| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Those Spend but Don't Pay for It Republicans
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
... Another Republican trying to bankrupt us and our children... Bush's $87 billion figure is the largest emergency spending request since the opening months of World War II, according to Pat Towell, a defense fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. The emergency spending act that followed the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and the launching of the war in Afghanistan totaled $20 billion. To put it in perspective, Bush hopes to spend more in Iraq and Afghanistan than all 50 states say they need -- $78 billion -- to finance the budget shortfalls they anticipate for 2004. The request is higher than the $74 billion the Defense Department plans to spend on all new weapons purchases next year, and higher than the $29.5 billion the Education Department hopes to spend on elementary and secondary education plus the $41.3 billion the administration plans to spend to defend the homeland. With $166 billion spent or requested, Bush's war spending in 2003 and 2004 already exceeds the inflation-adjusted costs of the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the Mexican War, the Civil War, the Spanish American War and the Persian Gulf War combined, according to a study by Yale University economist William D. Nordhaus. The Iraq war approaches the $191 billion inflation-adjusted cost of World War I |
Those Spend but Don't Pay for It Republicans
Aren't there something like 20-million people in Iraq?
This 87 billion ought to just about do it. Pay every man, woman, and child in Iraq just over $4mm apiece to move. Anywhere. Unless my math is bad, we are proposing to spend $4mm per living Iraqi to rebuild the country. Why bother? Clear the entire country of anybody living anywhere. No problems administering the government. With a family of four Iraqi tent dwellers suddenly worth $16mm US, they ought to be able to get a VISA to live anywhere on the planet. Once we clear out every single Iraqi, their $4mm in hand, we could safely assume that anybody left in the country was probably hanging around to terrorize our oil wells, and we could deal with them accordingly. If we were to adopt this as our foreign policy, the fantasy that residents of the countries we invade would greet us with flowers, smiles, and glad tidings would most certainly come true. We'd have countries just begging to be overthrown. |
Those Spend but Don't Pay for It Republicans
h"jps" wrote in message ...
"Gould 0738" wrote in message ... Aren't there something like 20-million people in Iraq? This 87 billion ought to just about do it. Pay every man, woman, and child in Iraq just over $4mm apiece to move. Anywhere. Unless my math is bad, we are proposing to spend $4mm per living Iraqi to rebuild the country. Why bother? Clear the entire country of anybody living anywhere. No problems administering the government. With a family of four Iraqi tent dwellers suddenly worth $16mm US, they ought to be able to get a VISA to live anywhere on the planet. Once we clear out every single Iraqi, their $4mm in hand, we could safely assume that anybody left in the country was probably hanging around to terrorize our oil wells, and we could deal with them accordingly. If we were to adopt this as our foreign policy, the fantasy that residents of the countries we invade would greet us with flowers, smiles, and glad tidings would most certainly come true. We'd have countries just begging to be overthrown. That money is already targeted for Haliburton, Brown & Roote, Bechtel, etc. We can only afford corporate welfare, not humanitarian aide!!! Goodness sakes man, get a grip! you know if the two of you keep getting into these little daily circle jerks you are going to go blinder than you already are now. How about just one post with solutions instead of twisted agenda driven lies and drivel... |
Those Spend but Don't Pay for It Republicans
jps wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Another Republican trying to bankrupt us and our children... Bush's $87 billion figure is the largest emergency spending request since the opening months of World War II, according to Pat Towell, a defense fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. The emergency spending act that followed the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and the launching of the war in Afghanistan totaled $20 billion. To put it in perspective, Bush hopes to spend more in Iraq and Afghanistan than all 50 states say they need -- $78 billion -- to finance the budget shortfalls they anticipate for 2004. The request is higher than the $74 billion the Defense Department plans to spend on all new weapons purchases next year, and higher than the $29.5 billion the Education Department hopes to spend on elementary and secondary education plus the $41.3 billion the administration plans to spend to defend the homeland. With $166 billion spent or requested, Bush's war spending in 2003 and 2004 already exceeds the inflation-adjusted costs of the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the Mexican War, the Civil War, the Spanish American War and the Persian Gulf War combined, according to a study by Yale University economist William D. Nordhaus. The Iraq war approaches the $191 billion inflation-adjusted cost of World War I Yep, you're right. This dang war is just too expensive. We should just stop right now. Pull out, tuck our tails between our legs and return home. We should then send a broadcast out to all terrorists to please not attack us, since not only do we not have the resolve to fight back, we also don't have the money..... Can you say "open season"? sure you can....... Dave |
Those Spend but Don't Pay for It Republicans
|
Those Spend but Don't Pay for It Republicans
On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 14:59:01 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: Gould, could you please break that down into $$ per barrel of oil? bb The oil that's supposed to flow through pipelines which have been sabotaged AFTER the "end of the war"? Please be reasonable Doug. You have to end to the war to stop the killing and wounding of soldiers. What are you, some kind of traitor? Going to war is good for votes. Getting bogged down in a long term conflict isn't good for votes. Solution, land on a carrier 20 miles offshore and declare the war over. What's the problem? bb |
Those Spend but Don't Pay for It Republicans
"bb" wrote in message ... On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 14:59:01 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: Gould, could you please break that down into $$ per barrel of oil? bb The oil that's supposed to flow through pipelines which have been sabotaged AFTER the "end of the war"? Please be reasonable Doug. You have to end to the war to stop the killing and wounding of soldiers. What are you, some kind of traitor? Going to war is good for votes. Getting bogged down in a long term conflict isn't good for votes. Solution, land on a carrier 20 miles offshore and declare the war over. What's the problem? bb I'm sorry. I forgot. I will immediately surrender myself to the FBI for a tune-up. |
Those Spend but Don't Pay for It Republicans
"Backyard Renegade" wrote in message
om... you know if the two of you keep getting into these little daily circle jerks you are going to go blinder than you already are now. How about just one post with solutions instead of twisted agenda driven lies and drivel... I'm just going to do it 'til I need glasses. |
Those Spend but Don't Pay for It Republicans
"Dave Hall" wrote in message ... jps wrote: With $166 billion spent or requested, Bush's war spending in 2003 and 2004 already exceeds the inflation-adjusted costs of the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the Mexican War, the Civil War, the Spanish American War and the Persian Gulf War combined, according to a study by Yale University economist William D. Nordhaus. The Iraq war approaches the $191 billion inflation-adjusted cost of World War I Yep, you're right. This dang war is just too expensive. We should just stop right now. Pull out, tuck our tails between our legs and return home. We should then send a broadcast out to all terrorists to please not attack us, since not only do we not have the resolve to fight back, we also don't have the money..... Can you say "open season"? sure you can....... Dave Should've had better information going in. We were in a rush to avoid the hot weather. Bad estimates on WMDs, bad estimates of oil revenues, bad estimates of Iraq infrastructure -- even though we had people on the ground in Iraq for months prior to invasion. This administration are pie in the sky enthusiasts. They should be restricted to running paint ball wars. Then they could clean up with a little soap and water instead of putting our country in deep **** and in hawk up to our ears. Time for another tax cut Dave? |
Those Spend but Don't Pay for It Republicans
"jps" wrote in message
... This administration are pie in the sky enthusiasts. They should be restricted to running paint ball wars. Remember, this is the president who, when asked during his campaign what his pastimes were, told reporters he spent a couple of hours a day playing video games. And, when asked about his reading habits, said he read the newspapers, but not much else. Lights on, nobody home. |
Those Spend but Don't Pay for It Republicans
jps wrote:
