to know what you mean.
If you assumed that I already knew what you meant, why would you bother posting that we "fugged up" yet again?
And, I never have known where you are coming from.
-
Originally posted by Nash
google it.
Translation:
I have no opinion. I just repeat what moveon tells me. I'll just dodge this question.
-
Yeah Martlet. I've never said a thing about the war. Offered no opinion.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Yeah Martlet. I've never said a thing about the war. Offered no opinion.
Nash, you fall into that safety net a lot. Actualy, when you make a statement in a current discussion, you should be willing and able to make a concise comeback based on your core beliefs and/or knowledge.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Nash, you fall into that safety net a lot. Actualy, when you make a statement in a current discussion, you should be willing and able to make a concise comeback based on your core beliefs and/or knowledge.
You're right.
The war sure is costing a lot.
-
Originally posted by Torque
Homeland Security funds distributed to each state
Wyoming leads the pack, receiving $40.60 per person while New York ranks 35th in 2004 funding at $10.03 per person.
coincidence?
But is it award on a per person basis? or an overal package?
I would guess that since NY probably has a few more people in it then Wyoming it might stand to reason their per person sum would be lower
-
Originally posted by -MZ-
We are LESS secure.
The information about WMDs came from the administration, and it is obvious that they put pressure on the intelligence agencies to tell them what they wanted to hear.
did the rest of the world get their info from our intel only? Did previous admins "pressure" our intel to tell them what THEY wanted to hear?
blame it on the nutbag who caused it, the same nutbag which would have happily wiped out NY, LA, DC as soon as he could .... Saddam
of course then you would be whining why DIDN't we invade pre-empt...
pls stfu
-
Originally posted by Eagler
...nutbag which would have happily wiped out NY, LA, DC as soon as he could .... Saddam
Did God gave you that information or what was your source for that ?
-
Originally posted by Rolex
He had everything to gain politically, NUKE.
The electoral college aside, he received less votes than his opponent, making him a president ruling by technicality rather than plurality. The word 'democracy' can hardly be trotted out by one who rules without the majority of a nation voting for you.
He was the sitting president on September 11th, 2001, and the largest budget surplus in history was being plundered into the largest deficit in history, without any war yet.
His popularity was dropping rapidly 6 months after 9-11.
Going to war against anyone is good politics in such a case. It is not good statesmanship or stewardship of the nation, but cynically effective.
Americans will always rally around the president out of a sense of patriotism to their nation and troops. They trust that their president would not lie to them and has used sound judgement before commiting Americans lives.
I believe many are willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that he didn't lie about the reasons for war. However, the alternative is that he surrounded himself and heeded the advice of incompetent people, for which he is responsible for and no one else.
History is not too favorable toward Lyndon Johnson and his Vietnam legacy. And the simple lesson still not learned is that that all people will fight any perceived invader, regardless of who, or what the invader's intentions are.
You know, the administration specifically refrained from saying that 'democracy' was a goal in Iraq. There has never been any history of democracy in Iraq and the other arab leaders emphatically tried to discourage the president from invading because it would only create a quagmire and stir resentment against America. Notice how few arab troops are in Iraq? They know what they were talking about.
Leaders who rule from a minority position always try to limit those who oppose them. The Patriot Act, the banning of photos of American casualties and coffins, the refusal to acknowledge that any civilians have been killed or wounded is the stuff of pint-sized dictators, not of America.
When the first comment of the Secretary of Defense about the prison abuse is a smirking laugh that his first change is to ban cameras in military prisons, you have to ask yourself what kind of leadership this represents.
The most conservative estimates of Iraqi civilian deaths is almost 12,000. For each person killed, another 7 have been wounded for a total of over 80,000 civilians who have at least 6 friends and relatives who now hate America. That is almost 500,000 enemies in a culture of revenge... so far.
Sarah McLendon, who covered the White House for 50 years and was an equal opportunity thorn in the side to every president since Eisenhower said, "This is the worst president we've ever had." And that was before Iraq.
I have a feeling she has a handle on presidential legacies.
Good read Rolex.
-
Originally posted by Rolex
The word 'democracy' can hardly be trotted out by one who rules without the majority of a nation voting for you.
2000, Bush 47.9%
1996 Clinton, 49.2%
1992 Clinton, 43.0%
1988 Bush 53.4%
1984 Reagan 58.8%
1980 Reagan 50.8%
1976 Carter 50.1%
1972 Nixon 60.3%
1968 Nixon 43.4%
1964 Johnson 60.6%
1960 Kennedy 49.7%
Well, it's been a while since 'democracy' went for trot then, hasn't it?
-
An interesting editorial that put's the President's rush to war in a unique context...
Rarely in its long history has the West suffered by going to war too soon. On the contrary: among the wars of Western history, the bloodiest were those that started too late.
This is followed by some historic perspective, and then...
