posted
I'm a little confused. What do we "win" in this war? Why are we sacrificing our young people? Bush says we will stay till terrorism is defeated? Can that ever really happen? Dont terrorists do what they do just to draw attention to their plight? I dont think they hope to "win" anything. They dont fear death and isn't that our goal?---Or maybe our goal is oil--or world domination. All i see is hypocrisy and untruths. Dont the Bush's have huge oil interests in the middle east? Havent they had for many,many years? Dont all presidents lie for their own political gain? Is Bush intelligent? I'm I? He seems like a bit of a moron. Just an observation---just looking for some answers.
-------------------- jordan Posts: 5812 | From: st paul,mn | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Could you imagine what the markets would do if DC just shut down for a year... Dow 35,000 Naz 7,200 Greenspan leaving is some of the best news I heard in recent memory.
-------------------- Spend Word For Word With Me And I Shall Make Your Wit Bankrupt. Posts: 1326 | From: Here | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Hopefully, what we will win is the terrorists leaving us alone.
You do not defeat terrorists by giving in to them. The only thing that they understand is power.
These people are religious fanatics, the closest recent historical comparison that can be made is to the Japanese in WWII. They fought to the death without regard to their own lives. They fought in a manner in which they died in huge numbers compared to those killed. The only thing that compelled them to quit was overwhelming force and in the end, two nuclear bombs on thier cities.
I suspect the same will be required to end the Islamic terrorism. Will we do it, no, so we will continue this crap for decades.
The only other alternative is to get the muslems themselves to defeat the terrorists. Introducing democracy to the region is about the only hope of that. I give it a very small chance of succeeding.
Is this worth the "sacrifice" of out young men. As the alternative is sucicide bombers blowing up our restaurants and subway tunnels every time Congress is scheduled to vote on something concerning the middle east or an election comes up, I answer yes, it is worth the sacrifice.
What is the sacrifice? 2000 deaths in two and one half years. That is a very small price to pay. Put it into perspective. During WWII, this nation had less than half the population we have today. 132,457,000. In the Battle of the Bulge, a battle which lasted approximately 1 1/2 months and the United States had 19,000 killed.
Here at home.
In an average year, over 5000 pedestrians are killed by cars. The total dead on our highways each year is typically over 42,000.
In 2001, 14,500 died of poisoning, 14,200 by falls, 4200 by suffocation and 3900 died in fires.
In 2000, recreational boating caused 701 deaths.
Personally, I don't like one single soldier being killed in Iraq, but it is a job they volunteered for and were aware of the risks when they did so. The numbers being killed are very small and it is the media which is blowing these numbers way out of proportion. Had the media reacted in 1941 the way they do today, we never would have entered WWII. Japan would rule the entire Pacific and Germany would be the master of Europe.
Posts: 559 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
you may call it Monday mornig quarterbacking if you wish...
but the facts are pretty straightforward...
these guys (Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney, Jeb Bush, Forbes) wanted a war with Iraq. it is PUBLICLY documented as far back as 98, they used 911 to build general public suppport that was non-existant without 9-11, and then they failed to deliver a strategy that included how to actually win this war... i know the excuses, you can't predict what will happen in war, but you know what? this exact situation that we are in right now was predicted under the FIRST Bush admin...it's all there in writing all you have to do is go read it....
what do you see as a win in Iraq? i think the troops deserve to know what the heck they are fighting for....
my take on the day-to-day lives of the troops is they are fighting for each other over there...
troops have fought for each other thoughout history... the politics of it don't matter that much to guys in battle on a day-to-day basis...
what are they fighting for? for Iraq to be "free"? what does that mean?????
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Hopefully, what we will win is the terrorists leaving us alone." I feel that as long as america Fukks with everyone, everywhere, terrorism will never end. does the middle east need our religion? our doctrines? our MacDonalds? Is it our business? Shouldnt we be more concerned about our own? Couldnt we be a benevolent super power? Couldnt we use, completely, all the alternative sources for fuel we currently have? Of course we could! But we dont and wont. If we did? Most of our problems would disappear.
