On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 19:56:34 -0400, Bill wrote:

Lazy Senior wrote:

Bill wrote:




And what if they had worded thus "Would you be willing to pay $666 so
that we can begin breaking up the radical muslim gang of thugs that
just killed 4000 innocent Americans and threaten to kill more?"


-BM


Dont try to re-write history, the Iraq War had nothing to do with 9-11

Then you explain to me why the US went into Iraq? To steal the oil from
them? Cuz Saddam threatened to kill Dubya's daddy? To build that
pipeline across the country to the Caspian Sea? (no, wait, that was
Afghanistan). Just to fill the pockets of Dubya and his cronies with cash?

All of the above.


Think like an mature adult. Iraq has nothing directly to do with Bali I
and II, Madrid bombings, London bombings, pushing Irving Klinghoffer off
of a cruise ship in his wheelchair, Beirut hostage taking, chopping off
Daniel Perl's head...on and on for the past 30 years. But what they DID
have was WMDs and a propensity

Ooohhh, propensity -- that's reason for a first strike. Better
hope no one gets the idea that our commander-in-thief has a
"propensity" for initiating a baseless war.

to use them against their own internal
enemies and a sympathy with the nutcases waging war against the West.
Its pretty clear that Saddam's Iraq had the MOST resources at the
disposal of factions like the 9/11 murderers and was a good place to
start.

You cannot separate 9/11 from today's Iraq. The little mini-incidents
that the radical muslims have perpetrated against the West pale in
comparison to the 4000 lives lost right here on US soil.

Your asshole is working overtime to disggorge a statistic like
that one.

To not do
something about it would be folly. If 9/11 had not occurred, we
wouldn't be there. In that sense Iraq has much to do with 9/11.

That is the most cynical ****ing piece of circular reasoning
I've ever seen. In other words, we're there because we launched a
baseless war with no connection to 9/11. Therefore we're there because
of 9/11. So much for your thinking "like a mature adult".



I respect the people who must make these bold decisions and the
foot-soldiers obliged to carry out the task.

Oh, Jesus -- another "My country -- right or wrong, my
country".

I'm neither a politician
or a military strategist

... nor much of a "mature adult" thinker.

- and subsequently I'm not a Monday Morning
Quarterback calling the game that isn't finished yet.

... and by decree of the head lunatic in charge, can never be
finished. You'll never get to put that jersey on, so burn it now.

I'm glad this
type of whining "it costs every taxpayer $xxx" didn't happen in 1944.
Back then "Blame America First" wasn't very fashionable.

Standard right-wing dick-waggling. The fascist righties are
always willing to cut a program for the less well off based on "my tax
money", but they'll willingly **** away a hundred thousand times more
of taxes when it goes to the foreign adventurism of a deranged
president and his war-profiteering cronies.



-Bill

On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 02:01:40 -0500, "Mark Oppat"
wrote:


Some wars are just, or at least have furthered our cause. WW2, we stopped a
madman. He rose to power because of injust WW1 sanctions against Germany,
but thats another story. Gulf war, we stopped a madman,

Wrong. I always wondered why Saddam didn't send Bush One a
note five years later saying, "I've still got my job. How you doin'?"



and created
another (Osama + Al Queida).

I'm done here. Too depressing...Back to our usual on topic discussions....


Mark Oppat


"

On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 11:45:41 GMT, "MIT"
wrote:

bad enough you have to hear this drivel on tv and in the papers from the liberal elite pantloads but here too?
"Peace in our time" comes to mind
mit

Poor widdle you -- why don't you buy a computer with a delete
key?