"Dave Hall" wrote in message ... jps wrote: With $166 billion spent or requested, Bush's war spending in 2003 and 2004 already exceeds the inflation-adjusted costs of the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the Mexican War, the Civil War, the Spanish American War and the Persian Gulf War combined, according to a study by Yale University economist William D. Nordhaus. The Iraq war approaches the $191 billion inflation-adjusted cost of World War I Yep, you're right. This dang war is just too expensive. We should just stop right now. Pull out, tuck our tails between our legs and return home. We should then send a broadcast out to all terrorists to please not attack us, since not only do we not have the resolve to fight back, we also don't have the money..... Can you say "open season"? sure you can....... Dave Should've had better information going in. We were in a rush to avoid the hot weather. That's a given. They did underestimate the resolve of terrorists operating in the shadows. But ok, so sue me. What do you expect? No plan is perfect. Bad estimates on WMDs, That remains to be seen. It's still a BIG desert out there. Syria's even bigger. bad estimates of oil revenues, bad estimates of Iraq infrastructure -- even though we had people on the ground in Iraq for months prior to invasion. None of which took into account the acts of sabotage which are still going on. Look, it seems that you guys are holding Bush to a super-human ability to see all, and know all. The fact is that no matter who is at the helm, they rely on information provided to them by people trained to do their jobs. I'm not going to go into the problems which resulted from the decimation of the intelligence communities at the hands of democrats, who would rather give the money to slackers, than invest in the means to protect our country, as this is water over the dam now. But you can't fully fault the Bush administration, without giving some consideration to who was feeding his people the intel. This administration are pie in the sky enthusiasts. They should be restricted to running paint ball wars. Slinging rocks, when you don't know the full story is being irresponsible. Slinging rocks and finding fault while not offering workable alternatives is equally irresponsible. Any moron can blame Bush for everything from the Iraq war, to the economy, to the spreading of AIDS in Africa. But unless you can elaborate the steps in which you can realistically correct these problems, then you have no business weighing in on the situation. As a manager I once knew said, "we don't need more problems, we need solutions". Then they could clean up with a little soap and water instead of putting our country in deep **** and in hawk up to our ears. Time for another tax cut Dave? Hey, let's see. I've got a grand total of $1000 dollars back in lump sum payments. I'm also paying about $800 a year less in federal taxes. That means that I have more money than I had before. I'm not about to complain. Better in my pocket, than the government's. Dave |
Those Spend but Don't Pay for It Republicans
"WaIIy" wrote in message
... On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 16:20:55 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "jps" wrote in message ... This administration are pie in the sky enthusiasts. They should be restricted to running paint ball wars. Remember, this is the president who, when asked during his campaign what his pastimes were, told reporters he spent a couple of hours a day playing video games. And, when asked about his reading habits, said he read the newspapers, but not much else. Lights on, nobody home. That's why he has an MBA, idiot. MBAs are a dime a dozen, idiot, and are of increasingly LESS value to employers, compared to 20 years ago. The degree doesn't grant you common sense, nor does it help you choose your associates more carefully. |
Those Spend but Don't Pay for It Republicans
"WaIIy" wrote in message
... On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 18:14:02 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "WaIIy" wrote in message .. . On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 17:47:43 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: MBAs are a dime a dozen, idiot, and are of increasingly LESS value to employers, compared to 20 years ago. The degree doesn't grant you common sense, nor does it help you choose your associates more carefully. Aside from your obsessive posting style, where is your MBA from or perhaps your "dozen". University of Rochester. Next question? Do you regard your degree as "a dime a dozen"? If so, why bother? There is no college degree available anywhere which guarantees performance. President Nookular is proof of that. As far as how much value I place on MY degree, it was a luxury that pleased my employer, who paid for it. But my monetary advances have had little or nothing to do with that, and everything to do with creativity. Finally, do NOT, under any circumstances, lump your president into the same category as the typical college graduate. That's an insult to everyone involved in this discussion. |
Those Spend but Don't Pay for It Republicans
Dave Hall wrote:
Hey, let's see. I've got a grand total of $1000 dollars back in lump sum payments. I'm also paying about $800 a year less in federal taxes. That means that I have more money than I had before. I'm not about to complain. Better in my pocket, than the government's. Dave Pretty soon, Dave, you'll be up to the poverty level. -- * * * email sent to will *never* get to me. |
Those Spend but Don't Pay for It Republicans
"Dave Hall" wrote in message ... jps wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message ... jps wrote: With $166 billion spent or requested, Bush's war spending in 2003 and 2004 already exceeds the inflation-adjusted costs of the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the Mexican War, the Civil War, the Spanish American War and the Persian Gulf War combined, according to a study by Yale University economist William D. Nordhaus. The Iraq war approaches the $191 billion inflation-adjusted cost of World War I Yep, you're right. This dang war is just too expensive. We should just stop right now. Pull out, tuck our tails between our legs and return home. We should then send a broadcast out to all terrorists to please not attack us, since not only do we not have the resolve to fight back, we also don't have the money..... Can you say "open season"? sure you can....... Dave Should've had better information going in. We were in a rush to avoid the hot weather. That's a given. They did underestimate the resolve of terrorists operating in the shadows. But ok, so sue me. What do you expect? No plan is perfect. Bad estimates on WMDs, That remains to be seen. It's still a BIG desert out there. Syria's even bigger. bad estimates of oil revenues, bad estimates of Iraq infrastructure -- even though we had people on the ground in Iraq for months prior to invasion. None of which took into account the acts of sabotage which are still going on. Look, it seems that you guys are holding Bush to a super-human ability to see all, and know all. The fact is that no matter who is at the helm, they rely on information provided to them by people trained to do their jobs. I'm not going to go into the problems which resulted from the decimation of the intelligence communities at the hands of democrats, who would rather give the money to slackers, than invest in the means to protect our country, as this is water over the dam now. But you can't fully fault the Bush administration, without giving some consideration to who was feeding his people the intel. This administration are pie in the sky enthusiasts. They should be restricted to running paint ball wars. Slinging rocks, when you don't know the full story is being irresponsible. Slinging rocks and finding fault while not offering workable alternatives is equally irresponsible. Any moron can blame Bush for everything from the Iraq war, to the economy, to the spreading of AIDS in Africa. But unless you can elaborate the steps in which you can realistically correct these problems, then you have no business weighing in on the situation. As a manager I once knew said, "we don't need more problems, we need solutions". While some seem suprised that things would turn out the way they did, I have been consitantly predicting that things would happen pretty much the way they did. Before the war started, while it was still possible to manage costs, I was saying that we would have to pay large costs if we marched into a needless war. I listed financal costs, requirements for long term comitments, loss of life, failure of the Iraqis to embrace our vision for them, and possible myhem while our forces are engaged. Fortunately, the last item has not come to pass yet, but it is a very real possibility. All this is a matter of public record: http://www.google.com/groups?q=group...m=325&filter=0 http://www.google.com/groups?q=group...242H6.1262%40s ccrnsc04&rnum=342&filter=0 http://www.google.com/groups?q=group...m=341&filter=0 Much of the current problems had been demonstrated in Vietnam. If you take the time to look for the parralells and lessons of history it is very easy to predict a protracted resistance. http://www.google.com/groups?q=group...m=333&filter=0 After the war started, it was easy to see you it would go and the problems that seem to have cought the administration by suprize. The costs were already clear to anybody willing to do the math. Knowegable generals were already predicting the need for large number of forces to pacify the population. The best the right could come up with was to claim were were all wrong, and that the leadership had some sort of special knowlge not available to the general population. http://www.google.com/groups?q=group...m=304&filter=0 http://www.google.com/groups?q=group...m=302&filter=0 I told yuou so! snip Time for another tax cut Dave? Hey, let's see. I've got a grand total of $1000 dollars back in lump sum payments. I'm also paying about $800 a year less in federal taxes. That means that I have more money than I had before. I'm not about to complain. Better in my pocket, than the government's. So your common sense can be bought for a few peices of silver; why am I not suprized? Mark Browne |
Those Spend but Don't Pay for It Republicans (with spell check)
Sorry for the spelling on the prior post, I hit send instead of spell check.