-------------------- jordan Posts: 5812 | From: st paul,mn | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jordan... America fukking with everyone is not what made us a target for islamic terrorists... Islam has had a desire to kill anyone not of their beliefs since the religion was created... ask the Hindus. Anyone who thinks Islam was a peacefull religion just sitting around for the last two thousand years smeling roses and worshipping allah is dead wrong... They have been waging their worthless jihad on the worl for two millenia now... NOT AMERICA'S FAULT.
-------------------- Spend Word For Word With Me And I Shall Make Your Wit Bankrupt. Posts: 1326 | From: Here | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
I wanted the war finished in 1991. I wanted a war the first time the UN inspectors were told they had to wait for a few days before being alowed to inspect a site. In other words, I've wanted this war OVER a long time ago. So it matters little that our leadership wanted a war in 1998.
I know it was predicted under George Bush Sr. I was one of the ones predicting it.
The war is over and it was won. What we have now is not a war but an insurgency. I realize that it is hard for people to understand the difference, but that is what it is. When Iraq has enough control over it's military, we can withdraw to our little enclaves and let them handle it. We don't want them going in unprepared, nor do we want them to collapse immediately after we withdraw.
The war was very well planned for and executed. The insurgency is not going poorly. It is continuing but it is not a quagmire or a disaster.
On whether all Muslems are our enemy. I don't believe all of them are. But a lot more of them are than are portrayed, and most of them would love to see the United States fail. Islam is not the innocent religion a lot of the media and Muslem leaders are portraying. When the terrorists claim they are doing what they do because of or for Islam, they are. I strongly recommend to anyone who doubts this to get a copy of the Koran and read it. It is not a religion of peace. It is a religion of conquest, violence and death of anyone opposed to them. You may have heard Muslem leaders saying it is a religion of peace, that they cannot make war on the people, lie to the people, etc. The "people" are Muslems. Everyone else is an infidel and is fair game. I attended an indoctrination session while in Saudi Arabia back in 1991, brought home all sorts of cassette tapes, pamplets, etc along with an official Koran (not all are) written in both Arabic and English. The Imans twisted their answers around so throughly they only way they could possibly accept them is to believe infailingly in them. When asked why more than one wife is allowed, their answer was that Christians all have mistresses. When asked about Jesus, their answer was that the was one of the most important prophets of Islam. Yet how many prophets of Islam have you heard of besides Muhamed? Jesus is in the Koran by the way, so it much of the Old Testament although it's been re-written. Many of the stories there will be somewhat familier to both Jews and Christians. According to the Imans, Jews and Christians are both fellow children of God, they have simply misinterpreted God's word. As such, they also said Muslems love the Jews and the Christians. Anyone else see an inconsistency there? It was a facinating meeting. I got rid of the tapes and pamplets a few years back. I tried to listen to them, read a few of the pamplets but they were so full of crap it wasn't worth it. An hour tape on how their way of "honoring" women is so much better than ours was too much to stomach.
jordanreed,
We are a benevolent superpower. We give more money to other nations and peoples around the world than probably every other nation combined. That includes the arabs and the Palestinians specifically. The Israelis give more money to the Palestinians than the rest of the Arab world combined.
It is not us, the United States, that is the problem. Do you believe that we deserved 9/11? The missle attacks on our naval ships in the gulf region, the attacks on our embassies?
I agree that we need to get better use of alternative fuels, to get energy independant and a lot of the problems would disappear for a little while.
What do you think will happen in the middle east when western civilization is energy independant, when another energy source replaces oil. Those nations will collapse. Oil is all they have. They will then be unleashed on the rest of the world as they have no where else to go.
We cannot isolate ourselves from the rest of the world. The world becomes progressively more interdependant with time.
The Middle East will have to be brought along with the rest of the world whether we like it or not. Hopefully, as energy sources change, they can be modernized as well so they can survive the change without resorting to further terrorism.
Posts: 559 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Then solve the problem jordan... join the terrorists and help them exterminate the problem... I will feel no sorrow when I see the rotting corpses of the terrorists and their supporters lying before me.