"Mark Oppat" wrote in message ...
| beerbarrel wrote...
| "I think we killed more than 20000 of those *******s....hopefully we
| will get even more."
|
|
| wow, this swerved way off...from UPS service to taxes to the war....totally
| off topic, sorry, just went down this path I have to say my last...
|
| *******s? most of the dead did nothing against us... ever. They just got
| in the way. You can be sure that their relatives want to hurt us, now!
| Why is it everyone else is an enemy until you meet them and realize they are
| human, just like us, they want to live and be prosperous. They have
| children, mothers, and fathers. A smaller group has taken up arms against
| us... and, for reasons you might agree with if you were there.
|
| Religion teaches there is absolute good and absolute evil, and thats what W
| and the other nuts that lead us into this believe. Big trouble, there.
| Well, guess what. No person, no country, no movement, just like no radio,
| is absolutely good or bad. There are very good reasons some of those Iraqis
| are against us. If you were raised there you might understand that. But
| rather than fix that, we made it worse. REmember, this war has NOTHING to
| do with Al Queida, except they like that we are wasting our time while we
| weaken ourselves and disaster recovery efforts.
|
| IF you could ask an insurgent why he's shooting, the # 1 answer is to
| protect his country from the invaiders, the "evil" USA. OK, that's not
| the smartest thought, but , thats what he believes. Hmm. If we werent
| there, the shooting would decrease. Yes, there will be some other war, now
| that we stirred the pot, but it has nothing to do with us. They gotta sort
| that out. No country is gonna be safe because of us.
|
| Hmmm. The "Coalition of the Willing? ... guess thats like putting up a
| sign that says "watch out for this sign".
|
| Not to mention the wounded, suffering slowly with no medical facilities,
| no one to help. Starving because they cant work and because we have
| destroyed what little support systems there were. Imagine that in your own
| neighborhood. Just try. War is hell, just ask any soldier.
|
| You DO understand that the Iraqi citizens never plotted to attack the USA,
| and had NO connection to Al Quieda. Too bad W , and much of the USA hawk
| populus still doesnt understand this. There was a nutcase leader. IF we
| needed to remove him, we could have done that pretty surgically, and not
| shot up and bombed the whole country. Remember, Saddam's followers
| deserted after his fall. They were ready to sign up with the new president,
| or whoever pays their salary, but we botched that up and let massive looting
| break out.
|
| When's the last time you heard W say "weapons of mass destruction"? Seems
| thats all he could say in 2002... kept at it. All the experts, and other
| national leaders, said, no. Well, Kim Jong Il sure has them.... hey,
| lets bomb him! Pre-emptive strike, right?
|
| George Sr. knew these problems. At least he had some foreign experience.
| He tried to talk W out of it, like he did Cheney and Rummy way back when.
| Dad turns out to be a genius next to W.
|
| Thats why our real enemies are succeeding. They know we will never take
| the time to understand our enemies. We like to shoot first and think later.
| That is why we will never "win" another war, including this mess.
|
| Meanwhile, the extremists everywhere else are laughing in joy at our
| failure, and why we are going to suffer further attacks for many many years
| to come.
|
| For how long Cheney and Rumsfeld were planning this, you'd think it was put
| together by some second grade art class.
|
| Think back to Vietnam.... what great positive change did we make in the
| world... while spending 50+ of our guys and how many $$$? "We defeated
| Communism!"
| Uh, I dont think so. It eventually defeated itself 20 years later.
|
| Some wars are just, or at least have furthered our cause. WW2, we stopped a
| madman. He rose to power because of injust WW1 sanctions against Germany,
| but thats another story. Gulf war, we stopped a madman, and created
| another (Osama + Al Queida).
|
| I'm done here. Too depressing...Back to our usual on topic discussions....
|
|
| Mark Oppat
|
|
| "
|
|
|

On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 15:07:50 -0500, Chuck Harris
wrote:



The president proposes the budget, but it is congress that legislates
the budget.

Don't make no nevermind -- the war costs are off-budget. Just
another "emergency".

It doesn't matter how sane the budget presented by the
White House is, after congress gets done adding their pork to it, it
is insane. I'm still looking for that line item veto...

He squandered it all, giving tax cuts to the rich and oil companies and
so on AND getting us into a war that we didnt need to start. Now we are
8 trillion in the hole with no end in sight.

Uh huh.

-Chuck

John:

The amount of $$ appropriated for the Gulf War to-date is ~averaging
4.8 billion-with-a-B dollars per month. Allow 24 months, that comes to:
$115,200,000,000 .

115,200,000,000/285,000,000 = $404/person.