"Dave Hall" wrote in message ... jps wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message ... jps wrote: With $166 billion spent or requested, Bush's war spending in 2003 and 2004 already exceeds the inflation-adjusted costs of the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the Mexican War, the Civil War, the Spanish American War and the Persian Gulf War combined, according to a study by Yale University economist William D. Nordhaus. The Iraq war approaches the $191 billion inflation-adjusted cost of World War I Yep, you're right. This dang war is just too expensive. We should just stop right now. Pull out, tuck our tails between our legs and return home. We should then send a broadcast out to all terrorists to please not attack us, since not only do we not have the resolve to fight back, we also don't have the money..... Can you say "open season"? sure you can....... Dave Should've had better information going in. We were in a rush to avoid the hot weather. That's a given. They did underestimate the resolve of terrorists operating in the shadows. But ok, so sue me. What do you expect? No plan is perfect. Bad estimates on WMDs, That remains to be seen. It's still a BIG desert out there. Syria's even bigger. bad estimates of oil revenues, bad estimates of Iraq infrastructure -- even though we had people on the ground in Iraq for months prior to invasion. None of which took into account the acts of sabotage which are still going on. Look, it seems that you guys are holding Bush to a super-human ability to see all, and know all. The fact is that no matter who is at the helm, they rely on information provided to them by people trained to do their jobs. I'm not going to go into the problems which resulted from the decimation of the intelligence communities at the hands of democrats, who would rather give the money to slackers, than invest in the means to protect our country, as this is water over the dam now. But you can't fully fault the Bush administration, without giving some consideration to who was feeding his people the intel. This administration are pie in the sky enthusiasts. They should be restricted to running paint ball wars. Slinging rocks, when you don't know the full story is being irresponsible. Slinging rocks and finding fault while not offering workable alternatives is equally irresponsible. Any moron can blame Bush for everything from the Iraq war, to the economy, to the spreading of AIDS in Africa. But unless you can elaborate the steps in which you can realistically correct these problems, then you have no business weighing in on the situation. As a manager I once knew said, "we don't need more problems, we need solutions". While some seem surprised that things would turn out the way they did, I have been consistently predicting that things would happen pretty much the way they did. Before the war started, while it was still possible to manage costs, I was saying that we would have to pay large costs if we marched into a needless war. I listed financial costs, requirements for long term commitments, loss of life, failure of the Iraqis to embrace our vision for them, and possible mayhem while our forces are engaged. Fortunately, the last item has not come to pass yet, but it is still a very real possibility. All this is a matter of public record: http://www.google.com/groups?q=group...m=325&filter=0 http://www.google.com/groups?q=group...m=342&filter=0 http://www.google.com/groups?q=group...m=341&filter=0 Much of the current problems had been demonstrated in Vietnam. If you take the time to look for the parallels and lessons of history it is very easy to predict a protracted resistance. http://www.google.com/groups?q=group...m=333&filter=0 After the war started, it was easy to see how it would go and the problems that seem to have caught the administration by surprise. The costs were already clear to anybody willing to do the math. Knowledgeable generals were already predicting the need for large number of forces to pacify the population. The best the right could come up with was to claim that we were all wrong, and that the leadership had some sort of special knowledge not available to the general population. Now we know more about this "special intelligence" - wishful thinking and willful ignorance of the facts. http://www.google.com/groups?q=group...m=304&filter=0 http://www.google.com/groups?q=group...m=302&filter=0 I told you so! snip Time for another tax cut Dave? Hey, let's see. I've got a grand total of $1000 dollars back in lump sum payments. I'm also paying about $800 a year less in federal taxes. That means that I have more money than I had before. I'm not about to complain. Better in my pocket, than the government's. So your common sense can be bought for a few pieces of silver; why am I not surprised? Mark Browne |
Those Spend but Don't Pay for It Republicans
Stop posting political crap here!
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Mark Browne" wrote in message news:0Hu7b.404385$YN5.267637@sccrnsc01... Much of the current problems had been demonstrated in Vietnam. If you take the time to look for the parralells and lessons of history it is very easy to predict a protracted resistance. Don't hold your breath, Mark. We have a president who, when asked about his reading habits, said "I read the newspapers". And, we have voters like Dave Hall who, when presented with the idea of learning about history (so we don't repeat mistakes), claim that history books are of limited use because they're either "just someone's interpretation", or because they don't know the author, so they assume he/she is a "left winger". That leaves nothing but faith, which has no place in politics. |
Those Spend but Don't Pay for It Republicans
Mark Browne wrote:
Slinging rocks, when you don't know the full story is being irresponsible. Slinging rocks and finding fault while not offering workable alternatives is equally irresponsible. Any moron can blame Bush for everything from the Iraq war, to the economy, to the spreading of AIDS in Africa. But unless you can elaborate the steps in which you can realistically correct these problems, then you have no business weighing in on the situation. As a manager I once knew said, "we don't need more problems, we need solutions". While some seem suprised that things would turn out the way they did, I have been consitantly predicting that things would happen pretty much the way they did. One could chalk that up to "chicken little" pessimism. Before the war started, while it was still possible to manage costs, I was saying that we would have to pay large costs if we marched into a needless war. I listed financal costs, requirements for long term comitments, loss of life, failure of the Iraqis to embrace our vision for them, and possible myhem while our forces are engaged. Fortunately, the last item has not come to pass yet, but it is a very real possibility. It will be a dark day in American history, when we back our of a just cause because we're afraid of the costs. The former soviet union lost the cold war, simply becasue they could not keep up with our technology, from a finacial standpoint. They couldn't afford the war any more. War is not cheap, war is not pretty, war in not fun. But sometimes war is necessary. I believe that now is one of those times. The terrorists belive (as you do evidently) that Americans will not go the long road, becasue of financial worries. All they have to do to win this war, is to outlast our resolve. Should we prove them right? What would the effect of that do to our security in the long run? Much of the current problems had been demonstrated in Vietnam. If you take the time to look for the parralells and lessons of history it is very easy to predict a protracted resistance. We can draw similar parallels to Hitler and WW2. What do you think our world would be like today, if we didn't get involved because we did'nt want to invest the money? After the war started, it was easy to see you it would go and the problems that seem to have cought the administration by suprize. The costs were already clear to anybody willing to do the math. Once again, the cost should be secondary to the necessity. Knowegable generals were already predicting the need for large number of forces to pacify the population. The best the right could come up with was to claim were were all wrong, and that the leadership had some sort of special knowlge not available to the general population. We haven't been there for even 7 months yet. How many other major wars have we ever won in as short of time? I think many of you guys are far too impatient. Hey, let's see. I've got a grand total of $1000 dollars back in lump sum payments. I'm also paying about $800 a year less in federal taxes. That means that I have more money than I had before. I'm not about to complain. Better in my pocket, than the government's. So your common sense can be bought for a few peices of silver; why am I not suprized? Nothing to do with common sense. I just feel that I am a better judge of what to do with MY money, than the government is. Dave |
Those Spend but Don't Pay for It Republicans