-------------------- Spend Word For Word With Me And I Shall Make Your Wit Bankrupt. Posts: 1326 | From: Here | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
They are not trying to exterminate us. They want us to wake up and see the error of our ways. and that is not religion, but the lack thereof. If we practiced religion, which I thought was peace and love, we might fare better in world view. I,m talking about Americas "manifest destiny" as our error."Manifest Destiny" was (and is) our Philosphy to destroy any resistance in our path toward total control of the final prize. In this case--a region. Ultimately, I fear it to be the world.
-------------------- jordan Posts: 5812 | From: st paul,mn | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't give a damn about world view... The majority of the world consists of shoeless toiletless third worlders who barely understand what a car is. How could I possibly care about the opinions of third worlders? This world is lead by America... has been for some time now... And will for the forseeable future.. I don't care if a terrorist religion views me as oppressive... I do NOT apologise for my sucsess.... And I don't give a damn that the barefoot heathens of this world view me as oppressive.
-------------------- Spend Word For Word With Me And I Shall Make Your Wit Bankrupt. Posts: 1326 | From: Here | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by RiescoDiQui: I don't give a damn about world view... The majority of the world consists of shoeless toiletless third worlders who barely understand what a car is. How could I possibly care about the opinions of third worlders? This world is lead by America... has been for some time now... And will for the forseeable future.. I don't care if a terrorist religion views me as oppressive... I do NOT apologise for my sucsess.... And I don't give a damn that the barefoot heathens of this world view me as oppressive.
I think I just found the problem
-------------------- jordan Posts: 5812 | From: st paul,mn | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
They don't want to exterminate us, they want us to all become muslems. Open both eyes and read the Koran.
How are we trying to control any particular region? Where has the United States taken over another nation or region and not turned it over to the people's own destiny in a short period of time?
We are a nation that has fought wars, quite a few of them actually, but wars of conquest were left behind long ago. The last war which we took territory was 1898 against Spain. Even in that war we took control of Cuba and the Phillipines. Cuba was granted independance within a couple of years, the Phillipines was on track for independance prior to WWII and was granted independance shortly after WWII. Puerto Rico has control over its own destiny. After WWII, we had control of Germany and Japan and all of Japan's pre-war territories. All those territories have since opted for either independance or outright citizenship.
So what are the error of our ways? Supporting Israel?. That's generally what it comes down too. If we let them destroy Israel (which they've failed to do numerous times) they will leave us alone? Hardly, you only have to look at the first attempt to take over the world. They once controlled most of Spain and south eastern Europe to Austria and were only stopped by force of arms.
Posts: 559 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
sorry- i was watching golf. I do not cry openly for the "ills of the third world" as you call them. I, however, do weep for the people who believe in the above quote. Why? I'm not really sure. it just seems like an uncaring and self-righteous and narrow view of the world as a whole, and a people specifically. However, not to piss you off, so thats only my opinion. I will only debate so far with this, as I have very little first hand knowledge. I have much to learn,even tho i am on the downside of 50, but i continue to try and open my mind to thoughts such as yours. Continue on....
-------------------- jordan Posts: 5812 | From: st paul,mn | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by RiescoDiQui: he will not answer the question strider... he is too busy crying for the ills of the third world.
the "war on terror" will never end, and must be calculated into all future budgets etc... so? assuming the that the war on terrorism is never-ending? i say any politician who invokes it as an excuse or a justification to behave badly should be fired... especially in the instance of calling anyone who disagrees with the prez "unpatriotic" in the war on terror....
i won't post anything from osambinalivetoolong but his war on US is economic in nature..he intends to bankrupt US with the financial burdens of waging this war.... killing people is just the means to the end to him, and right now? i don't like the financial situation is see...
taking out sadam THIS WAY is going to cost US over half a trillion dollars at least...maybe more...
there will always be someone else to replace al-queda when we do finally finish them off...which i expect we will do eventually...but not by fighting the way we have been....
the narco-terrorists are much better funded and much more of a danger to US than al-queda... and by the way? Afghanistan is the world leading producer of heroin NOW....
on 911 my FIRST assumption was that we had just been hit by a columbian drug cartel...we had just extradited one of their king-pins to Miami (i think it was) the week before.... of course i was wrong, but it wasn't an unrealistic speckelashun....