That is why George W Bush has my moral support in the upcoming US presidential election. He may not fathom what he is doing, and he may have made a dog's breakfast of Iraq, but at least he is willing to go straight to war, no questions asked. That is precisely what the world needs.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FJ19Aa01.html
Agree or not with the author's POV, but still a highly recommended read if for nothing else than the broadened appreciation of global conflict that it provides.
-
Originally posted by Toad
2000, Bush 47.9%
1996 Clinton, 49.2%
1992 Clinton, 43.0%
1988 Bush 53.4%
1984 Reagan 58.8%
1980 Reagan 50.8%
1976 Carter 50.1%
1972 Nixon 60.3%
1968 Nixon 43.4%
1964 Johnson 60.6%
1960 Kennedy 49.7%
Well, it's been a while since 'democracy' went for trot then, hasn't it?
Way to totally take the point outta context!! :aok
-
That is why George W Bush has my moral support in the upcoming US presidential election. He may not fathom what he is doing, and he may have made a dog's breakfast of Iraq, but at least he is willing to go straight to war, no questions asked. That is precisely what the world needs.
Wow!! I had no idea!! What a wonderful man Hitler was then! History indeed is written by the victors.. War, precisely what the world needs. Of course!
My gawd rip.. What a fawking great plan!
-
The word 'democracy' can hardly be trotted out by one who rules without the majority of a nation voting for you.
Sorry. I guess I can't help it when I see such a fatuous statement.
-
Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
Wow!! I had no idea!! What a wonderful man Hitler was then! History indeed is written by the victors.. War, precisely what the world needs. Of course!
My gawd rip.. What a fawking great plan!
Nice, you forgot the most important quote before that:
Rarely in its long history has the West suffered by going to war too soon. On the contrary: among the wars of Western history, the bloodiest were those that started too late. [/i]
But don't let that stop a good "anyone but Bush" rant. ;)
-
Bush had no choice but to use the forces we deployed in the region. The forces we put on the ground made Saddam allow inpections again, yet he was still playing games with everyone.
No choice? Saddam was a contained threat. His ambitions for WMDs did not change but his ability to get them did.
All you guys that are taking this cry to the grave oddly forget that Iran and North Korea as well as Osama Bin Laddin are at the top of the list not Saddam. How can you tell me that Iraq should have been invaded before...
A) We caught Osama.
B) Stopped North Korea from building Nuclear Weapons
C) Prevented Iran from making any further progress in their pursuit of Nuclear Weapons.
Bush had intelligence from around the world which pointed to Iraq as a threat. We had the forces in place, we had what was presented by almost the whole world as a threat, we had Saddam fediddleing us around and we had a large force sitting on thier hands while Saddam played the UN like a cheap piano.
Are you kidding me! Hans Blix and all the UN inspectors said Saddam did not have WMDs! Where is the threat. At the same time we knew North Korea had Nuclear Weapons. Hmmm Who's the bigger threat. Sorry Nuke that dog hasn't hunted for a while.
i think we should be in iraq. the people there need help and we can help them because we are a superpower. the USA is the #1 country in the world and it is our job much like it is the mailmans to bring freedom. president Bush is being guided by the Lord and he will lead us to peace and happiness.
How many people are dying in Sudan. U.N. Says Sudan Death Toll Reaches 70,000 (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FA0B1FFA3F5E0C758DDDA90994DC404482) and you are telling me we were needed in Iraq. Please!!!
We are not the world police. Any of you remember George Bush in the Primary against McCain - GWB - "The USA should not be involved in Nation Building." Hmm too bad he flip flopped on that one.
-
OK, I confess I haven't read every word of this thread before replying, but am I the only person responding to this thread who think America is more secure today than before 9/11/01? I really do think we are, if for no other reason than the citizenry is more alert, and everyone realizes the threat of terrorism now affects us directly, and isn't one of those things that just happens somewhere else in the world.
-
OK, I confess I haven't read every word of this thread before replying, but am I the only person responding to this thread who think America is more secure today than before 9/11/01? I really do think we are, if for no other reason than the citizenry is more alert, and everyone realizes the threat of terrorism now affects us directly, and isn't one of those things that just happens somewhere else in the world.
Slimm I don't think we are more safe, but I do agree with you that as a public we are more aware. All of which has nothing to do with Bush and everything to do with Osama Bin Laddin.
-
Rarely in its long history has the West suffered by going to war too soon. On the contrary: among the wars of Western history, the bloodiest were those that started too late.
I for one am glad we have never, until now, gone to war too soon.
Your quote is nothing more than speculation from an obvious war monger in belief that war is the answer. Sad really.. But dont let that get in the way of your 'bush excuse #943'....
-
Interesting read Rip.
War sucks, and I wish it could be avoided, but in a world like this, unfortunately war can be necessary.
I think Bush's decision to go in was a good one, especially with the precieved threat according to the intelligence of not just our CIA, but Russia and Britain as well. Not to mention the ridiculous amount of UN resolutions passed that Saddam was largly ignoring.