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Mark Browne" wrote in message news:0Hu7b.404385$YN5.267637@sccrnsc01... Much of the current problems had been demonstrated in Vietnam. If you take the time to look for the parralells and lessons of history it is very easy to predict a protracted resistance. Don't hold your breath, Mark. We have a president who, when asked about his reading habits, said "I read the newspapers". And, we have voters like Dave Hall who, when presented with the idea of learning about history (so we don't repeat mistakes), claim that history books are of limited use because they're either "just someone's interpretation", or because they don't know the author, so they assume he/she is a "left winger". I see many historical parallels. Saddam versus Hitler. When we entered the second world war, we removed a cancer on humanity. The same can be said for Saddam. Vietnam is not the end all rationale, for never getting involved in another war. Dave That leaves nothing but faith, which has no place in politics. |
Those Spend but Don't Pay for It Republicans
"Dave Hall" wrote in message ... Mark Browne wrote: Slinging rocks, when you don't know the full story is being irresponsible. Slinging rocks and finding fault while not offering workable alternatives is equally irresponsible. Any moron can blame Bush for everything from the Iraq war, to the economy, to the spreading of AIDS in Africa. But unless you can elaborate the steps in which you can realistically correct these problems, then you have no business weighing in on the situation. As a manager I once knew said, "we don't need more problems, we need solutions". While some seem suprised that things would turn out the way they did, I have been consitantly predicting that things would happen pretty much the way they did. One could chalk that up to "chicken little" pessimism. Or an understanding of the issues involved. Before the war started, while it was still possible to manage costs, I was saying that we would have to pay large costs if we marched into a needless war. I listed financal costs, requirements for long term comitments, loss of life, failure of the Iraqis to embrace our vision for them, and possible myhem while our forces are engaged. Fortunately, the last item has not come to pass yet, but it is a very real possibility. It will be a dark day in American history, when we back our of a just cause because we're afraid of the costs. The former soviet union lost the cold war, simply becasue they could not keep up with our technology, from a finacial standpoint. They couldn't afford the war any more. War is not cheap, war is not pretty, war in not fun. But sometimes war is necessary. I believe that now is one of those times. The terrorists belive (as you do evidently) that Americans will not go the long road, becasue of financial worries. All they have to do to win this war, is to outlast our resolve. Should we prove them right? What would the effect of that do to our security in the long run? snip So which is it? In one breath you acknowledge that it is possible to bankrupt a country on a fools errand, in the next you say that we should pay any price to win. You claim the war is necessary - why? You compare the roles Hitler and Saddam. In one case we had German boots all over Europe and north Africa, in the other we had Iraqi boots in - Iraq. The job of containment was completed in '91 and no further warfare is needed. Even you must see that the claims that Saddam could deploy WMDs was simply not true. That leave the claim that we are bringing our values to the middle east. We have had a bit longer to work in Afghanistan and I am having trouble seeing how that is working out in our favor. You are still claiming that Iraq is somehow related to the terrorists in a meaningful way. If a connection, however slim is justification for dropping 80 billion a year, then the much stronger evidence in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia is surly going to need a response. Think through what the outcome will be from tackling the biggest energy suppler and a nuclear armed nation. It is stretching our military to deal with two relatively insignificant players. Trying to change attitudes at the barrel of a gun are not working in the tiny west bank - what could possible make you think it is going to work out better elsewhere? Pretend for a moment that you were actually a fiscal conservative and tell me what we are getting for our 80 billion dollars a year? While you are thinking this through, do remember that it *is* possible to spend a country into ruin. As you noted, a country can be so enamored with its ideological aspirations that it ignore economic realities. Mark Browne |
Those Spend but Don't Pay for It Republicans
"Mark Browne" wrote in message
news:AO_7b.419011$uu5.75668@sccrnsc04... One could chalk that up to "chicken little" pessimism. Or an understanding of the issues involved. You win. Dave doesn't read. History books are biased sources of information. |
Those Spend but Don't Pay for It Republicans
Mark Browne wrote:
"Dave Hall" wrote in message ... Mark Browne wrote: Slinging rocks, when you don't know the full story is being irresponsible. Slinging rocks and finding fault while not offering workable alternatives is equally irresponsible. Any moron can blame Bush for everything from the Iraq war, to the economy, to the spreading of AIDS in Africa. But unless you can elaborate the steps in which you can realistically correct these problems, then you have no business weighing in on the situation. As a manager I once knew said, "we don't need more problems, we need solutions". While some seem suprised that things would turn out the way they did, I have been consitantly predicting that things would happen pretty much the way they did. One could chalk that up to "chicken little" pessimism. Or an understanding of the issues involved. There are many sides to the issues. Depending on which one of them is your primary goal, determines your point of view with respect to the big picure. Before the war started, while it was still possible to manage costs, I was saying that we would have to pay large costs if we marched into a needless war. I listed financal costs, requirements for long term comitments, loss of life, failure of the Iraqis to embrace our vision for them, and possible myhem while our forces are engaged. Fortunately, the last item has not come to pass yet, but it is a very real possibility. It will be a dark day in American history, when we back out of a just cause because we're afraid of the costs. The former soviet union lost the cold war, simply becasue they could not keep up with our technology, from a finacial standpoint. They couldn't afford the war any more. War is not cheap, war is not pretty, war in not fun. But sometimes war is necessary. I believe that now is one of those times. The terrorists belive (as you do evidently) that Americans will not go the long road, becasue of financial worries. All they have to do to win this war, is to outlast our resolve. Should we prove them right? What would the effect of that do to our security in the long run? snip So which is it? In one breath you acknowledge that it is possible to bankrupt a country on a fools errand, in the next you say that we should pay any price to win. WW2 created jobs, and those basically pulled us out of the great depression. So while the government may spend X amount of money, there is also an associated benefit to manufacturing related jobs, which support the war effort. A boost to our economy at this time, would not be an unwelcome thing. To answer your second point, let me ask you the converse; If we hesitate to commit to a war due to financial considerations, then what does that tell the rest of the world (and particularly our enemies) about our dedication and resolve? What good is having the world's finest military, if we're afraid to use it? You claim the war is necessary - why? That should be plainly obvious to anyone who can see the big picture. You compare the roles Hitler and Saddam. In one case we had German boots all over Europe and north Africa, in the other we had Iraqi boots in - Iraq. The job of containment was completed in '91 and no further warfare is needed. I respectfully disagree. Saddam is like a festering sore, Loose interest and leave him alone for a little while and he'll bounce back stronger and more cunning than ever. Even you must see that the claims that Saddam could deploy WMDs was simply not true. I do NOT see that at all. He has diverted money meant for his people under the UN's oil-for-food program, for his own agenda. He kicked out weapons inspectors in 1998. He's NEVER allowed unrestricted access for weapons inspectors to look where they pleased. There is credible evidence, lab notes, etc, that clearly show that he was still following the WMD path. The only thing we don't have are the actual weapons. Since Iraq is a pretty large country, even if you discount any dealings with other countries like Syria, so they may still be there. If it turns out that they really are not there, it may just be that we stopped him just in time. Give it another 2 or three years, and who knows what he might have done. That leave the claim that we are bringing our values to the middle east. We have had a bit longer to work in Afghanistan and I am having trouble seeing how that is working out in our favor. Democracy is a new concept to people used to being subjugated. Again, you are exhibiting that all too American trait of impatience, and expectations of instant gratification. Rome wasn't built in a day. Democracy will take a while to install in the middle east. But because the road is long and difficult, should that be a reason to abandon the effort? You are still claiming that Iraq is somehow related to the terrorists in a meaningful way. If a connection, however slim is justification for