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
valid points glass. I just don't think the American economy is that fragile though. Usama's biggest problem now is that any future attacks (if they actually succeed) will not cause the ecenomical breakdown that 9-11 caused. On another point... people who disagree with the president on how to wage the war on terror are not unpatriotic... The ones trying desperately to re-write history are. Period. End of sentence.
-------------------- Spend Word For Word With Me And I Shall Make Your Wit Bankrupt. Posts: 1326 | From: Here | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Wars are generally good for economies. Doesn't mean it's a good reason to wage one, just a historical fact. WWII brought us out of the Great Depression.
A war this small isn't really large enough to help the economy, but negative reaction to it through constant negative bombardment by the left and the media is.
I never would have considered drug cartel terrorists. I wasn't aware they were doing anything outside their own countries. I automatically considered Bin Laden as he was fairly high profile on the terror front at the time.
I agree with RiescoDiQui that anyone who is attempting to rewright history for political motives is unpatriotic.
There are a lot of people going around, Cindy Sheehan being one, that say they are for the troops but not the war. That is bull. Their "cause" is hurting the moral of the troops in Iraq. Poor moral leads to increased mistakes and deaths. Their "cause" also gives the insurgents hope that they are succeeding, making them bolder. While I won't go so far as to call her unpatriotic, many around her are. As for her, she is incredibly naieve, emotionally out of control or just plain stupid.
Posts: 559 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Aragorn, the War = good economy deal is just a myth...WWII? Agriculture paid for that war, as explained in my definitive series in the Dallas Morning News way back in the '80s.
So you're saying when industry is booming, there is an extreme shortage of workers which results in women entering the workplace for the first time and the nation becomes an industrial giant, that is a myth.
I don't think so.
Posts: 559 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
i didn't read BUY TEX's peice, BUT? i do know that the recovery of the American economy had quite a bit to do with building the explosivs factories which ended up being used to manufacture fertiliser....which ended up making mechanised farming a worthwhile venture, so on and so forth...
personally? i miss the
HEAVY HORSES
WW2 did stimulate a dead economy, but it got dead because of ultra-conservatives, and too much BORROWING (sound familiar?)... it is no coincidence IMO that the depression started during prohibition...
Eisenhowers national hiway project was a second outgrowth of the war..he started a hiway building craze, increased the demand for cars so and so etc... it got started as a way to get munitions to ports quickly..
war in and of itself doesn't help an economy...esp this new "trickle out" economy....
Reagan had a decent trickle down economic plan...these new conservatives are sending all our money and jobs overseas...hence? i call it the "trickle out" economy..... and that was Bush the Firsts "big idea", it has gained steam steadily since...it is now a full blown sucking chest wound IMO....
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ford to cut 4000 white collar jobs? yeah, our economy is doing great..... GM to cut 30,000 jobs?
i wonder if this plan is still in effect? the news is 6 months old now.... maybe they thought we'd forget?
Carmaker GM raises China stakes GM car GM sold 178,000 cars in China between January and April Car giant General Motors has unveiled plans for a massive investment boost in China, in a major vote of confidence for the Chinese economy.
GM said it would spend $3bn in an effort to double its capacity in China over the next three years.
The move comes despite fears that China's fast-growing economy could face an abrupt slowdown in the months ahead.
posted
After WW 11 who in Europe had any where near full industrial capacity left we were the only nation with that saving grace and most all of Europe needed everything you can imagin, we were there to supply it for the next 25 years different story now.
Posts: 6008 | From: phoenix az | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Interstate Highway system is not there to make you driving easier and the regulations stating lane widths, bridge clearing heights, etc., do not exists because any good republicans in congress wanted to make your trip to Aunt Berth's funeral easier.
