On Nov 1, 7:06*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
Pay someone's rent and you are flushing wealth down a hole.

I would prefer that to seeing them sleeping in the park/freezing to
death.

It's tough to find work when you have no address.

I further hold that, in the main, it is misguided government programs that
keep the poor in their condition or, in fact, enlarge their numbers.

By keeping them from starving?

I am amazed at the number of people who can imagine a hungry child and
say, "**** you" because it's parents are poor/shiftless/drug addled.
-----

- gpsman

gpsman wrote:

By keeping them from starving?

I am amazed at the number of people who can imagine a hungry child and
say, "**** you" because it's parents are poor/shiftless/drug addled.
-----


That calls for an empathetic governmental intervention.

The child should be removed and placed in an orphanage until a suitable
adoption can be arranged.

On 11/1/2011 1:28 PM, gpsman wrote:
(snip)

I am amazed at the number of people who can imagine a hungry child and
say, "**** you" because it's parents are poor/shiftless/drug addled.

And there is the rub- you can't take it out on the kid because it picked
poor parents, but throwing money at the parents often helps the kid
little, and enables the parents to maintain bad habits. I'd say take the
kid away and give it to parents who will do a better job, but I haven't
seen anyone I would trust to make those decisions. The government? The
Church? Past history for both those groups indicates otherwise.

Gotta break the cycle somehow, though. If mother nature does it, it will
NOT be pretty.

--
aem sends...

On Nov 2, 12:09*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
gpsman wrote:

By keeping them from starving?

I am amazed at the number of people who can imagine a hungry child and
say, "**** you" because it's parents are poor/shiftless/drug addled.
*-----

That calls for an empathetic governmental intervention.

The child should be removed and placed in an orphanage until a suitable
adoption can be arranged.

The ultimate socialism.
To do that is even more expensive than financing the parents.

"gpsman" wrote in message
...
On Nov 1, 7:06 am, "HeyBub" wrote:
Pay someone's rent and you are flushing wealth down a hole.

I would prefer that to seeing them sleeping in the park/freezing to death.

So would I. It's also important to note that when the government pays
someone's rent, it doesn't go "poof" and vanish into thin air. It goes to a
landlord, most likely in the middle or upper middle class who makes a profit
and buys more rental property with it. It's a transfer of wealth from the
rich to the poor back to the rich again.

It's tough to find work when you have no address.

Once a person loses their job, lots of bad processes begin. Now companies
are refusing to hire anyone who's been out of work - they'll only hire
people currently employed. How is anyone expected to be upwardly mobile
with a fix like that working against them? Maybe they can just materialize
$4 or 8K out of HeyBub's magic corn to go to college during the down time of
being unemployed.

I further hold that, in the main, it is misguided government programs that
keep the poor in their condition or, in fact, enlarge their numbers.

By keeping them from starving?

HeyBub holds a lot of things that aren't true, can't be proved or otherwise
have fatal flaws in them large enough to sail the Queen Mary through. He's
remarkable in that he keeps coming up with more and more bizarro ideas, like
his concept of how wealth is created.

After decades of good times, people can't remember the Watts or DC riots and
the destruction they caused. When people have no stake in the society
around them and nothing left to lose, they behave that way and seek to bring
everyone down to their level. We're approaching that situation as another
wave of foreclosures and homelessness is predicted. We surely could have
used the trillions we spent destroying Iraqi wealth on retraining programs
for American workers but our priorities are very, very messed up, as you've
noted. We blame poor kids for being born to crackheads and idiot parents
without ever realizing that "There but for the grace of God go I."

I am amazed at the number of people who can imagine a hungry child and
say, "**** you" because it's parents are poor/shiftless/drug addled.

Me too. Study after study has shown that what people attribute to their
superior intelligence is more often just better than average luck. People
who've got it good here seem to forget that they got a big leg up over most
people in the world just by being born here. It's a lot easier to become a
self-made man in America than it would be if you were born into the
untouchable class in India where people born shoveling shi+ usually die
shoveling shi+. That's because a lot of Americans before us worked hard and
many of them died to protect this country from the likes of the Third Reich
and the Japanese in WWII.

What really riles me is when people say: "We are all born equal." If that's
true, why do the children of uber-wealthy parents attend Harvard, drive
Ferraris or jet-set on the Riviera? Because they had a tremendous leg up on
most other people through inherited wealth that they did nothing to deserve
except by being lucky enough to be born into it.

--
Bobby G.

On Nov 2, 1:17*pm, "Robert Green" wrote:
"gpsman" wrote in message

...
On Nov 1, 7:06 am, "HeyBub" wrote:

Pay someone's rent and you are flushing wealth down a hole.

I would prefer that to seeing them sleeping in the park/freezing to death.

So would I. *It's also important to note that when the government pays
someone's rent, it doesn't go "poof" and vanish into thin air. *It goes to a
landlord, most likely in the middle or upper middle class who makes a profit
and buys more rental property with it. *It's a transfer of wealth from the
rich to the poor back to the rich again.

It's tough to find work when you have no address.

Once a person loses their job, lots of bad processes begin. *Now companies
are refusing to hire anyone who's been out of work - they'll only hire
people currently employed. *How is anyone expected to be upwardly mobile
with a fix like that working against them? *Maybe they can just materialize
$4 or 8K out of HeyBub's magic corn to go to college during the down time of
being unemployed.

I further hold that, in the main, it is misguided government programs that
keep the poor in their condition or, in fact, enlarge their numbers.

By keeping them from starving?

HeyBub holds a lot of things that aren't true, can't be proved or otherwise
have fatal flaws in them large enough to sail the Queen Mary through. *He's
remarkable in that he keeps coming up with more and more bizarro ideas, like
his concept of how wealth is created.

After decades of good times, people can't remember the Watts or DC riots and
the destruction they caused. *When people have no stake in the society
around them and nothing left to lose, they behave that way and seek to bring
everyone down to their level. *We're approaching that situation as another
wave of foreclosures and homelessness is predicted. *We surely could have
used the trillions we spent destroying Iraqi wealth on retraining programs
for American workers but our priorities are very, very messed up, as you've
noted. *We blame poor kids for being born to crackheads and idiot parents
without ever realizing that "There but for the grace of God go I."

I am amazed at the number of people who can imagine a hungry child and
say, "**** you" because it's parents are poor/shiftless/drug addled.