dropping 80 billion a year, then the much stronger evidence in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia is surly going to need a response. Think through what the outcome will be from tackling the biggest energy suppler and a nuclear armed nation. It is stretching our military to deal with two relatively insignificant players. Again, you're making the case that because the problem is sizable, that we should not try. Should we allow this terrorist mentality to proliferate throughout the middle east and other places? Should we send the message that we are unable to deal with this threat, thereby emboldening our enemies to become even more aggressive? Some people can empathize with the plight of such terorists as Hammas, and the Palistinian people. But comitting horrible acts of violence in order to affect societal change should never be given any validity, otherwise the methods will spread to any group of people who feel disenfranchised for any number of reasons. We have to send the message that terrorism will not be tolerated, thereby removing it as an option. Trying to change attitudes at the barrel of a gun are not working in the tiny west bank - what could possible make you think it is going to work out better elsewhere? So the alternative is to do... Nothing? Give in and let them have their way? Maybe we should put a large wall around our country and not let anyone in, and let the rest of the world destroy itself? You make valid points about the costs etc. But have you thought about the alternatives? What about the cost of doing nothing? How many 9/11 type acts will it take before we finally do something? Assuming that there is a point where we really will say "Alright, we've had it" and set about to do some serious butt-kicking, wouldn't make more sense to do it earlier rather than later, therby saving innocent American lives? Pretend for a moment that you were actually a fiscal conservative and tell me what we are getting for our 80 billion dollars a year? Security, safety, respect, and the eventual realization by many people, that the right to self determination should be universal. While you are thinking this through, do remember that it *is* possible to spend a country into ruin. As you noted, a country can be so enamored with its ideological aspirations that it ignore economic realities. And again, had we been so concerned with our finacial situation, that we failed to enter WWII, what would have been the likely result? Sometimes true costs are measured in things other than simple dollars and cents. Dave |
Those Spend but Don't Pay for It Republicans
On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 08:37:50 -0400, Dave Hall wrote:
Vietnam is not the end all rationale, for never getting involved in another war. Apparently not, since Vietnam, depending on how you count them, we have been involved in 5 wars/invasions, 4-5 proxy wars, a half dozen coups, numerous bombings (acts of war), and multiple bloody "peace keeping" missions. |
Those Spend but Don't Pay for It Republicans
thunder wrote:
On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 08:37:50 -0400, Dave Hall wrote: Vietnam is not the end all rationale, for never getting involved in another war. Apparently not, since Vietnam, depending on how you count them, we have been involved in 5 wars/invasions, 4-5 proxy wars, a half dozen coups, numerous bombings (acts of war), and multiple bloody "peace keeping" missions. Until the Gulf War, we had not been involved in a major conflict since Vietnam. The rest were more of a "police action". Dave |
Those Spend but Don't Pay for It Republicans
Mark Browne wrote:
There are many sides to the issues. Depending on which one of them is your primary goal, determines your point of view with respect to the big picure. True. The question revolves around the necessity of going to war with Iraq in the first place. There is no question that a necessary war must be waged until it is won, or until we are defeated. There is no question about half measures in survival; this is a fundamental fact of war. This fact adds a certain gravity in the consideration of whether to engage in war in the first place. In this case it is not survival, but war for simply political maneuvering - not survival. Once could legitimately make the claim that the rise in terrorism is a serious threat to the American way of life. True, they are not knocking down our doors with ships, or pointing nuclear tipped missiles in our direction, but they are hitting us in areas of opportunity. If they see success in these tactics, it will only encourage more of the same. So it IS a matter of survival, when you see it from the bigger picture, and not just the "Iraq chunk" or the "Afghanistan chunk". I saw the claimed reasons as not being worth the easily predictable price. I saw containment and inspection as being cheap and effective, and achieving our stated goals. I don't believe that these actions were doing any of that. Saddam was stung, and he was in a rebuilding phase. The sanctions did little more than bring poverty and poor medical care to a great number of Iraqi people (many of whom, as well as some on the left, accused the U.S. of causing). Meanwhile Saddam raided the cookie jar to fund more trophies to his ego as well as funding for more weapons research. Inspection was a joke. The inspectors were only allowed to look where the regime let them, and after advanced notice allowed them to "clean up" first. So, what was the case for war? Iraq is a threat to its neighbors. The first war in Iraq cleared up the invasion problem, and conclusively demonstrated that the Iraq army was no threat to a modern military. The only country that seemed to have any fear of Iraq was Israel, and I don't see the feeble Iraqi army as any threat to them. But we only wounded Saddam. We didn't take him out either physically or politically. WMDs? While it is clear that you are emotionally invested in finding WMDs to vindicate a position you are supporting, the fact is that effective weapons of *mass* destruction takes massive amounts of material. Actually, it does not. The size of the container which could contain enough toxin to kill thousands of people, could fit in your briefcase. To deliver milligrams per person takes tons per square kilometer. That depends of the rate of dispersion and the point of impact, and the delivery mechanism. The effective production takes large volumes of precursors. The inspectors were looking for the tracks of production, and not finding the necessary supporting infrastructure. A mistake IMHO. Our continued searching with free access to the entire country has been similarly fruitless. We have uncovered many questionable pieces of the puzzle, along with literally miles of supporting documentation. Until every test-tube sized piece of land has been dug to the depth of 10 meters you can cling to the claim that there might be some weapons in hiding, but I have already assumed that if there were weapons or production factories, my US troopers would have found them. If some do turn up you can say "I told you so" but I am not holding my breath on this one. Much of the "faith" on this postion revolves around the personality of Saddam Husseain and his past actions. It is inconceivable that someone with his reputation, would simply tuck his tail and wimper in a corner. Subterfuge would be more fitting. Saddam is a despot? The questions about how some despot runs his country are not limited to Iraq. We have a bunch of others that also have much the same problems as we are finding in Iraq - I don't hear a lot of rhetoric about going into these countries to clean up the mess there. I hear this alot, from you guys on the left. Who are these supposed "despots" who are ready to launch WMD at neighboring countries (As if the moral equvilency argument is even valid at all)? It's one thing to have a dictatorship. It's totally another to have one who has imperialistic desires. We need the oil? I would willing to talk about our dependence on foreign oil, but if this is considered a necessary point for going into war I would expect related activity here at home. It's not a cornerstone of the mission. But perhaps, it plays an important part, explained further on: Conservation, development of alternative energy resources, perhaps a serious reexamination of nuclear power. These things ARE going on. You just don't hear about it because there isn't any stellar breakthroughs yet. If you truly believe in the free market (I do) a 3 dollar a gallon tax on fuel will focus the forces of the our considerable technology on the problem. And at the same time push our (and the rest of the world's) economy into a serious tailspin. The cost of fuel is the single factor which permeates almost every aspect of manufacturing and distribution. Raise those costs significantly, and you will ignite serious inflation. What economic class of people do you think would be the most affected by these sharp increases in costs? Are you willing to sacrifice the poor to lessen our dependance on oil? I agree that we need an alternative to oil, but crushing our economy to force increased research is not the answer. Instead, we get a tax credit on the purchase of the Hummer H2. As far as getting the oil out of Iraq, we were getting more out of Iraq under the oil for food program than we are currently getting now. A temporary condition. It will improve as we get a better handle on the situation. So we have a mounting death toll and an 90 billion dollar a year price tag