I assume you've heard the term "healthy skepticism". I submit that we've entered the realm of "unhealthy skepticism" -- and we did it long before we entered this current crisis. I humbly suggest you take a good, hard look at how we got there.
Who do you trust ? You have to trust someone. Take it from me -- an ex-controller -- trust is a very precious thing. I think pilots might know a thing or two about it too.
Quote:
Throw me a bone, like cutting welfare entitlement to four years over lifetime, or punishing fines on employers knowingly employing illegal aliens to help pay for this problem along with me. Share the pain.
I've been trying to write a blog on the subject for a couple of days but it is proving rather difficult. But let me see if I can sum it up.
Take a look at who has benefited from this crooked system -- at least until the last few months. Take a look at the hedge fund manager (and those that hired him), the welfare recipient and the illegal alien.
Cui bono ? Who benefited ? Who is now asking that the American taxpayer bail them out ? Futhermore, you might consider asking a few of the people on this board that don't live in the States the same questions.
For me, I want my money back. The welfare recipient and the illegal alien don't have it. I'd help bail Wall Street out to save the economy. But I want my money back. And I want the rules in place that will keep it from happening again.
And the very real fact that Barak. H. Obama clearly doesn't understand doesn't bother you, Get The Flick?
Why in the world would you think I accpet McCain's premise, Para ? Just because McCain said so ? Need I remind you of the pre-2006 McCain and the post-2006 McCain ? He says a lot of things (now) he doesn't believe -- in order to get elected.
Unless you think you can square "Agents of intolerance" with a radical anti-abortionist as his running mate.
Im sorry I is not up with it all but if they get the $700 is that it ?
No more coming back next week with some lame duck story?
Well OF COURSE it is, tinny, you cynic. Now don't you worry your little head about it, just relax and go to sleep. Everything is going to be just fine..just fine...fine...you are getting sleepy,,, your eyelids are getting heavy.. when you wake up this will all be over and you won't remember a thing.
They were talking about actual issues, such as the position of each on the need for a change in strategy in Iraq last year, 'the Surge', which Obama didn't understand and opposed.
"Actual" issues huh ? As opposed to non-issues ?
Tell me again -- why did we invade Iraq ? Is that an issue ?
I remember back in Vietnam, when someone said they had "3 tours" it was impressive. How many "tours" are the troops doing now ? How long is their rotation in comparison to the "tours" in Vietnam. One year in 'Nam if I remember correctly. I believe I heard 15-18 months in Iraq.
Here's a chance to make a few points. Explain this issue to me. I really don't know much about the details. Explain how invading Iraq was in our national interests and how our continued presence there is in our best interests.
Tell me how long we can maintain "the Surge", what it is costing us in treasure, blood and missed opporitunities and what comes next.
Explain to me why it was all worth 4,000 sons and daughters. BTW, you might want to keep in mind that my son will be 18 this month.
Explain to me what part of this you don't think Obama understands.
GTF, you have to keep in mind that the money spent on the war in Iraq is "chump change". I know that because a resident poster told me so. That's good enough for me and it should be for you too.
Viet Nam was fought using a largely conscript military. Iraq is being fought using a professional military. When you get down to it, everyone there now signed up for it! Okay, in a lot of cases it was guys who never expected that going into the National Guard would mean ending up in Iraq but those are the breaks. As we say, "Should have worked harder in school."
On the other hand, yes, it was usually 12 months for the Army and I think it was 13 months for the Marines, in Viet Nam. I did two years there in the Army in aircraft maintenance and I have been in worse places since.
I really could not say what it would take to get me to go to Iraq... Certainly it is not a place I would want to see one of my children in. That said, we are there now and I think we will just have to fight it out until we can find a reasonable chance to leave having achieved some measure of success. That can be like doubling your bets to make up your losses, yes, but what is the alternative? Well, "Back up 8 years and elect Al Gore," but that is not an option now!
hat said, we are there now and I think we will just have to fight it out until we can find a reasonable chance to leave having achieved some measure of success. That can be like doubling your bets to make up your losses, yes, but what is the alternative?
Chuks, what you have just posted can be translated thusly;
Quote:
holy jesus, how did we ever get involved in this no-win situation? We have two choices, get out now with our tail between our legs as we did in Vietnam and feel really really embarrassed, or stay there and pretend we think the end result will be positive. Fcuk it, we'll stay there, let the next administration take the blame.
What is the alternative? I would have thought it pretty clear.
Now don't you worry your little head about it, just relax and go to sleep. Everything is going to be just fine..just fine...fine...you are getting sleepy,,, your eyelids are getting heavy.. when you wake up this will all be over and you won't remember a thing.
Thats it! But no, this is an abyss!
At 3AM this AM on the doggo (thats a nightshift for non-Aussies), a GOP senator brought out the 'trickle down' factor of the $700B.
What? The trickle down, haven't heard that in a while!
You see, by bailing out these Investment Banks, the money trickles down to the Commercial and Retail Banks so you can buy your TV, Couch and SUV on terms like last year...OK!!