When time after time, the congressional republicans blocked programs to provide jobs for the generation that fought the war and refused to fund the US Highway system, President Eisenhower cooked up a scheme to kill two birds with one stone. Plotting with some Pentagon brass, it was proposed that in the defence of the US from Russian threat, ICBMs were necessary and the existing roads were not adequate to transport them around the country. Thus, as a part of the Defense Budget (where it remains to this day) the Interstate Highway System needed to be built to specifications that allowed the ICBMs of the day to be carried over them by truck. (Those same republicans, that didn't care enough to make the GIs able to support a family and would still have us driving on rutted mud routes, didn't dare oppose a bill funding defences against their hated enemy commie devils.)
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
You really need to research things before you post them.
Eisenhower was a Republican who proposed the funding of an interstate system. The reasons were varied and included safety concerns, economic benefits and speed and efficiency of movement. This last was a benefit to the military and the roads were also to serve as emergency landing strips in time of war. As ICBM's were not operational until 1959, they were not a consideration in the planning of the highways. Eisenhower as a military man, had experience in the movement of troops and their support. He also witnessed first hand the ease of movement afforded by Germanys autobahn system.
The Democrats controlled Congress at the time so any obstruction to Eisenhower's plan came from them, not the Republicans. They put forward three different bills which countered Eisenhower's plan and it was these bills which eventually created the Interstate system.
Posts: 559 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by jordanreed: We are the problem. open the other eye
i am so sick and tired of hearing people in the US blaming the US for everything wrong in the world. maybe you should move your i hate america azz out of the greatest country in the world.
I am a very proud republican but i miss the kennedy era.ask what you can do for your country. if all you have to say about the country that i love. is that everything is our fault then get the hell out.
Posts: 629 | From: new england | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sorry---it seems that, maybe, you are the problem. I was born here, served my country, pay my taxes and have every right in the world to criticize it. That is my right. I see all sorts of problems and if I refused to, then I,too, am part of the problem. If you love it, then help it. it is in deep shiit. take part of that "holier than thou" attitude and turn it into something less rhetorical. Do something to help! "Might is right" huh? Proud republican? Gimme a break.
-------------------- jordan Posts: 5812 | From: st paul,mn | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
i'm not willing to bet that the "love it or leave it" people were packing their bags under the clinton admin...LOL no, i bet they were playing the market for all it was worth...
anybody unwilling to acknowledge a problem is doomed to live with it, and pass it on to their children...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I see many problems... all of those problems can be traced to laziness. People think government should do everything for them... then bitch about how it is done. Beggars can't be choosers.
-------------------- Spend Word For Word With Me And I Shall Make Your Wit Bankrupt. Posts: 1326 | From: Here | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
check this out... we are watching this pretty closely here in MS.....
Brazil expected the appeal. The country maintains that U.S. cotton producers received $12.47 billion in subsidies from August 1999 to July 2003, spurring overproduction and lowering world prices by almost 13 percent.
which is that? laziness or greed? and while i am all for maintianing a strong agricultural system in the US? i think we are seeing the small guys get squeezed out by corporate farmers who are getting subsidies?
why are there agicultural subsidies in in a "free market" esp a non-food market like cotton?
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The world's wealthiest countries combined paid $257 billion in support to their farmers in 2003, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development said. The 25-nation European Union doled out the most at $121.4 billion, followed by the United States at $38.9 billion. U.S. cotton subsidies reached $3.31 billion in 2002, the last year included in Brazil's case, and then declined to $2.89 billion in 2003 and an estimated $1.66 billion for 2004, according to U.S. Farm Service Agency data.
so is that welfare? heck, i'd like a "subsidy" too
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
yes... laziness. Instead of adapting to the times, old farmers whine and get subsidized by the government. A hundred years ago most of the economy was farming... now it is like one percent... Instead of demanding that these farmers change with the times, we now pay them not to farm. That is lazy on our part and on the farmers part.
-------------------- Spend Word For Word With Me And I Shall Make Your Wit Bankrupt. Posts: 1326 | From: Here | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