for what goal? When are we leaving? When the job is done. If this turns into the 3000 dead a year that the Soviets were experiencing in Afghanistan what will be the justification for staying the course? How many died in 9/11? If we prevent a few more of those type of attacks, then I guess we can break even. You should be able to state the objectives before initiating the conflict. They have been stated. You guys just don't believe them, and instead cook up all sorts of wild speculation on what's "actually" happening. I have yet to hear any evidence that our leadership has thought of anything beyond killing Saddam. The war on terrorism is a multifaceted and complex operation. There are other countries involved, and we will have to deal with them. But we need a base of operation and a source of oil to cover what happens when we go after the main terrorists cells. WW2 created jobs, and those basically pulled us out of the great depression. So while the government may spend X amount of money, there is also an associated benefit to manufacturing related jobs, which support the war effort. A boost to our economy at this time, would not be an unwelcome thing. Certainly you jest? You are not going to trot out the "war creates jobs" out as a serious reason for going to war? Not as a reason, but as a beneficial side effect. The aftermath of WW2 happened to be one of the most prosperous times in our post industrial age. Some may argue that the 50's ushered in the sense of consumerism, that is the root of what is wrong with the American culture, but that's fuel for another debate. To answer your second point, let me ask you the converse; If we hesitate to commit to a war due to financial considerations, then what does that tell the rest of the world (and particularly our enemies) about our dedication and resolve? What good is having the world's finest military, if we're afraid to use it? You claim the war is necessary - why? That should be plainly obvious to anyone who can see the big picture. It is not. Humor me and state you justification. Terrorism is a threat to American lives. we need to stop it. I respectfully disagree. Saddam is like a festering sore, Loose interest and leave him alone for a little while and he'll bounce back stronger and more cunning than ever. We certainly don't have to go to war to keep our interest up. We have a tin-pot dictator running a bankrupt country. I don't see much in the way of a threat. Key phase: "I don't see much..." That does not mean that there isn't one. Even you must see that the claims that Saddam could deploy WMDs was simply not true. I do NOT see that at all. He has diverted money meant for his people under the UN's oil-for-food program, for his own agenda. He kicked out weapons inspectors in 1998. He's NEVER allowed unrestricted access for weapons inspectors to look where they pleased. There is credible evidence, lab notes, etc, that clearly show that he was still following the WMD path. The only thing we don't have are the actual weapons. Since Iraq is a pretty large country, even if you discount any dealings with other countries like Syria, so they may still be there. If it turns out that they really are not there, it may just be that we stopped him just in time. Give it another 2 or three years, and who knows what he might have done. Nothing. You say that as if you have absolute knowledge of the situation. Since you cannot possibly know this, I can only conclude that your comment was made, not from insight, but from dogma. Democracy is a new concept to people used to being subjugated. Again, you are exhibiting that all too American trait of impatience, and expectations of instant gratification. Rome wasn't built in a day. Democracy will take a while to install in the middle east. But because the road is long and difficult, should that be a reason to abandon the effort? Two generation if things work out; this assume that all of the young embrace what we are teaching, and all of the older folks eventually die off. From my travels there, I can't possible see that they will every embrace our values as being wholesome and desirable. They said the same thing here about black people and homosexuals 40 years ago. What's not desirable about freedom? Give anyone the choice between following their own path, or being shoved down another by a dictator, what do you think they would choose? Again, you're making the case that because the problem is sizable, that we should not try. Should we allow this terrorist mentality to proliferate throughout the middle east and other places? Should we send the message that we are unable to deal with this threat, thereby emboldening our enemies to become even more aggressive? No, I am making the case that the terrorists are coming from a different part of the middle east. Saddam does not care about anybody but Saddam. Terrorist cells have been found in practically all of the countries in the middle east, including Iraq. You are also assuming that Iraq is the be-all and end-all of the war on terrorism. I hate to speculate, without having any facts, but assume for a moment that we have intentions of going after Saudi Arabia. What would be the most important things we would need to have, before we commit to such an undertaking? Then look at Iraq again. Is Bush really a simple minded idiot, or has his people thought about this chess game several moves ahead? Some people can empathize with the plight of such terorists as Hammas, and the Palistinian people. But comitting horrible acts of violence in order to affect societal change should never be given any validity, otherwise the methods will spread to any group of people who feel disenfranchised for any number of reasons. We have to send the message that terrorism will not be tolerated, thereby removing it as an option. Attacking Al Qu'edas enemies certainly is not sending the right message. Try to keep up, the attacker were middle class Saudis - not Iraqis. Iraq has had some ties to terrorists. They may not be Al Qaeda, but they're not the only game in town either. Besides, if my speculation is close to he real truth, the need for Iraq becomes clear. Trying to change attitudes at the barrel of a gun are not working in the tiny west bank - what could possible make you think it is going to work out better elsewhere? So the alternative is to do... Nothing? Give in and let them have their way? Maybe we should put a large wall around our country and not let anyone in, and let the rest of the world destroy itself? And doing the wrong thing is better than doing nothing? It has yet to be proven that we've done anything "wrong". You make valid points about the costs etc. But have you thought about the alternatives? What about the cost of doing nothing? How many 9/11 type acts will it take before we finally do something? Assuming that there is a point where we really will say "Alright, we've had it" and set about to do some serious butt-kicking, wouldn't make more sense to do it earlier rather than later, therby saving innocent American lives? There are several regions that have much the same problems as the middle east, and we are blissfully free of entanglement in those situations. Where? What is the degree of threat to American interests? The only reasons were are engaged in the middle east is oil and Israel. I have already stated several times that we need to wean ourselves from oil anyway, why not now. Already explained in economic terms. Israel? Cut off military support. When they have to deal with the neighbors on a more equal terms, they might actually come to the peace table with an intention of making a deal. The only "deal" which would be acceptable to the terrorists, is the total dismantling of the nation of Israel. Besides, capitulation to these tactics only validate their effectiveness. That is not the message you want to send. I'm surprised that you would favor abandoning support for a friendly nation, which we've enjoyed a relationship with for many years. Security, safety, respect, and the eventual realization by many people, that the right to self determination should be universal. Those are all great goals. It is abundantly clear that we are getting any security or safety out of this. The Saudi terrorists are laughing there heads off as we speak. The terrorists are much more than just Saudi's. They encompass many different countries. They operate outside of any one country's blessing. It happened that the 9/11 terrorists were of Saudi descent, but that doesn't mean that the Saudi government authorized it. Respect? Was that *our* president that was going back to the US saying he had bitten off more than he could chew? If we pull this off, terrorists will think a little harder before attacking us. If we can stamp out this cancer on humanity, it will make those considering terrorism as a career path, to think again. That is respect. Lets see how much the Afghanis and Iraqis are able to determine about their own future. At this point, the situation in Afghanistan looks pretty bleak. It is too soon to tell in Iraq. Things are moving along in both places. You have to understand that Afghanistan was a impoverished country before we even went there. All we did was to remove an oppressive government. We can give them freedom, but we can't give them prosperity, if they don't have marketable goods. Dave |
Those Spend but Don't Pay for It Republicans
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