Me too. *Study after study has shown that what people attribute to their
superior intelligence is more often just better than average luck. *People
who've got it good here seem to forget that they got a big leg up over most
people in the world just by being born here. *It's a lot easier to become a
self-made man in America than it would be if you were born into the
untouchable class in India where people born shoveling shi+ usually die
shoveling shi+. *That's because a lot of Americans before us worked hard and
many of them died to protect this country from the likes of the Third Reich
and the Japanese in WWII.

What really riles me is when people say: "We are all born equal." *If that's
true, why do the children of uber-wealthy parents attend Harvard, drive
Ferraris or jet-set on the Riviera? *Because they had a tremendous leg up on
most other people through inherited wealth that they did nothing to deserve
except by being lucky enough to be born into it.

--
Bobby G.

So at death, the government should seize all assets for redistribution
or in lieu of other taxation?

On Nov 2, 2:01*pm, harry wrote:
On Nov 2, 1:17*pm, "Robert Green" wrote:

What really riles me is when people say: "We are all born equal." *If that's
true, why do the children of uber-wealthy parents attend Harvard, drive
Ferraris or jet-set on the Riviera? *Because they had a tremendous leg up on
most other people through inherited wealth that they did nothing to deserve
except by being lucky enough to be born into it.

So at death, the government should seize all assets for redistribution
or in lieu of other taxation?

No, Hee Haw, what he's clearly saying is that the rich should have
their wealth buried with them. Sheesh.

R

Robert Green wrote:

HeyBub holds a lot of things that aren't true, can't be proved or
otherwise have fatal flaws in them large enough to sail the Queen
Mary through. He's remarkable in that he keeps coming up with more
and more bizarro ideas, like his concept of how wealth is created.

Okay, I'll play. How do YOU think that wealth is created? Or is it your
contention that the amount of wealth in society is relatively fixed but
maldistributed?


After decades of good times, people can't remember the Watts or DC
riots and the destruction they caused. When people have no stake in
the society around them and nothing left to lose, they behave that
way and seek to bring everyone down to their level.

I don't think they wanted to bring people down so much as they wanted a
color TV.

We're
approaching that situation as another wave of foreclosures and
homelessness is predicted. We surely could have used the trillions
we spent destroying Iraqi wealth on retraining programs for American
workers but our priorities are very, very messed up, as you've noted.

Slight correction: The Iraqi war did not cost trillions; the latest number
I've seen is in the neighborhood of $800 billion. In war costs.

What really riles me is when people say: "We are all born equal." If
that's true, why do the children of uber-wealthy parents attend
Harvard, drive Ferraris or jet-set on the Riviera? Because they had
a tremendous leg up on most other people through inherited wealth
that they did nothing to deserve except by being lucky enough to be
born into it.

That, and their parents had the foresight to set aside sufficient to provide
the best for their children. Some parents, as you know, get a motorcycle and
disappear.

"aemeijers" wrote in message
...
On 11/1/2011 1:28 PM, gpsman wrote:
(snip)

I am amazed at the number of people who can imagine a hungry child and
say, "**** you" because it's parents are poor/shiftless/drug addled.

And there is the rub- you can't take it out on the kid because it picked
poor parents, but throwing money at the parents often helps the kid
little, and enables the parents to maintain bad habits. I'd say take the
kid away and give it to parents who will do a better job, but I haven't
seen anyone I would trust to make those decisions. The government? The
Church? Past history for both those groups indicates otherwise.

My sister's a juvenile court judge. I'd trust her to determine when the
birth parents had crossed over the line and to be able to evaluate the
fitness of adoptive parents. My sense is that juvenile judges are under
enormous institutional and social pressure to always return the kids to the
birth parents, often after a temporary situation where a parent must
complete some sort of course/class in parenting.

I don't think you'd be surprised at how poorly some of these people score on
their intake exams into such programs. Their parents did a ****-poor job of
raising them so it's no surprise they aren't great parents to their own
kids. Some things can be fixed, like lack of knowledge and most parenting
class graduates have significantly higher exit than entrance scores.

Other things, like explosive tempers, a propensity towards drinking or drug
abuse or boderline personality disorder usually don't change very much of at
all.

That's why I think that parents that have those issues shouldn't get their
kids back after a serious episode of abuse of any kind. I guess it's too
much like profiling and not politically correct to say: society has a
strong interest in bad people not raising what all too often become second
generation bad people.

--
-Bobby G.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
Robert Green wrote:

HeyBub holds a lot of things that aren't true, can't be proved or
otherwise have fatal flaws in them large enough to sail the Queen
Mary through. He's remarkable in that he keeps coming up with more
and more bizarro ideas, like his concept of how wealth is created.

Okay, I'll play. How do YOU think that wealth is created? Or is it your
contention that the amount of wealth in society is relatively fixed but
maldistributed?

You must have thought I was kidding about the chicken and egg example, but
THAT is an incredibly accurate model of the creation of wealth. In its most
simple form, raw materials + work = wealth. Whether you are making eggs
from corn feed, necklaces from stone beads, spearheads from flint or
gasoline from crude oil you are taking a raw material and "adding value" to
it. You might recognize that phrase from the Euro-tax called,
appropriately, a VAT (value added tax). What they are trying to capture
with the VAT is the "moment" when wealth is created.

I don't think that the current wealth distribution is fixed or is some
zero-sum game. I just don't think it is headed in a good direction. It's
not healthy for any country to get into a situation where money gravitates
so much out of the hands of the consumers that propel the economy. Without
a steady stream of consumers there's no growth. Growth is what makes the
deficit go away. Growth makes tax cuts actually produce revenue rather than
add to the deficit. Growth keeps investment strong and unemployment low.
When money pools at the top, it's no longer in the hands of people who
actually spend money, it's in the hands of people who collect it. The
system stalls because it's geared to consumer spending.

Ironically, taking some of the huge upper end income and redistributing it
to the poor via taxation would actually help the rich in the long run by
re-starting the stalled economy. The rich can make enormous amounts of
money in a good economy by lending it out. Now, no one's lending, no one's
borrowing, no one's buying.

The rich can wait it out, the poor, not so much. That's why the much
maligned Obama jobs bill would help get the economy moving forward. It
would put money in the hands of consumers who would spend it, sending a
signal to business that consumer spending and confidence levels were rising
and they would begin to invest in expansion or new products. There isn't a
Republican politician that doesn't know that, but they're pandering to the
fear that somebody's going to get something for nothing

Looking at the Japanese experience, we know that these doldrums could last
at least 10 years and perhaps more because of the general world malaise.
Now I realize that there's moral hazard in giving money to the poor for
doing nothing, which is why such redistribution and "pump priming" should be
accomplished through a jobs or re-training program. If the Republicans do
win in 2012, I suspect they will then do all the things they are preventing
Obama from doing now.