As of November 5.

This does not count the thousands of contracts for 'infrastructure' and
other items. That total brings the cost-per-capita to around
$750/person excepting those employed by Haliburton.

I would still rather see that money spent in West Virginia for schools,
or Mississippi, or Louisiana, even Texas, Alabama or Arkansas. God help
us, even Camden, NJ. At least when my present-and-future grandchildren
are paying it back there will be a discernable benefit.

But that would be too much like thinking from an administration
bankrupt in that skill.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

In article . com, "Peter Wieck" wrote:
John:

The amount of $$ appropriated for the Gulf War to-date is ~averaging
4.8 billion-with-a-B dollars per month. Allow 24 months, that comes to:
$115,200,000,000 .

115,200,000,000/285,000,000 = $404/person.

As of November 5.

This does not count the thousands of contracts for 'infrastructure' and
other items. That total brings the cost-per-capita to around
$750/person excepting those employed by Haliburton.

I would still rather see that money spent in West Virginia for schools,
or Mississippi, or Louisiana, even Texas, Alabama or Arkansas. God help
us, even Camden, NJ. At least when my present-and-future grandchildren
are paying it back there will be a discernable benefit.

But that would be too much like thinking from an administration
bankrupt in that skill.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA


What is really important is how much of that money spent on the war,
goes directly back to the US citizens. Much of this money supplies
jobs right here.

greg

On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 14:24:51 GMT, (GregS) wrote:

In article . com, "Peter Wieck" wrote:
John:

The amount of $$ appropriated for the Gulf War to-date is ~averaging
4.8 billion-with-a-B dollars per month. Allow 24 months, that comes to:
$115,200,000,000 .

115,200,000,000/285,000,000 = $404/person.

As of November 5.

This does not count the thousands of contracts for 'infrastructure' and
other items. That total brings the cost-per-capita to around
$750/person excepting those employed by Haliburton.

I would still rather see that money spent in West Virginia for schools,
or Mississippi, or Louisiana, even Texas, Alabama or Arkansas. God help
us, even Camden, NJ. At least when my present-and-future grandchildren
are paying it back there will be a discernable benefit.

But that would be too much like thinking from an administration
bankrupt in that skill.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA


What is really important is how much of that money spent on the war,
goes directly back to the US citizens. Much of this money supplies
jobs right here.

greg



You are barking up the wrong tree Greg. Wieck could not see the truth
if it were painted on his face.

Greg:

I spent some time in the Middle East, with Haliburton being one of my
clients, amongst others. Sure, _some_ of the $$ goes back to the US in
the form of jobs. A good chunk of it goes back to the US in terms of
profits for the various companies. I suppose it could be argued that
those profits are spent in the US, so that could be a good thing as
well.

At the same time, the significant majority of the money is spent
in-country/in region for support services, labor, materials, etc.. Such
as the gasoline purchased at $0.73/gallon in Kuwait City and resold to
the US Military in Iraq (400 miles away) for $3.02 or so. I would
suggest that if 100% of this money were spent in the US for things that
actually benefit US citizens directly, perhaps the country as a whole
would be better for it? Just a thought.

It also gripes me some that the US Military is required to pay a 414%
mark-up for fuel and at the same time cannot deliver proper equipment
to the troops on the ground. Does it bother you that American Troops
are _still_ forced to scavenge junk yards for pieces of steel to
fabricate into armor? Does it bother you that private citizens, parents
and Veterans Groups are _still_ purchasing body armor OTC and sending
it to our military in Iraq because they are not getting that protection
directly? Does it bother you that the "military intervention" (since
war has not been declared) is neither fish-nor-fowl? That is, it is not
being pursued with any clear operating strategy and certainly no exit
strategy other than amorphous, ill-defined goals? There are not enough
troops to provide any level of safety either for common citizens or
even the troops themselves. There are too many not to provide regular
and easy targets to the tune of about 2.7 per day, on average,
fatalities. Not to mentioned wounded and crippled, not to mention US
citizens as private contractors in the region. And certainly not to
mention the innocent Iraqi citizens killed for no other reason than by
being in the wrong place at the wrong time... many of them even while
attempting to work for the overall betterment of their nation.

