On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 08:42:31 -0400, DSK wrote:


thunder wrote:
Well, I agree with that. Thanks to GWB, we have broken Iraq. It is now
our duty to fix it.


Agreed, but how? Right now, there is darn little progress being made on
"rebuilding" Iraq... our military was ordered to blow up electric & water
plants, so that US contractors could make a fat profit rebuilding them...
but now the contractors are spending 99% of their money on security, and
99% of their time hunkered down waiting. We haven't even restored basic
services to all of Baghdad.

I'm afraid it's a crap shoot and answers are a little above my pay scale
but some suggestions if I were king.

Fire Rumsfeld. He seems to be the root cause of many of our mistakes.
Shinseki was right. We need more boots on the ground. It will entail a
draft, but so be it. We are asking too much from our too few soldiers,
some of whom are on their third tour.

Fire Halliburton. The job is clearly too big for them. Instead of hiring
American firms to accomplish the rebuild, we should be hiring Iraqi firms
with Iraqi employees. If the Iraqi companies are not qualified
(unlikely), perhaps something like FDR's Civilian Conservation Corps. We
have to put Iraqis to work. Gainfully employed Iraqis a less likely to be
future terrorists.

Senator Biden makes some good points:

http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Dail...005062822.html

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 10:48:14 -0400, HarryKrause wrote:


Well, why not grab some sailors and airmen, hand them rifles, and put them
on the ground in Iraq?

Sending armed men into a situation they are not trained for is not only
dangerous, it's reckless.

*JimH* wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...


NOYB wrote:

We will never lose as long as a Bush is President.

Narrow minded twit.

In the famous words of NOYB, himself "go **** yourself".


The Bassy Show is officially on the air. Enjoy!

Uh, ****stain, NOYB said it. I just repeated it. Did you chastise HIM?

thunder wrote:
I'm afraid it's a crap shoot and answers are a little above my pay scale
but some suggestions if I were king.

Fire Rumsfeld. He seems to be the root cause of many of our mistakes.
Shinseki was right. We need more boots on the ground.

Hey! Didn't you just hear NOBBY a minute ago saying that no generals had
ever asked for more troops, and if they did, it was because they had an
axe to grind?

Personally I thought they should never have put Rumsfeld in as Defense
Sc'y; he's too inclined to believe his own bull****. But why would a
President who doesn't believe he himself ahs ever made a mistake find
fault with this?


... It will entail a
draft, but so be it. We are asking too much from our too few soldiers,
some of whom are on their third tour.


We need more manpower. I don't think a draft is the best way to get it,
but it may be necessary anyway a few years down the road.

Another thing we need is international consensus. After Sept 11th, we
had the overwhelming support of the world. We need to regain at least
some of that, we need cooperation in tracking terrorist networks, and it
may be possible to gain allies to send more troops into Iraq...
obviously we'd have to do something very differently, but here's a way
to kill two birds with one stone.


Fire Halliburton. The job is clearly too big for them. Instead of hiring
American firms to accomplish the rebuild, we should be hiring Iraqi firms
with Iraqi employees.

Agreed.

But you have to realize, Halliburton is one of the reason why the
Bush/Cheney Administration launched this war. It wasn't about terrorism,
since there weren't any in Iraq, it wasn't about WMDs since there
weren't any of those either, it wasn't about Sept 11th since there are
no proven links, and if it was about oil then we've made an extremely
bad... blatant incompetently bad... guess about how much the oil would
cost.

This war is about funneling HUGE amounts of money into the pockets of
Bush & Cheney's cronies, money that their campaign funds will get a cut
of, which will make them (and their allies) almost unbeatable. It has
been a tremendous success in that regard, so why should anybody expect
Buch or Cheney to talk about failure?



Senator Biden makes some good points:

Yeah but everybody knows that Democrats are homo-loving America-hating
libby-rull traitors. Senator Biden was a deserter, there's a statue of
him in Hanoi, and he gets his funding from Al-Queda!

DSK

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 13:33:56 -0400, DSK wrote:


This war is about funneling HUGE amounts of money into the pockets of Bush
& Cheney's cronies, money that their campaign funds will get a cut of,
which will make them (and their allies) almost unbeatable. It has been a
tremendous success in that regard, so why should anybody expect Buch or
Cheney to talk about failure?

It's been over two years since we invaded Iraq, and things haven't
improved substantially, if at all. Bush and Cheney may not talk about
failure, but in the rest of America that possibility is becoming
increasing clear. Last night's speech makes it apparent that the status
quo is good enough for the Chump, but it's not. Can you say quagmire?

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Jack wrote:
The only apology that I can think that the "conservative" intelligent
persons of the US have to make, is that we provided a public school
system that could unleash people that cannot understand the real issues
of the war.

What, cheap oil and getting revenge for W's daddy?


This war is not lost! The campaign is actually going quite well.

If by 'the campaign' you mean the scramble for dollars by Bush & Cheney's
cronies, then yeah it's great. However, the overall strategic outlook in
terms of conventional military strength has not looked so bleak for the
U.S. since the British marched in and burned the White House in 1812. We
are heavily in debt, have very little uncommitted strength, and no
credibibility.