After decades of good times, people can't remember the Watts or DC
riots and the destruction they caused. When people have no stake in
the society around them and nothing left to lose, they behave that
way and seek to bring everyone down to their level.

I don't think they wanted to bring people down so much as they wanted a
color TV.

In that case, they were bringing themselves up to the level of society they
feel excluded from. (-: Looters (wealth redistributors) are a separate
class from arsonists and hooligans (wealth destroyers). They're in the same
mob, but their motivations are very different.

We're
approaching that situation as another wave of foreclosures and
homelessness is predicted. We surely could have used the trillions
we spent destroying Iraqi wealth on retraining programs for American
workers but our priorities are very, very messed up, as you've noted.

Slight correction: The Iraqi war did not cost trillions; the latest number
I've seen is in the neighborhood of $800 billion. In war costs.

I've seen mostly other, much larger numbers. I trust my Federal Government
to lie to me and conceal the true and enormous costs as it has been doing
all along. Independent studies by a panel of experts comes up with far
different figures than your citation - wait, you HAVE no citation. The CBO
expects the health care costs alone for wounded vets to come close to a
trillion so immediately your number is quite suspect.

http://www.google.com/search?q=true+...f+the+Iraq+war

pick any. Find a credible one at $800B

a.. Cost of war at least $3.7 trillion and counting | Reuters
Jun 29, 2011 ... NEW YORK (Reuters) - When President Barack Obama cited cost
as a ...
Staggering as it is, that figure grossly underestimates the total cost of
wars in Iraq,
.... of accounting is common but too narrow to measure the real costs. ...

http://www.reuters.com/article/.../u...75S25320110629 - Cached -
Similar

I know you'd like to minimize the tab that a Republican President ran up.
(What a surprise, son of rich parents spending other people's money like
water. Who could have *ever* seen that coming?) But facts are once again
getting in the way of your assertions. We spent ourselves deep into a
financial hole by massive war spending. The people responsible are now
pointing fingers at everyone they can to try to take the heat off of them.
What a surprise!

What really riles me is when people say: "We are all born equal." If
that's true, why do the children of uber-wealthy parents attend
Harvard, drive Ferraris or jet-set on the Riviera? Because they had
a tremendous leg up on most other people through inherited wealth
that they did nothing to deserve except by being lucky enough to be
born into it.

That, and their parents had the foresight to set aside sufficient to
provide
the best for their children. Some parents, as you know, get a motorcycle
and
disappear.

Well, just remember when you claim America as a land of upward mobility that
the stairway is getting steeper and narrower. The lower classes will have a
tougher and tougher time competing against kids born with an elevator pass.
When the Tea Party embraces the Founding Fathers, they should remember that
the FF's wrote down a lot of very idealistic proclamations, like "all men
are created equal" that don't correlate with our own experience of seeing a
world with thalidomide babies, crack babies, FAS babies, etc.

--
Bobby G.

Robert Green wrote:

Slight correction: The Iraqi war did not cost trillions; the latest
number I've seen is in the neighborhood of $800 billion. In war
costs.

I've seen mostly other, much larger numbers. I trust my Federal
Government to lie to me and conceal the true and enormous costs as it
has been doing all along. Independent studies by a panel of experts
comes up with far different figures than your citation - wait, you
HAVE no citation. The CBO expects the health care costs alone for
wounded vets to come close to a trillion so immediately your number
is quite suspect.

http://www.google.com/search?q=true+...f+the+Iraq+war

pick any. Find a credible one at $800B


Okay:
Christian Science Monitor
"Iraq war, now winding down with US troop exit by December, has cost more
than $800 billion so far. But ongoing medical treatment, replacement
vehicles, etc., will push costs to $4 trillion or more."
http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/ne...n-World-War-II

And the reason I have "no citation" is that I did not assert $800 billion as
a FACT, I merely said it was the "latest number I'd seen." I'm glad you dug
out some contrary examples.

On Nov 4, 5:22*am, "Robert Green" wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message

m...

Robert Green wrote:

HeyBub holds a lot of things that aren't true, can't be proved or
otherwise have fatal flaws in them large enough to sail the Queen
Mary through. *He's remarkable in that he keeps coming up with more
and more bizarro ideas, like his concept of how wealth is created.

Okay, I'll play. How do YOU think that wealth is created? Or is it your
contention that the amount of wealth in society is relatively fixed but
maldistributed?

You must have thought I was kidding about the chicken and egg example, but
THAT is an incredibly accurate model of the creation of wealth. *In its most
simple form, raw materials + work = wealth. *Whether you are making eggs
from corn feed, necklaces from stone beads, spearheads from flint or
gasoline from crude oil you are taking a raw material and "adding value" to
it. *You might recognize that phrase from the Euro-tax called,
appropriately, a VAT (value added tax). *What they are trying to capture
with the VAT is the "moment" when wealth is created.

I don't think that the current wealth distribution is fixed or is some
zero-sum game. *I just don't think it is headed in a good direction. *It's
not healthy for any country to get into a situation where money gravitates
so much out of the hands of the consumers that propel the economy. *Without
a steady stream of consumers there's no growth. Growth is what makes the
deficit go away. *Growth makes tax cuts actually produce revenue rather than
add to the deficit. *Growth keeps investment strong and unemployment low.

Good. Then given the above, you should be a big fan of Reagan's tax
cuts.
Yet in another post here you deny that those tax cuts produced strong
growth. And you constantly harp about RAISING tax rates.


When money pools at the top, it's no longer in the hands of people who
actually spend money, it's in the hands of people who collect it. *The
system stalls because it's geared to consumer spending.

Ironically, taking some of the huge upper end income and redistributing it
to the poor via taxation would actually help the rich in the long run by
re-starting the stalled economy. *The rich can make enormous amounts of
money in a good economy by lending it out. *Now, no one's lending, no one's
borrowing, no one's buying.

That's already being done. The top 1% of income earners pay 40% of
the total income tax burden. You obviously want it ALL. Perhaps you
should think about the other end of the equation. As you try to raise
their taxes, how much money is going to be pulled away from
INVESTMENT,
where it creates new businesses and jobs and poured down a rat hole
by the govt?