Introducing Democracy: What a naive and silly hope. A country
consisting of four rejected groups warring for over 1000 years, created
by the British and held together by a "strong-man" form of Government.
Don't the Balkans have ANY meaning any more? What happened when Tito
died? And what is the results today some 25 years later? It won't take
any 25 years in Iraq as the factions have hated each other for far
longer and the fights have been much more bitter.

The Shi'a were rejected by the Saudis.
The Sunn'a were rejected by the Iranians.
The Kurds were rejected by the Turks.
The Druze were rejected by the Jordanians (and are the forgotten sect
in the equation).

They all want homelands. They all more-or-less had tribal autonomy
before the Brits came along. They have all been fighting each other to
one degree or another for well over 1000 years. The parties are playing
the game, some even sincerely, until the 900 pound gorilla leaves. Then
you will see the reality of that region at the fullest. I truly hope to
be pleasantly surprised. I do not expect to be.

And we have not even begun to discuss the other countries in the
region. Iran (Farsi-speakers and NOT Arabs) fear a strong Iraq, Shi'a
or otherwise. The Saudis fear a Shi'a state to their immediate north,
especially one that is fundamentalist. The Turks are flatly terrified
of any sort of autonomous Kurdish zone on their southern border. And
the Jordanians are caught in a vice between whatever and Israel. It
ain't nohow pretty.

We need to quit mindlessly waving the flag and get down to cases as to
what _CAN_ be done. Within that range what _SHOULD _ be done, and
within that range, how much we are willing to suffer as a nation to
accomplish that. Sadly, however badly the war was conceived and whether
or not the so-called intelligence was manipulated maliciously or not,
the US is in there, by its presence it OWES that poor crushed country a
good result, yet that getting to that result appears to be beyond the
national will to deliver, even by those most actively defending our
presence there.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

"GregS" wrote in message
...
In article . com, "Peter
Wieck" wrote:
John:

The amount of $$ appropriated for the Gulf War to-date is ~averaging
4.8 billion-with-a-B dollars per month. Allow 24 months, that comes to:
$115,200,000,000 .

115,200,000,000/285,000,000 = $404/person.

As of November 5.

This does not count the thousands of contracts for 'infrastructure' and
other items. That total brings the cost-per-capita to around
$750/person excepting those employed by Haliburton.

I would still rather see that money spent in West Virginia for schools,
or Mississippi, or Louisiana, even Texas, Alabama or Arkansas. God help
us, even Camden, NJ. At least when my present-and-future grandchildren
are paying it back there will be a discernable benefit.

But that would be too much like thinking from an administration
bankrupt in that skill.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA


What is really important is how much of that money spent on the war,
goes directly back to the US citizens. Much of this money supplies
jobs right here.

lacking a real plan for the economy, the president chose a war. not the
best reason to go to war...

but hey, if it will help the economy, why dont we start two?

randy

Peter Wieck wrote:
John:

The amount of $$ appropriated for the Gulf War to-date is ~averaging
4.8 billion-with-a-B dollars per month. Allow 24 months, that comes to:
$115,200,000,000 .

115,200,000,000/285,000,000 = $404/person.

As of November 5.

This does not count the thousands of contracts for 'infrastructure' and
other items. That total brings the cost-per-capita to around
$750/person excepting those employed by Haliburton.

I would still rather see that money spent in West Virginia for schools...

Thanks very much but we have plenty of schools. We have so many that a
number are being closed. School consolidation is taking place. If
you'd like to send us something, we could use prime beef or Stilton cheese.

...or Mississippi, or Louisiana, even Texas, Alabama or Arkansas. God help
us, even Camden, NJ. At least when my present-and-future grandchildren
are paying it back there will be a discernable benefit.

"discernible"

I think we are seeing and will see such a benefit. I don't put a price
on my freedom.

But that would be too much like thinking from an administration
bankrupt in that skill.

You're an expert in foreign policy, are you?

I like a lot of folks much more when you're discussing boatanchors.

Dave Heil K8MN