_________________________________________________

Just what type of debt do you really think we're in? If you take the
entire monetary cost of the war, thus far; How many (federal only)tax
income days to the government do you think this war has consumed? And by
that question, lets make sure that we are talking about the entire war all
the way back to day one. I realize that I'm asking someone a question
that hasn't the information necessary to answer, therefore I will answer it
for you. If you take the entire war costs, it would take approximately 6
days to pay for it. Now I will admit one thing, that the Bush presidency
has spent more than any presidency that I can recall, but don't keep saying
or eluding that this war is costing this country in the fashion that you
are, because someone will call you to the carpet about it. Also, when you
say that this is a "....scramble for dollars..." please tell us what you
mean. Its a cheap shot to throw that statement out with out backing it
up. Please tell us exactly what type and amounts of money that Bush and
Cheney have made from this? And BTW, if your going to attempt to bring
Haliburton into this conversation, then you had better do your homework
because I have and am prepared to slam your slander with facts, it won't be
pretty. You also say that ".... overall look of military strength has not
looked so bleak....". Just what do you want us to do to prove our
strength? Shall we go in and carpet bomb some area? Shall we use
nukes? Shall we send in more troops? Just what would your strategy be?
You love to slam the current thought processes, but offer none of your own.
You love to tell of the failures (in your eyes) but offer no change or
charge of your own. Why not participate in the progress of the nation
rather than the sit on the sidelines and yell at the referee. Since you
want us to show our strength, lets go, send in 250,000 more troops, that
should add to the confusion, I mean security.
________________________________________________

If you look at the anti-terrorist picture, it's possibly worse. Instead of
isolated bases in Afghanistan, anti-US terrorists now have a centralized
location. Instead of using irrational religious dogma to try and make
recruits hate America, now they flock into terrorist cells with a burning
desire to kill Americans even if it means becoming a suicide bomber.
Instead of learning how to home-brew primitive bombs from books, now they
have live-fire exercises with sophisticated IEDs. Yeah, it's going well.

_________________________________________________
I definitely like your way better, lets not do what we've done, lets sit by
and wait for them to come to us instead of getting them all together so that
we can easier target them. Yep, you should definitely be in charge.
_________________________________________________






Unfortunately, due to most of the network news medias bias you won't be
able to see the victories.

You mean, Fox News and the Rush Limbaugh Hair Club For Angry White Men
isn't giving us the truth?

Face facts, the mainstream media now is biased very heavily towards
promoting President Bush and his agenda. How many times have you heard
about how terrible Howard Dean is, and how many times have you heard about
Halliburton's ongoing theft & fraud investigation?


... You might actually have to do a little research to find the truth.
But I can see from the original post, that research would be out of the
question.

I can see from your post that facing actual facts in the real world is out
o the question, so go ahead with your 'research.' Maybe you can tell us
how the insurgency is on it's last legs.

DSK

_________________________________________________
I don't think that I have to, why not do some research and let us know what
you find out. I'm anxious to see your responses. I love political
debates.
_______________________________________________

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 23:24:27 GMT, "Jack" wrote:


"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
Jack wrote:
The only apology that I can think that the "conservative" intelligent
persons of the US have to make, is that we provided a public school
system that could unleash people that cannot understand the real issues
of the war.

What, cheap oil and getting revenge for W's daddy?


This war is not lost! The campaign is actually going quite well.

If by 'the campaign' you mean the scramble for dollars by Bush & Cheney's
cronies, then yeah it's great. However, the overall strategic outlook in
terms of conventional military strength has not looked so bleak for the
U.S. since the British marched in and burned the White House in 1812. We
are heavily in debt, have very little uncommitted strength, and no
credibibility.

_______________________________________________ __

Just what type of debt do you really think we're in? If you take the
entire monetary cost of the war, thus far; How many (federal only)tax
income days to the government do you think this war has consumed? And by
that question, lets make sure that we are talking about the entire war all
the way back to day one. I realize that I'm asking someone a question
that hasn't the information necessary to answer, therefore I will answer it
for you. If you take the entire war costs, it would take approximately 6
days to pay for it. Now I will admit one thing, that the Bush presidency
has spent more than any presidency that I can recall, but don't keep saying
or eluding that this war is costing this country in the fashion that you
are, because someone will call you to the carpet about it. Also, when you
say that this is a "....scramble for dollars..." please tell us what you
mean. Its a cheap shot to throw that statement out with out backing it
up. Please tell us exactly what type and amounts of money that Bush and
Cheney have made from this? And BTW, if your going to attempt to bring
Haliburton into this conversation, then you had better do your homework
because I have and am prepared to slam your slander with facts, it won't be
pretty. You also say that ".... overall look of military strength has not
looked so bleak....". Just what do you want us to do to prove our
strength? Shall we go in and carpet bomb some area? Shall we use
nukes? Shall we send in more troops? Just what would your strategy be?
You love to slam the current thought processes, but offer none of your own.
You love to tell of the failures (in your eyes) but offer no change or
charge of your own. Why not participate in the progress of the nation
rather than the sit on the sidelines and yell at the referee. Since you
want us to show our strength, lets go, send in 250,000 more troops, that
should add to the confusion, I mean security.
_______________________________________________ _

If you look at the anti-terrorist picture, it's possibly worse. Instead of
isolated bases in Afghanistan, anti-US terrorists now have a centralized
location. Instead of using irrational religious dogma to try and make
recruits hate America, now they flock into terrorist cells with a burning
desire to kill Americans even if it means becoming a suicide bomber.
Instead of learning how to home-brew primitive bombs from books, now they
have live-fire exercises with sophisticated IEDs. Yeah, it's going well.