The rich can wait it out, the poor, not so much. *That's why the much
maligned Obama jobs bill would help get the economy moving forward.


Sure it would. Just like the last one, did right? That one was
twice as large. Funny how some never learn.



*It
would put money in the hands of consumers who would spend it, sending a
signal to business that consumer spending and confidence levels were rising
and they would begin to invest in expansion or new products.

I can just see the welfare mom buying jeans, toys or household goods
made in China as being a real boon to the US economy.



*There isn't a
Republican politician that doesn't know that, but they're pandering to the
fear that somebody's going to get something for nothing

Well, that's exactly what you are advocating, is it not? That
somebody
is going to get something for nothing via your income redistribution
scheme? And historically we know it produces bad results.




Looking at the Japanese experience, we know that these doldrums could last
at least 10 years and perhaps more because of the general world malaise.
Now I realize that there's moral hazard in giving money to the poor for
doing nothing, which is why such redistribution and "pump priming" should be
accomplished through a jobs or re-training program.

Looking at the Japanese experience, we know they racked up huge
govt debt engaged in exactly the type of stimulus you propose the USA
continue to do. And it didn't work.



*If the Republicans do
win in 2012, I suspect they will then do all the things they are preventing
Obama from doing now.

Don't be on it.



After decades of good times, people can't remember the Watts or DC
riots and the destruction they caused. *When people have no stake in
the society around them and nothing left to lose, they behave that
way and seek to bring everyone down to their level.

I don't think they wanted to bring people down so much as they wanted a
color TV.

In that case, they were bringing themselves up to the level of society they
feel excluded from. *(-: *Looters (wealth redistributors) are a separate
class from arsonists and hooligans (wealth destroyers). *They're in the same
mob, but their motivations are very different.

In addition to being a holocaust apologist, now you're also an
apologist
for looters.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
Robert Green wrote:

Slight correction: The Iraqi war did not cost trillions; the latest
number I've seen is in the neighborhood of $800 billion. In war
costs.

I've seen mostly other, much larger numbers. I trust my Federal
Government to lie to me and conceal the true and enormous costs as it
has been doing all along. Independent studies by a panel of experts
comes up with far different figures than your citation - wait, you
HAVE no citation. The CBO expects the health care costs alone for
wounded vets to come close to a trillion so immediately your number
is quite suspect.

http://www.google.com/search?q=true+...f+the+Iraq+war

pick any. Find a credible one at $800B


Okay:
Christian Science Monitor
"Iraq war, now winding down with US troop exit by December, has cost more
than $800 billion so far. But ongoing medical treatment, replacement
vehicles, etc., will push costs to $4 trillion or more."

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/ne...n-World-War-II

And the reason I have "no citation" is that I did not assert $800 billion
as
a FACT, I merely said it was the "latest number I'd seen." I'm glad you
dug
out some contrary examples.

Either way it's a case of "real money" that's going to dog us for quite a
while. )-: I think what I resent most is that I think we've been duped
into fighting proxy wars for folks like Saudi Arabia (who can damn well
finance their own stinking wars), Israel and even Iran, who has to be happy
that we've defanged their mortal enemies for them. We should be sending out
"world police work" invoices to all the parties that have benefitted from
having Saddam removed.

I always thought we should have just put a bounty on his head of a billion
bucks and let the whole world go "Wanted Dead or Alive" on him and his two
sons. Once they were gone, all we needed to do was convince numbers 4
through 7 of the remaining men in the Iraqi "line of succession" to take on
the job of ruling Iraq. With one caveat: "Don't make us issue another
billion dollar bounty on YOU and promote the NEXT three guys in line. It's
what we end up doing, but at a cost that makes a billion in bounty money
look like the deal of the century.

--
Bobby G.

"Robert Green" wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in message

You must have thought I was kidding about the chicken and egg example, but
THAT is an incredibly accurate model of the creation of wealth. In its most
simple form, raw materials + work = wealth.

You forgot capital. Somebody needs to provide the money to buy the chicken
coop, chickens, and feed. -- Doug

On Nov 4, 7:09*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
Robert Green wrote:

Slight correction: The Iraqi war did not cost trillions; the latest
number I've seen is in the neighborhood of $800 billion. In war
costs.

I've seen mostly other, much larger numbers. I trust my Federal
Government to lie to me and conceal the true and enormous costs as it
has been doing all along. * Independent studies by a panel of experts
comes up with far different figures than your citation - wait, you
HAVE no citation. *The CBO expects the health care costs alone for
wounded vets to come close to a trillion so immediately your number
is quite suspect.

http://www.google.com/search?q=true+...f+the+Iraq+war

pick any. *Find a credible one at $800B

Okay:
Christian Science Monitor
"Iraq war, now winding down with US troop exit by December, has cost more
than $800 billion so far. But ongoing medical treatment, replacement
vehicles, etc., will push costs to $4 trillion or more. "http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/new-economy/2011/1025/Iraq-war-will...

And the reason I have "no citation" is that I did not assert $800 billion as
a FACT, I merely said it was the "latest number I'd seen." I'm glad you dug
out some contrary examples.

Three things.
1). There's little use in asking why you ignore the overall cost of
the war and focus on only a part. That is akin to saying your yearly
car cost is 12x your monthly payment, and ignoring gas and repairs.
2). Your facts and citations have yet to be proven facts or valid.
3). If you're going to play games, make them good games. Stupid
games are not good games.

R

Robert Green wrote:

Either way it's a case of "real money" that's going to dog us for
quite a while. )-: I think what I resent most is that I think we've
been duped into fighting proxy wars for folks like Saudi Arabia (who
can damn well finance their own stinking wars), Israel and even Iran,
who has to be happy that we've defanged their mortal enemies for
them. We should be sending out "world police work" invoices to all
the parties that have benefitted from having Saddam removed.

I think the First Gulf War actually turned a profit for us.


I always thought we should have just put a bounty on his head of a
billion bucks and let the whole world go "Wanted Dead or Alive" on
him and his two sons. Once they were gone, all we needed to do was
convince numbers 4 through 7 of the remaining men in the Iraqi "line
of succession" to take on the job of ruling Iraq. With one caveat:
"Don't make us issue another billion dollar bounty on YOU and promote
the NEXT three guys in line. It's what we end up doing, but at a
cost that makes a billion in bounty money look like the deal of the
century.

We did that for Osama ben Laden. Didn't work worth squat.