... The effective production takes large volumes of precursors. The inspectors were looking for the tracks of production, and not finding the necessary supporting infrastructure. A mistake IMHO. Humble opinion, indeed. Since you are not a chemist, a biologist, a nuclear physicist or a weapons expert of any kind, you have absolutely no business using the word "mistake" with regard to the work being done by the inspectors. Do you randomly walk into pharmaceutical factories and comment on the work being done? But what the heck - just for entertainment, how about telling us how you think the inspectors should've been doing their job differently? Try and cut down on the use of commas. ¿It causes, headaches? Tu amigo, Doug |
Those Spend but Don't Pay for It Republicans
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Dave Hall" wrote in message ... The effective production takes large volumes of precursors. The inspectors were looking for the tracks of production, and not finding the necessary supporting infrastructure. A mistake IMHO. Humble opinion, indeed. Since you are not a chemist, a biologist, a nuclear physicist or a weapons expert of any kind, you have absolutely no business using the word "mistake" with regard to the work being done by the inspectors. I don't? Then by using your same logic then, since you are not a politician, a military general, or a diplomat, you have no business criticising the Bush administration or the war in Iraq. So go sit in your corner..... Dave |
Those Spend but Don't Pay for It Republicans
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
... Doug Kanter wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message ... The effective production takes large volumes of precursors. The inspectors were looking for the tracks of production, and not finding the necessary supporting infrastructure. A mistake IMHO. Humble opinion, indeed. Since you are not a chemist, a biologist, a nuclear physicist or a weapons expert of any kind, you have absolutely no business using the word "mistake" with regard to the work being done by the inspectors. I don't? Then by using your same logic then, since you are not a politician, a military general, or a diplomat, you have no business criticising the Bush administration or the war in Iraq. So go sit in your corner..... Dave If you were tied to a chair under a hot light and tortured for maybe a hour or so, the truth would come out: Your only problem with the weapons inspectors is that many were not Americans. What a crock. |
Those Spend but Don't Pay for It Republicans
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Dave Hall" wrote in message ... Doug Kanter wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message ... The effective production takes large volumes of precursors. The inspectors were looking for the tracks of production, and not finding the necessary supporting infrastructure. A mistake IMHO. Humble opinion, indeed. Since you are not a chemist, a biologist, a nuclear physicist or a weapons expert of any kind, you have absolutely no business using the word "mistake" with regard to the work being done by the inspectors. I don't? Then by using your same logic then, since you are not a politician, a military general, or a diplomat, you have no business criticising the Bush administration or the war in Iraq. So go sit in your corner..... Dave If you were tied to a chair under a hot light and tortured for maybe a hour or so, the truth would come out: Your only problem with the weapons inspectors is that many were not Americans. What a crock. What? What are you smoking now? That really came out of "left" field. Other than your own biased perceptions and wild speculative tendancies, what would give you the idea that I have a prejudice against non-american inspectors? You just don't like it when your own logic is thrown back at you. Dave |
Those Spend but Don't Pay for It Republicans
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
... If you were tied to a chair under a hot light and tortured for maybe a hour or so, the truth would come out: Your only problem with the weapons inspectors is that many were not Americans. What a crock. What? What are you smoking now? That really came out of "left" field. Other than your own biased perceptions and wild speculative tendancies, what would give you the idea that I have a prejudice against non-american inspectors? You just don't like it when your own logic is thrown back at you. Dave In the past, you and others have made derisive comments about the inspectors. This is different than criticising the process itself. |
Those Spend but Don't Pay for It Republicans
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Dave Hall" wrote in message ... If you were tied to a chair under a hot light and tortured for maybe a hour or so, the truth would come out: Your only problem with the weapons inspectors is that many were not Americans. What a crock. What? What are you smoking now? That really came out of "left" field. Other than your own biased perceptions and wild speculative tendancies, what would give you the idea that I have a prejudice against non-american inspectors? You just don't like it when your own logic is thrown back at you. Dave In the past, you and others have made derisive comments about the inspectors. This is different than criticising the process itself. When have I said anything negative about the inspectors themselves? I would challenge you to find any post of mine which states such. I had a problem with the whole process, and I believe that it was largely ineffective because they were not given carte blanche approval to inspect any place, anytime, and at their whim. They were still restricted by the Iraqi government. I've read stories of inspectors coming in the front door of a facility, while Iraqi's were quite literally running out of the back door, carrying files and equipment. When you are given a day's notice, you can clean up quite a few things. But you're way out of line to suggest that I have some sort of xenophobic rationale for not appoving of the inspection process. Dave |
Those Spend but Don't Pay for It Republicans
"Dave Hall" wrote in message ... Doug Kanter wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message ... If you were tied to a chair under a hot light and tortured for maybe a hour or so, the truth would come out: Your only problem with the weapons inspectors is that many were not Americans. What a crock. What? What are you smoking now? That really came out of "left" field. Other than your own biased perceptions and wild speculative tendancies, what would give you the idea that I have a prejudice against non-american inspectors? You just don't like it when your own logic is thrown back at you. Dave In the past, you and others have made derisive comments about the inspectors. This is different than criticising the process itself. When have I said anything negative about the inspectors themselves? I would challenge you to find any post of mine which states such. I had a problem with the whole process, and I believe that it was largely ineffective because they were not given carte blanche approval to inspect any place, anytime, and at their whim. They were still restricted by the Iraqi government. I've read stories of inspectors coming in the front door of a facility, while Iraqi's were quite literally running out of the back door, carrying files and equipment. When you are given a day's notice, you can clean up quite a few things. But you're way out of line to suggest that I have some sort of xenophobic rationale for not appoving of the inspection process. Dave Fortunately the current inspectors are not hampered by these little problems. That is why they are not finding *so* much more stuff! Mark Browne |
Those Spend but Don't Pay for It Republicans
Mark Browne wrote:
"Dave Hall" wrote in message ... Doug Kanter wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message ... If you were tied to a chair under a hot light and tortured for maybe a hour or so, the truth would come out: Your only problem with the weapons inspectors is that many were not Americans. What a crock. What? What are you smoking now? That really came out of "left" field. Other than your own biased perceptions and wild speculative tendancies, what would give you the idea that I have a prejudice against non-american inspectors? You just don't like it when your own logic is thrown back at you. Dave In the past, you and others have made derisive comments about the inspectors. This is different than criticising the process itself. When have I said anything negative about the inspectors themselves? I would challenge you to find any post of mine which states such. I had a problem with the whole process, and I believe that it was largely ineffective because they were not given carte blanche approval to inspect any place, anytime, and at their whim. They were still restricted by the Iraqi government. I've read stories of inspectors coming in the front door of a facility, while Iraqi's were quite literally running out of the back door, carrying files and equipment. When you are given a day's notice, you can clean up quite a few things. But you're way out of line to suggest that I have some sort of xenophobic rationale for not appoving of the inspection process. Dave Fortunately the current inspectors are not hampered by these little problems. No, they have that nagging little problem of watching out for their lives. It's also a bit more difficult to find things when many buildings are now little more than piles of rubble. I'm not sure just how much weapons inspection is going on these days. It's certainly not a top focal point for the mainstream media. Just trying to restore order, provide aid to the people, and rebuilding the infrastructure, seems to be taking up the lion's share of our time and effort. Dave |