It is OK isn't it?
The $700B will disappear. And then Calvin/Herbert, err sorry George the Lame Duck will want more with Mr Goldman-Sachs-Paulson and Blackhawk flanking him.
And then you say what?
The Republicans, airing only once in 1923-1933 have a repeat back by popular demand 2000 -?.
You have good research and linking skills. In fact, enough to generate two or three posts for every one post by anyone else. Why don't you find the Joint Resolution authorizing military force and post it for us.
I do know that for 12 years, the Iraq government obstructed inspections to which it had agreed, tortured and murdered its citizens, threatened peace in the region, violated UN resolutions, scoffed at the warnings of military action prior to the invasion unless it complied with the peace terms of 1991, and was suspected of possessing WMD. Maybe you can tell us what would have happened had Hussein not been stopped.
Was it worth it? Well, since we can't construct a parallel universe and determine what would have happened if Hussein were still in power, we don't know.
We only know it has been difficult, made more difficult because of lack of unity in prosecuting it, which to my way of thinking resulted in more loss of life among Iraqis and our own soldiers. Further, that lack of unity was motivated both by legitimate dissent, which I support, and politcal strategy to undermine the Bush administration for the purpose of gaining power, which I deplore.
You could ask the same questions about WWII. You can ask the same questions about Afghanistan. It would be nice if wars didn't occur. But sometimes war is a better option than acquiescence, wouldn't you agree? Sometimes a smaller war now can prevent a bigger war later.
Chuks is right. Whether or not the Iraq invasion was wise, Obama's solution to withdraw (i.e. surrender, lose) in 2006 would have been a disaster. I'm sorry you don't see that.
I do know that for 12 years, the Iraq government obstructed inspections to which it had agreed, tortured and murdered its citizens, threatened peace in the region, violated UN resolutions, scoffed at the warnings of military action prior to the invasion unless it complied with the peace terms of 1991, and was suspected of possessing WMD. Maybe you can tell us what would have happened had Hussein not been stopped.
Was it worth it? Well, since we can't construct a parallel universe and determine what would have happened if Hussein were still in power, we don't know.
BenThere, the best adjective I can come up with for that post is disingenuous.
To my knowledge, nobody here in the last seven years has claimed Saddam to be a model ruler. Perhaps you could compare each of your points to Mr Mugabe and tell me where the difference lies? We all know the answer lies in one three letter word.
Or perhaps you could tell us, in your own words,
Quote:
what would have happened had Hussein not been stopped.
Mugabe is different in that he is not a threat to either regional or world peace and stability, and he didn't invade another country, lose a war over it, and then fail to abide by the peace terms. I don't like Mugabe, either, but the two cases are vastly different.
Somewhat disingenuous of you as well, my friend, to single out that one issue, that Saddam was not a model ruler, among the many enumerated, that in the whole made the case for the invasion, and imply I'm hanging my hat on that issue.
Just as WMD was not the only issue, but has been rote repeated as such ad nauseum until the real set of issues have been obscured, but not erased, as perusal of the Joint Resolution referred to above, settles.
Before I joined your ex-employer recently (a few years ago) it was the military (18 years), followed by foreign ANSPs and MIL contractors for money and fun.
So...
Quote:
what would have happened had Hussein not been stopped.
These bastards needed an enemy. Any enemy. Its about Defence contracts. Its about fuelling defence contracts. Google military+industrial
Its the triangle of the Military-Industrial-Government interactive complex.
They are screwed.
Send me a PM and I'll send you a few charts (I did numerous securities courses in Nth AM).
Make your own decisions...The USA is in 30s level f8cked.
We are not entirely at loggerheads here, BenThere. Because Mugabe presides over a country without strategic interest to anyone else, whether he invaded another country, had a loud party or killed a lot of his own citizens in a racist bloodbath, it's clear that nobody really cares.
You are correct in implying Saddam was a threat to world security to the extent that he controlled a lot of oil, and if he threatened to keep that from the major consumer of oil they were never going to be happy.
My point, as you would well know, is that the WMD fabrication was a crock of shit. Had Bush (and I've stated this repeatedly over the years) had the guts to say "we are going to invade these camel riding bastards because they have what we need and are threatening our supply of it", in other words been honest, he may have garnered a lot more support. The liberals would still have hated him, but sometimes brutal honesty is admired.
I am consistent in my view that the average American couldn't point to Iraq on a map, let alone name their leader or articulate any reason why American troops should be dying there.
This war is as much a political face-saving exercise as Vietnam ever was. The end result, sadly, will be the same.
As a fellow member of a mushroom farm (we watch and iteract with blippy things in a dark room), why are you willing to waste $700B on this bunch of losers who will pay the execs to vamoose?
Calvin Coolidge II (Dubya) has ruined your country and is screwng mine.
A quadrillion? Sorry, my knowledge of high finance stretches only to Scrooge McDuck before the Beagle Boys hatched their nefarious plots, but can only imagine that quadrillions were "chump change".
Never mind, we have to have something to finance meaningless wars.
Linear Mode