RicodJour wrote:
On Nov 4, 7:09 am, "HeyBub" wrote:
Robert Green wrote:

Slight correction: The Iraqi war did not cost trillions; the latest
number I've seen is in the neighborhood of $800 billion. In war
costs.

I've seen mostly other, much larger numbers. I trust my Federal
Government to lie to me and conceal the true and enormous costs as
it has been doing all along. Independent studies by a panel of
experts comes up with far different figures than your citation -
wait, you HAVE no citation. The CBO expects the health care costs
alone for wounded vets to come close to a trillion so immediately
your number is quite suspect.

http://www.google.com/search?q=true+...f+the+Iraq+war

pick any. Find a credible one at $800B

Okay:
Christian Science Monitor
"Iraq war, now winding down with US troop exit by December, has cost
more
than $800 billion so far. But ongoing medical treatment, replacement
vehicles, etc., will push costs to $4 trillion or more.
"http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/new-economy/2011/1025/Iraq-war-will...

And the reason I have "no citation" is that I did not assert $800
billion as
a FACT, I merely said it was the "latest number I'd seen." I'm glad
you dug
out some contrary examples.

Three things.
1). There's little use in asking why you ignore the overall cost of
the war and focus on only a part. That is akin to saying your yearly
car cost is 12x your monthly payment, and ignoring gas and repairs.
2). Your facts and citations have yet to be proven facts or valid.
3). If you're going to play games, make them good games. Stupid
games are not good games.


You must be an athiest to deny the Christian Science Monitor!

I didn't "ignore" the other costs. I reported what the war was reported to
have cost. Period.

Oh, by the way, have you found a popular uprising in history instigated and
run entirely by the poor?

You recall I claimed such was rare to nonexistent. You laughed and called me
names similar to the above.

I assume you're still looking (just as I'm still looking for my copy of The
True Believer).

On Nov 4, 10:37*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
RicodJour wrote:
On Nov 4, 7:09 am, "HeyBub" wrote:
Robert Green wrote:

Slight correction: The Iraqi war did not cost trillions; the latest
number I've seen is in the neighborhood of $800 billion. In war
costs.

I've seen mostly other, much larger numbers. I trust my Federal
Government to lie to me and conceal the true and enormous costs as
it has been doing all along. Independent studies by a panel of
experts comes up with far different figures than your citation -
wait, you HAVE no citation. The CBO expects the health care costs
alone for wounded vets to come close to a trillion so immediately
your number is quite suspect.

http://www.google.com/search?q=true+...f+the+Iraq+war

pick any. Find a credible one at $800B

Okay:
Christian Science Monitor
"Iraq war, now winding down with US troop exit by December, has cost
more
than $800 billion so far. But ongoing medical treatment, replacement
vehicles, etc., will push costs to $4 trillion or more.
"http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/new-economy/2011/1025/Iraq-war-will....

And the reason I have "no citation" is that I did not assert $800
billion as
a FACT, I merely said it was the "latest number I'd seen." I'm glad
you dug
out some contrary examples.

Three things.
1). *There's little use in asking why you ignore the overall cost of
the war and focus on only a part. *That is akin to saying your yearly
car cost is 12x your monthly payment, and ignoring gas and repairs.
2). *Your facts and citations have yet to be proven facts or valid.
3). *If you're going to play games, make them good games. *Stupid
games are not good games.

You must be an athiest to deny the Christian Science Monitor!

I didn't "ignore" the other costs. I reported what the war was reported to
have cost. Period.

I'd also point out that the "cost" of the two wars is most often
brought
up here in the context of it being the prime cause of the govts
current
$14tril debt. In that context, the wars cost about $1.3tril. to
date. The
higher numbers factor in all kinds of additonal costs, some that are
legitimate, some that are pure speculative numbers pulled from the
air by folks who have a clear agenda. Most of those additional costs
are FUTURE costs as well, so even if they do indeed have to be paid
someday, they are not the cause of the $4tril in new debt we have
added in just the last two years or the major cause of the $14tril
debt.

Examples of those additional costs include future medical payments
for vets, which is legitimate. Others are not so legitimate, like
claiming
that increases in other parts of the defense budget over the last 10
years should be attributed to Iraq. Or factoring in some magical
"macroeconomic number", which is supposed to be the cost to the
rest of the economy from the wars.


Oh, by the way, have you found a popular uprising in history instigated and
run entirely by the poor?

You recall I claimed such was rare to nonexistent. You laughed and called me
names similar to the above.

I assume you're still looking (just as I'm still looking for my copy of The
True Believer).- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Nov 5, 8:26*am, "
wrote:
On Nov 4, 10:37*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
RicodJour wrote:
On Nov 4, 7:09 am, "HeyBub" wrote:

And the reason I have "no citation" is that I did not assert $800
billion as
a FACT, I merely said it was the "latest number I'd seen." I'm glad
you dug
out some contrary examples.

Three things.
1). *There's little use in asking why you ignore the overall cost of
the war and focus on only a part. *That is akin to saying your yearly
car cost is 12x your monthly payment, and ignoring gas and repairs.
2). *Your facts and citations have yet to be proven facts or valid.
3). *If you're going to play games, make them good games. *Stupid
games are not good games.

You must be an athiest to deny the Christian Science Monitor!

I didn't "ignore" the other costs. I reported what the war was reported to
have cost. Period.

I'd also point out that the "cost" of the two wars is most often
brought
up here in the context of it being the prime cause of the govts
current
$14tril debt. * *In that context, the wars cost about $1.3tril. to
date. *The
higher numbers factor in all kinds of additonal costs, some that are
legitimate, some that are pure speculative numbers pulled from the
air by folks who have a clear agenda. *Most of those additional costs
are FUTURE costs as well, so even if they do indeed have to be paid
someday, they are not the cause of the $4tril in new debt we have
added in just the last two years or the major cause of the $14tril
debt.

Believing that the FUTURE should take care of itself is the reason the
economy is in its current state. Hoping that the worst case scenario
won't happen is a bad way to do budget planning.

Plan for the worst, and hope for the best, eh?

R

On Nov 5, 8:26*am, "
wrote:

I'd also point out that the "cost" of the two wars is most often
brought
up here in the context of it being the prime cause of the govts
current
$14tril debt. * *In that context, the wars cost about $1.3tril. to
date. *The
higher numbers factor in all kinds of additonal costs, some that are
legitimate, some that are pure speculative numbers pulled from the
air by folks who have a clear agenda. *Most of those additional costs
are FUTURE costs as well, so even if they do indeed have to be paid
someday, they are not the cause of the $4tril in new debt we have
added in just the last two years or the major cause of the $14tril
debt.