Those Spend but Don't Pay for It Republicans
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
... Just trying to restore order, provide aid to the people, and rebuilding the infrastructure, seems to be taking up the lion's share of our time and effort. Yeah....particularly since at least TWO aid organizations have left the country completely because we cannot provide security for their people. What a plan. |
Those Spend but Don't Pay for It Republicans
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
... I'm not sure just how much weapons inspection is going on these days. It's certainly not a top focal point for the mainstream media. Just trying to restore order, provide aid to the people, and rebuilding the infrastructure, seems to be taking up the lion's share of our time and effort. Last time I heard anything, there were *hundreds* of inspectors rooting around Iraq looking for weapons. Not only aren't there any remaining, there's no information being uncovered that suggests they were moved elsewhere. Iraq, we didn't go there for the oil, but we're sure not leaving without it. |
Those Spend but Don't Pay for It Republicans
Dave Hall wrote:
Mark Browne wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message ... Doug Kanter wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message ... If you were tied to a chair under a hot light and tortured for maybe a hour or so, the truth would come out: Your only problem with the weapons inspectors is that many were not Americans. What a crock. What? What are you smoking now? That really came out of "left" field. Other than your own biased perceptions and wild speculative tendancies, what would give you the idea that I have a prejudice against non-american inspectors? You just don't like it when your own logic is thrown back at you. Dave In the past, you and others have made derisive comments about the inspectors. This is different than criticising the process itself. When have I said anything negative about the inspectors themselves? I would challenge you to find any post of mine which states such. I had a problem with the whole process, and I believe that it was largely ineffective because they were not given carte blanche approval to inspect any place, anytime, and at their whim. They were still restricted by the Iraqi government. I've read stories of inspectors coming in the front door of a facility, while Iraqi's were quite literally running out of the back door, carrying files and equipment. When you are given a day's notice, you can clean up quite a few things. But you're way out of line to suggest that I have some sort of xenophobic rationale for not appoving of the inspection process. Dave Fortunately the current inspectors are not hampered by these little problems. No, they have that nagging little problem of watching out for their lives. It's also a bit more difficult to find things when many buildings are now little more than piles of rubble. I'm not sure just how much weapons inspection is going on these days. It's certainly not a top focal point for the mainstream media. Just trying to restore order, provide aid to the people, and rebuilding the infrastructure, seems to be taking up the lion's share of our time and effort. Dave Well, Dave...it probably is getting close to the time when you and all the other Republican asskissers are the only ones left who believe the lies and deceptions of the Smirking Chimp and his pack of rationalizers. Just think...we had a President who lied about blow jobs and now we have a president who lies about everything. -- * * * email sent to will *never* get to me. |
Those Spend but Don't Pay for It Republicans
"jps" wrote in message ... "Dave Hall" wrote in message ... I'm not sure just how much weapons inspection is going on these days. It's certainly not a top focal point for the mainstream media. Just trying to restore order, provide aid to the people, and rebuilding the infrastructure, seems to be taking up the lion's share of our time and effort. Last time I heard anything, there were *hundreds* of inspectors rooting around Iraq looking for weapons. Not only aren't there any remaining, there's no information being uncovered that suggests they were moved elsewhere. Iraq, we didn't go there for the oil, but we're sure not leaving without it. Don't worry too much about Dave believing that there are no WMDs in Iraq anymore. Now that little Bush and his merry band are all singing some new tunes, Dave will finally be able to accept what we have been saying all along. We can call this a closed issued and work on to setting him straight on the next administration "facts." Will Dave ever admit that we were right all along? I would not count on it. No WNDs, No nukes, no Iraq-Al Qa'eda ties - an abrupt 180 degree turn from several members of the administration in unison. I will give little Bush high marks for marshaling what version of the truth his staff spouts. As far as I can see, it is the only thing he seems to be able to do well. Mark Browne PS - We told you so! |
Those Spend but Don't Pay for It Republicans
"Mark Browne" wrote in message
et... I will give little Bush high marks for marshaling what version of the truth his staff spouts. As far as I can see, it is the only thing he seems to be able to do well. That's got to be Karl Rove's work. Targeted, coordinated communications are his strong suit. It's what makes this administration so convincing, whether they're telling the truth or not. |
Those Spend but Don't Pay for It Republicans
"Mark Browne" wrote in message . net...
"jps" wrote in message ... "Dave Hall" wrote in message ... I'm not sure just how much weapons inspection is going on these days. It's certainly not a top focal point for the mainstream media. Just trying to restore order, provide aid to the people, and rebuilding the infrastructure, seems to be taking up the lion's share of our time and effort. Last time I heard anything, there were *hundreds* of inspectors rooting around Iraq looking for weapons. Not only aren't there any remaining, there's no information being uncovered that suggests they were moved elsewhere. Iraq, we didn't go there for the oil, but we're sure not leaving without it. Don't worry too much about Dave believing that there are no WMDs in Iraq anymore. Now that little Bush and his merry band are all singing some new tunes, Dave will finally be able to accept what we have been saying all along. We can call this a closed issued and work on to setting him straight on the next administration "facts." Will Dave ever admit that we were right all along? I would not count on it. No WNDs, No nukes, no Iraq-Al Qa'eda ties - an abrupt 180 degree turn from several members of the administration in unison. I will give little Bush high marks for marshaling what version of the truth his staff spouts. As far as I can see, it is the only thing he seems to be able to do well. Mark Browne PS - We told you so! Christ almighty, five grown men all sitting around pulling each others dicks and trying to see who can come up with the best line... Why don't you five take it off list and give the NG back to the boaters? |
Those Spend but Don't Pay for It Republicans
This is better than TV, watching all these idiots high 5 each other after
insulting their opponents. The best one is jps, making predictions on who is going to win the election. No intelligent person would begin to make a prediction concerning a Nov. 2004 race, so it does begin to show the caliber of people we are dealing with. "Backyard Renegade" wrote in message om... "Mark Browne" wrote in message . net... "jps" wrote in message ... "Dave Hall" wrote in message ... I'm not sure just how much weapons inspection is going on these days. It's certainly not a top focal point for the mainstream media. Just trying to restore order, provide aid to the people, and rebuilding the infrastructure, seems to be taking up the lion's share of our time and effort. Last time I heard anything, there were *hundreds* of inspectors rooting around Iraq looking for weapons. Not only aren't there any remaining, there's no information being uncovered that suggests they were moved elsewhere. Iraq, we didn't go there for the oil, but we're sure not leaving without it. Don't worry too much about Dave believing that there are no WMDs in Iraq anymore. Now that little Bush and his merry band are all singing some new tunes, Dave will finally be able to accept what we have been saying all along. We can call this a closed issued and work on to setting him straight on the next administration "facts." Will Dave ever admit that we were right all along? I would not count on it. No WNDs, No nukes, no Iraq-Al Qa'eda ties - an abrupt 180 degree turn from several members of the administration in unison. I will give little Bush high marks for marshaling what version of the truth his staff spouts. As far as I can see, it is the only thing he seems to be able to do well. Mark Browne PS - We told you so! Christ almighty, five grown men all sitting around pulling each others dicks and trying to see who can come up with the best line... Why don't you five take it off list and give the NG back to the boaters? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:46 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com