_______________________________________________ __
I definitely like your way better, lets not do what we've done, lets sit by
and wait for them to come to us instead of getting them all together so that
we can easier target them. Yep, you should definitely be in charge.
_______________________________________________ __






Unfortunately, due to most of the network news medias bias you won't be
able to see the victories.

You mean, Fox News and the Rush Limbaugh Hair Club For Angry White Men
isn't giving us the truth?

Face facts, the mainstream media now is biased very heavily towards
promoting President Bush and his agenda. How many times have you heard
about how terrible Howard Dean is, and how many times have you heard about
Halliburton's ongoing theft & fraud investigation?


... You might actually have to do a little research to find the truth.
But I can see from the original post, that research would be out of the
question.

I can see from your post that facing actual facts in the real world is out
o the question, so go ahead with your 'research.' Maybe you can tell us
how the insurgency is on it's last legs.

DSK

_______________________________________________ __
I don't think that I have to, why not do some research and let us know what
you find out. I'm anxious to see your responses. I love political
debates.
_______________________________________________



DSK, you'd better start hurling insults, 'cause you've just been well pegged!
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 23:24:27 +0000, Jack wrote:


Just what type of debt do you really think we're in? If you take the
entire monetary cost of the war, thus far; How many (federal only)tax
income days to the government do you think this war has consumed? And
by that question, lets make sure that we are talking about the entire war
all the way back to day one. I realize that I'm asking someone a
question that hasn't the information necessary to answer, therefore I will
answer it for you. If you take the entire war costs, it would take
approximately 6 days to pay for it.

Help me out here, I'm having a little trouble understanding your math.
According to the National Priorities Project, the cost of the Iraq War
stands at $180 billion. The federal budget has revenues of $1.862
trillion (2004 est.). Now, I'll admit all those zeros confuse me, but by
my calculations it would take over a month of revenues to pay, not under a
week. Of course, we are only talking dollars, not the 1,700 young
American lives this folly has cost.

War cost:
http://costofwar.com/

Federal budget:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/...k/geos/us.html


Now I will admit one thing, that
the Bush presidency has spent more than any presidency that I can recall,
but don't keep saying or eluding that this war is costing this country in
the fashion that you are, because someone will call you to the carpet
about it. Also, when you say that this is a "....scramble for
dollars..." please tell us what you mean. Its a cheap shot to throw
that statement out with out backing it up. Please tell us exactly what
type and amounts of money that Bush and Cheney have made from this? And
BTW, if your going to attempt to bring Haliburton into this conversation,
then you had better do your homework because I have and am prepared to
slam your slander with facts, it won't be pretty. You also say that
".... overall look of military strength has not looked so bleak....".
Just what do you want us to do to prove our strength? Shall we go in
and carpet bomb some area? Shall we use nukes? Shall we send in more
troops? Just what would your strategy be? You love to slam the current
thought processes, but offer none of your own. You love to tell of the
failures (in your eyes) but offer no change or charge of your own. Why
not participate in the progress of the nation rather than the sit on the
sidelines and yell at the referee. Since you want us to show our
strength, lets go, send in 250,000 more troops, that should add to the
confusion, I mean security.

250,000 more troops? Hmm, I don't think we can do it. Let's see, the
Army has 500,000 active duty troops, the Marines 176,000. We now have
@140,000 troops in Iraq. An additional 250,000 would bring the total to
390,000 out of 676,000 active duty troops. Nope, can't do it without
skimping on training or support.

HarryKrause wrote:

Well, why not grab some sailors and airmen, hand them rifles, and put
them on the ground in Iraq?

Harry, did you notice that in Bush's speech, he actually had an
advertisement to recruit soldiers to be killed for his cause? Sure did!
It kind of sounded like a Nascar driver after winning a race.

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 13:11:14 +0000, Ignoramus23758 wrote:


I am a little bit disappointed that the casualty discussion centers around
dead soldiers only. The human cost of injured soldiers is also quite
great. Due to advances of medicine, not as many injured soldiers die, but
many of them have quite miserable existence, without limbs, health etc.
That should also be taken into account.

My apologies, you are right, of course. There are also other costs,
perhaps less severe, born by our young soldiers and their families, even
if they return healthy. Costs in lost career advancements, lost
businesses, lost time with family, etc.


My rough estimate of the cost of Iraq war for our family, given that it
takes about 1/10 of federal taxes that we pay, is about 5 grand. That's
pretty expensive and is a good reason to complain.