Examples of those additional costs include future medical payments
for vets, which is legitimate. *Others are not so legitimate, like
claiming
that increases in other parts of the defense budget over the last 10
years should be attributed to Iraq. *Or factoring in some magical
"macroeconomic number", which is supposed to be the cost to the
rest of the economy from the wars.

BTW, it's ironic that you bandy about the word apologist, but you
appear to be an apologist for the war in Iraq. Which part did you
like the most? The part where we went in under false pretenses, the
part where we spent ridiculous amounts of money, or the stellar
outcome that secured Iraq's future forever, stabilized the area, and
won everlasting friendship?

R

On 11/05/11 09:53 am, RicodJour wrote:

BTW, it's ironic that you bandy about the word apologist, but you
appear to be an apologist for the war in Iraq. Which part did you
like the most? The part where we went in under false pretenses, the
part where we spent ridiculous amounts of money, or the stellar
outcome that secured Iraq's future forever, stabilized the area, and
won everlasting friendship?

.... and created a situation that caused most of Iraq's Christians to
flee for their lives.

Perce

On Nov 5, 9:53*am, RicodJour wrote:
On Nov 5, 8:26*am, "
wrote:







I'd also point out that the "cost" of the two wars is most often
brought
up here in the context of it being the prime cause of the govts
current
$14tril debt. * *In that context, the wars cost about $1.3tril. to
date. *The
higher numbers factor in all kinds of additonal costs, some that are
legitimate, some that are pure speculative numbers pulled from the
air by folks who have a clear agenda. *Most of those additional costs
are FUTURE costs as well, so even if they do indeed have to be paid
someday, they are not the cause of the $4tril in new debt we have
added in just the last two years or the major cause of the $14tril
debt.

Examples of those additional costs include future medical payments
for vets, which is legitimate. *Others are not so legitimate, like
claiming
that increases in other parts of the defense budget over the last 10
years should be attributed to Iraq. *Or factoring in some magical
"macroeconomic number", which is supposed to be the cost to the
rest of the economy from the wars.

BTW, it's ironic that you bandy about the word apologist, but you
appear to be an apologist for the war in Iraq. *Which part did you
like the most? *The part where we went in under false pretenses, the
part where we spent ridiculous amounts of money, or the stellar
outcome that secured Iraq's future forever, stabilized the area, and
won everlasting friendship?



I believe we were discussing the COST of two wars, Iraq and
Afghanistan. I don't see how that is construed as being an apologist
for going to war with Iraq. Cost is cost, isn't it?
Nor how anyone could try to equate that with coming up with excuses
for
Adolf Eichmann, as one of the loon posters here has.

But since you want to go down this rat hole, let's look at the facts.
False pretenses? Monday morning quaterbacking is nice, but
if it had turned out that Saddam had WMDs that were used against
America, you'd be right here bitching about how incompetent Bush
was. Why, we knew he had WMDs and that the UN weapons
inspectors could not account for where they were or what became
of them. We know he was denying the UJN inspectors
access to full inspections, even with 400,000 troops on the border
ready to invade. Hans Blix said so in his final report to the UN just
before the war. British, Israeli and Russian intelligence services
also believed he had WMD programs. Even Democrats from Hillary
Clinton to John Edwards were on record stating he had
WMDs and what a threat he was to the world.

John Kerry:

"My position is very clear: The time has come for decisive action to
eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass
destruction. I'm a co-sponsor of the bipartisan Resolution that's
presently under consideration in the Senate. Saddam Hussein's regime
is a grave threat to America and our allies. We know that he has
chemical and biological weapons today, that he's used them in the
past, and that he's doing everything he can to build more. Every day
he gets closer to his long-term goal of nuclear capability."

Barack Obama:

"He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection
teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear
capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be
better off without him."

Hillary Clinton:

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports
show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and
biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his
nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to
terrorists, including Al Qaeda members...

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will
continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical
warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he
succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security
landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well, effects
American security.

This is a very difficult vote, this is probably the hardest decision
I've ever had to make. Any vote that might lead to war should be
hard, but I cast it with conviction."




Intelligence gathering has always been dicey at best and far from
perfect. It
was never up to the US or the UN to determine what WMDs Iraq had. Per
the
agreement to seal Iraqs defeat in the first Gulf War it was up to Iraq
to fully
cooperate with the UN inspectors, to give full access to all sites,
personnel
and to fully account for what became of all their WMDs. They never
did
that and sure acted like they were hiding WMD programs. A good
example
being the inspectors seeking access to site X, only to be blocked for
days
or weeks, during which time satellites showed trucks coming and going.
So, the war
was fully justified by the facts as known at the time.

Had Bush not acted and Saddam used WMDs, you would be
here bitching about how Bush should be impeached because everyone
KNEW Iraq had WMDs and Bush did nothing.

On Nov 5, 9:48*am, RicodJour wrote:
On Nov 5, 8:26*am, "
wrote:





On Nov 4, 10:37*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
RicodJour wrote:
On Nov 4, 7:09 am, "HeyBub" wrote:

And the reason I have "no citation" is that I did not assert $800
billion as
a FACT, I merely said it was the "latest number I'd seen." I'm glad
you dug
out some contrary examples.

Three things.
1). *There's little use in asking why you ignore the overall cost of
the war and focus on only a part. *That is akin to saying your yearly
car cost is 12x your monthly payment, and ignoring gas and repairs.
2). *Your facts and citations have yet to be proven facts or valid.
3). *If you're going to play games, make them good games. *Stupid
games are not good games.

You must be an athiest to deny the Christian Science Monitor!

I didn't "ignore" the other costs. I reported what the war was reported to
have cost. Period.

I'd also point out that the "cost" of the two wars is most often
brought
up here in the context of it being the prime cause of the govts
current
$14tril debt. * *In that context, the wars cost about $1.3tril. to
date. *The
higher numbers factor in all kinds of additonal costs, some that are
legitimate, some that are pure speculative numbers pulled from the
air by folks who have a clear agenda. *Most of those additional costs
are FUTURE costs as well, so even if they do indeed have to be paid
someday, they are not the cause of the $4tril in new debt we have
added in just the last two years or the major cause of the $14tril
debt.