In terms of nation building and trying to bring democracy to Iraq? Well, we took out their government. I don't think we should leave the Iraqies hanging. It's a tough job (How many times did Bush say that in the first debate? :lol ), but it's one we need to persevere through.
In the long run, I think it will be worth it.
-
I certainly dont think we are less safe today, more safe? I dont want to jinx the last three years..........
For one thing the bush strategy of "slam airplanes into our city buildings and we will visit your countries personally" is a real shocker to those who thought the best we could do was attack empty villiages and aspirin factories in the middle of the night with little guided missles.
-
Originally posted by Weavling
Interesting read Rip.
War sucks, and I wish it could be avoided, but in a world like this, unfortunately war can be necessary.
I think Bush's decision to go in was a good one, especially with the precieved threat according to the intelligence of not just our CIA, but Russia and Britain as well. Not to mention the ridiculous amount of UN resolutions passed that Saddam was largly ignoring.
In terms of nation building and trying to bring democracy to Iraq? Well, we took out their government. I don't think we should leave the Iraqies hanging. It's a tough job (How many times did Bush say that in the first debate? :lol ), but it's one we need to persevere through.
In the long run, I think it will be worth it.
Long term, I think so too. :aok
-
"NUKE" must mean "blind armchair general" in some obscure language... actually, I hope they enable "the draft" and send all of you "armchair generals" over there... that ough to shut you up.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Bush had no choice but to use the forces we deployed in the region. The forces we put on the ground made Saddam allow inpections again, yet he was still playing games with everyone.
Not according to the UNMOVIC. According to UNMOVIC SH was being completely cooperative with them before the invasion.
http://www.unmovic.org/
We had the forces in place, we had what was presented by almost the whole world as a threat,
Bull****. Can you please provide documentation to prove this.
we had Saddam fediddleing us around and we had a large force sitting on thier hands while Saddam played the UN like a cheap piano.
Not according to the UNMOVIC. According to UNMOVIC SH was being completely cooperative with them before the invasion.
http://www.unmovic.org/
And yes, it was a tough call. Bush had NOTHING to gain politically or economically in going to war in Iraq. He made the decision to not take a chance with Iraq.
But he had alot to gain as far as an attempt at an experiamunt to bring democracy in the middle-east, as well as line the pockets of his friends and families. PS: Is he going to inherit any of his dad's Carlyle Group stock?
Too many things were unresolved rergarding Iraq's compliance.
Not according to the UNMOVIC. According to UNMOVIC SH was being completely cooperative with them before the invasion.
http://www.unmovic.org/
The decision to go to war was made based on sound judgment using all the factors at the time, as well as the past 12 years of experience dealing with that Clown in Iraq.
Except the fact that UNMOVIC wasn't turning up squat, even when the CIA (based on thier intelligence) asked to inspect specific sites.
"In fact, the U.S. claim that Iraq is developing missiles that could hit its neighbors – or U.S. troops in the region, or even Israel – is just one of the claims coming from Washington that inspectors here are finding increasingly unbelievable. The inspectors have become so frustrated trying to chase down unspecific or ambiguous U.S. leads that they've begun to express that anger privately in no uncertain terms.
U.N. sources have told CBS News that American tips have lead to one dead end after another.
Example: satellite photographs purporting to show new research buildings at Iraqi nuclear sites. When the U.N. went into the new buildings they found "nothing."
Example: Saddam's presidential palaces, where the inspectors went with specific coordinates supplied by the U.S. on where to look for incriminating evidence. Again, they found "nothing."
Example: Interviews with scientists about the aluminum tubes the U.S. says Iraq has imported for enriching uranium, but which the Iraqis say are for making rockets. Given the size and specification of the tubes, the U.N. calls the "Iraqi alibi air tight."
The inspectors do acknowledge, however, that they would not be here at all if not for the threat of U.S. military action.
So frustrated have the inspectors become that one source has referred to the U.S. intelligence they've been getting as "garbage after garbage after garbage." In fact, Phillips says the source used another cruder word. The inspectors find themselves caught between the Iraqis, who are masters at the weapons-hiding shell game, and the United States, whose intelligence they've found to be circumstantial, outdated or just plain wrong."
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/unmovic/2003/0220inspectorcall.htm
If someone does not see this, I can't change their mind.
It's hard to see you point of view when you invent the facts they are based on.
-
hope they enable "the draft" and send all of you "armchair generals" over there... that ough to shut you up.
====
what a dork
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Hindsight is 20/20
Hindsight hell... more like "I told you so." :p
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Hindsight hell... more like "I told you so." :p
I told you so? Like Hillary told us? Like Chirac told us? Like Daschle told us? Like Bill told us? Like Kerry told us? Like Lieberman told us? Like Albright told us? Like Byrd told us? Like Gore told us? Like Gephardt told us? Like Edwards told us? Like Fat Teddy told us? Like Jeffers told us? Like Ritter told us?