Believing that the FUTURE should take care of itself is the reason the
economy is in its current state. *Hoping that the worst case scenario
won't happen is a bad way to do budget planning.

Plan for the worst, and hope for the best, eh?

R- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Who said the future should take care of itself? Not me.
I simply said that in this forum the cost of the wars in
Iraq and Afghanistan is most ofter brought up as being
a prime cause of the DEBT TODAY. Our resident libs
harp on it as if it were the main cause or the only cause
of our deficits. We've run up $4tril in new debt in the last
two years. The total debt is $14tril. Yet the cost of both
of those wars as of right now is around $1.3tril. That's
10 years of war. So, clearly the wars are NOT a major
source of the problem.

If you want to look into the future, we can do that too.
Obama's last budget forecast adding $10tril to the
deficit over the next decade. You gonna argue that is
due to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, both of which
are ending, too?

On Sat, 5 Nov 2011 08:05:06 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Nov 5, 9:48*am, RicodJour wrote:
On Nov 5, 8:26*am, "
wrote:





On Nov 4, 10:37*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
RicodJour wrote:
On Nov 4, 7:09 am, "HeyBub" wrote:

And the reason I have "no citation" is that I did not assert $800
billion as
a FACT, I merely said it was the "latest number I'd seen." I'm glad
you dug
out some contrary examples.

Three things.
1). *There's little use in asking why you ignore the overall cost of
the war and focus on only a part. *That is akin to saying your yearly
car cost is 12x your monthly payment, and ignoring gas and repairs.
2). *Your facts and citations have yet to be proven facts or valid.
3). *If you're going to play games, make them good games. *Stupid
games are not good games.

You must be an athiest to deny the Christian Science Monitor!

I didn't "ignore" the other costs. I reported what the war was reported to
have cost. Period.

I'd also point out that the "cost" of the two wars is most often
brought
up here in the context of it being the prime cause of the govts
current
$14tril debt. * *In that context, the wars cost about $1.3tril. to
date. *The
higher numbers factor in all kinds of additonal costs, some that are
legitimate, some that are pure speculative numbers pulled from the
air by folks who have a clear agenda. *Most of those additional costs
are FUTURE costs as well, so even if they do indeed have to be paid
someday, they are not the cause of the $4tril in new debt we have
added in just the last two years or the major cause of the $14tril
debt.

Believing that the FUTURE should take care of itself is the reason the
economy is in its current state. *Hoping that the worst case scenario
won't happen is a bad way to do budget planning.

Plan for the worst, and hope for the best, eh?

R- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Who said the future should take care of itself? Not me.
I simply said that in this forum the cost of the wars in
Iraq and Afghanistan is most ofter brought up as being
a prime cause of the DEBT TODAY. Our resident libs
harp on it as if it were the main cause or the only cause
of our deficits. We've run up $4tril in new debt in the last
two years. The total debt is $14tril.

$15Tril ($14.97) reported as of yesterday.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...on-debt-limit/

Good thing we've had some deficit reduction, eh?

Yet the cost of both
of those wars as of right now is around $1.3tril. That's
10 years of war. So, clearly the wars are NOT a major
source of the problem.

Obama and the Dems surely are.

If you want to look into the future, we can do that too.
Obama's last budget forecast adding $10tril to the
deficit over the next decade. You gonna argue that is
due to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, both of which
are ending, too?

$10T is assuming the economy takes off at 5-6%. That is NOT going to happen
if the debit grows by $10T. At the rate it's going now, the debt will more
than double ($15T) in 10 years. There is no reason to think it will do
otherwise, given the occupant of the WH.

On Nov 5, 11:05 am, "
wrote:
On Nov 5, 9:48 am, RicodJour wrote:
On Nov 5, " wrote:

I'd also point out that the "cost" of the two wars is most often
brought
up here in the context of it being the prime cause of the govts
current
$14tril debt. In that context, the wars cost about $1.3tril. to
date. The
higher numbers factor in all kinds of additonal costs, some that are
legitimate, some that are pure speculative numbers pulled from the
air by folks who have a clear agenda. Most of those additional costs
are FUTURE costs as well, so even if they do indeed have to be paid
someday, they are not the cause of the $4tril in new debt we have
added in just the last two years or the major cause of the $14tril
debt.

Believing that the FUTURE should take care of itself is the reason the
economy is in its current state. Hoping that the worst case scenario
won't happen is a bad way to do budget planning.

Plan for the worst, and hope for the best, eh?

Who said the future should take care of itself? Not me.
I simply said that in this forum the cost of the wars in
Iraq and Afghanistan is most ofter brought up as being
a prime cause of the DEBT TODAY. Our resident libs
harp on it as if it were the main cause or the only cause
of our deficits. We've run up $4tril in new debt in the last
two years. The total debt is $14tril. Yet the cost of both
of those wars as of right now is around $1.3tril. That's
10 years of war. So, clearly the wars are NOT a major
source of the problem.

They sure ain't helping matters.

If you want to look into the future, we can do that too.
Obama's last budget forecast adding $10tril to the
deficit over the next decade. You gonna argue that is
due to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, both of which
are ending, too?

Part of it, sure. You read up on things - what's your guess as to how
much of the NSA and defense budgets never make it into the official
budgets? How much of the defense budget is a response to the two wars
making America less safe? How much have our civil liberties been
curtailed because of "national security"? There are more costs than
just financial ones.

I'm not quite sure why you feel the need to try to make this a red
state blue state thing. There's plenty of blame to go around.

The blame game you're playing - that America is playing - is a bi-
partisan effort if there ever was one. It is simply a way of
distracting people, and it is largely effective.

How's this for a novel idea - instead of playing blame games, fix
things. There will be plenty of time afterwards to play the blame
game. Pointing fingers and yelling doesn't get things fixed.

R

On Nov 5, 10:54*am, "
wrote:

Had Bush not acted and Saddam used WMDs, *you would be
here bitching about how Bush should be impeached because everyone
KNEW Iraq had WMDs and Bush did nothing.

Now we're playing alternative realities to justify cooking the
intelligence gathering books? Sigh.

Again, this is not a red state blue state thing. There are no red
states and blue states. What I'm seeing is a lot of white states.
White either from fear of the boogeymen or white from being livid with
rage with the way that things are playing out on our political scene.

Any statements made at the time of the Iraq vote were based on what
information that the powers that be chose to release. There was
essentially no mention of Saudi Arabia at all. You didn't find that
odd considering the nationalities of the 9/11 idjits?

R

On Nov 5, 1:53*pm, RicodJour wrote:
On Nov 5, 8:26*am, "
wrote:







I'd also point out that the "cost" of the two wars is most often
brought
up here in the context of it being the prime cause of the govts
current
$14tril debt. * *In that context, the wars cost about $1.3tril. to
date. *The
higher numbers factor in all kinds of additonal costs, some that are
legitimate, some that are pure speculative numbers pulled from the
air by folks who have a clear agenda. *Most of those additional costs
are FUTURE costs as well, so even if they do indeed have to be paid
someday, they are not the cause of the $4tril in new debt we have
added in just the last two years or the major cause of the $14tril
debt.

Examples of those additional costs include future medical payments
for vets, which is legitimate. *Others are not so legitimate, like
claiming
that increases in other parts of the defense budget over the last 10
years should be attributed to Iraq. *Or factoring in some magical
"macroeconomic number", which is supposed to be the cost to the
rest of the economy from the wars.

BTW, it's ironic that you bandy about the word apologist, but you
appear to be an apologist for the war in Iraq. *Which part did you
like the most? *The part where we went in under false pretenses, the
part where we spent ridiculous amounts of money, or the stellar
outcome that secured Iraq's future forever, stabilized the area, and
won everlasting friendship?

R- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Something to do with oil perhaps?
Profits to arms manufacturers?
Ego trip for various politicians?
Show the other ragheads you weren't to be messed about with?
Oops, that went wrong, they know now for sure you can be beaten.

On Nov 5, 2:54*pm, "
wrote:
On Nov 5, 9:53*am, RicodJour wrote:





On Nov 5, 8:26*am, "
wrote:

I'd also point out that the "cost" of the two wars is most often
brought
up here in the context of it being the prime cause of the govts
current
$14tril debt. * *In that context, the wars cost about $1.3tril. to
date. *The
higher numbers factor in all kinds of additonal costs, some that are
legitimate, some that are pure speculative numbers pulled from the
air by folks who have a clear agenda. *Most of those additional costs
are FUTURE costs as well, so even if they do indeed have to be paid
someday, they are not the cause of the $4tril in new debt we have
added in just the last two years or the major cause of the $14tril
debt.

Examples of those additional costs include future medical payments
for vets, which is legitimate. *Others are not so legitimate, like
claiming
that increases in other parts of the defense budget over the last 10
years should be attributed to Iraq. *Or factoring in some magical
"macroeconomic number", which is supposed to be the cost to the
rest of the economy from the wars.

BTW, it's ironic that you bandy about the word apologist, but you
appear to be an apologist for the war in Iraq. *Which part did you
like the most? *The part where we went in under false pretenses, the
part where we spent ridiculous amounts of money, or the stellar
outcome that secured Iraq's future forever, stabilized the area, and
won everlasting friendship?

I believe we were discussing the COST of two wars, Iraq and
Afghanistan. *I don't see how that is construed as being an apologist
for going to war with Iraq. *Cost is cost, isn't it?
Nor how anyone could try to equate that with coming up with excuses
for
Adolf Eichmann, as one of the loon posters here has.

But since you want to go down this rat hole, let's look at the facts.
False pretenses? * Monday morning quaterbacking is nice, but
if it had turned out that Saddam had WMDs that were used against
America, you'd be right here bitching about how incompetent Bush
was. *Why, we knew he had WMDs and that the UN weapons
inspectors could not account for where they were or what became
of them. * We know he was denying the UJN inspectors
access to full inspections, even with 400,000 troops on the border
ready to invade. *Hans Blix said so in his final report to the UN just
before the war. *British, Israeli and Russian intelligence services
also believed he had WMD programs. * Even Democrats from Hillary
Clinton to John Edwards were on record stating he had
WMDs and what a threat he was to the world.

John Kerry:

"My position is very clear: The time has come for decisive action to
eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass
destruction. *I'm a co-sponsor of the bipartisan Resolution that's
presently under consideration in the Senate. *Saddam Hussein's regime
is a grave threat to America and our allies. *We know that he has
chemical and biological weapons today, that he's used them in the
past, and that he's doing everything he can to build more. *Every day
he gets closer to his long-term goal of nuclear capability."

Barack Obama:

"He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection
teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear
capacity. *He's a bad guy. *The world, and the Iraqi people, would be
better off without him."

*Hillary Clinton:

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports
show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and
biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his
nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to
terrorists, including Al Qaeda members...

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will
continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical
warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. *Should he
succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security
landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well, effects
American security.

This is a very difficult vote, this is probably the hardest decision
I've ever had to make. *Any vote that might lead to war should be
hard, but I cast it with conviction."

Intelligence gathering has always been dicey at best and far from
perfect. *It
was never up to the US or the UN to determine what WMDs Iraq had. *Per
the
agreement to seal Iraqs defeat in the first Gulf War it was up to Iraq
to fully
cooperate with the UN inspectors, to give full access to all sites,
personnel
and to fully account for what became of all their WMDs. *They never
did
that and sure acted like they were hiding WMD programs. *A good
example
being the inspectors seeking access to site X, only to be blocked for
days
or weeks, during which time satellites showed trucks coming and going.
So, the war
was fully justified by the facts as known at the time.

Had Bush not acted and Saddam used WMDs, *you would be
here bitching about how Bush should be impeached because everyone
KNEW Iraq had WMDs and Bush did nothing.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The fact remains he didn't have WMDs whatever lies were dreamt up.
Brit intellegence said clearly that their information was of doubtfull
value.
The Brit expert (the man that said no WMDs existed) on the topic was
assassinated to silence him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_David_Kelly

The US army spent years trying to find them and failed. It was lies.

Had Bush not acted and Saddam used WMDs, *you would be
here bitching about how Bush should be impeached because everyone
KNEW Iraq had WMDs and Bush did nothing.

Now we're playing alternative realities to justify cooking the
intelligence gathering books? *Sigh.

Again, this is not a red state blue state thing. *There are no red
states and blue states. *What I'm seeing is a lot of white states.
White either from fear of the boogeymen or white from being livid with
rage with the way that things are playing out on our political scene.

Any statements made at the time of the Iraq vote were based on what
information that the powers that be chose to release. *There was
essentially no mention of Saudi Arabia at all. *You didn't find that
odd considering the nationalities of the 9/11 idjits?

R

Very odd.

On Nov 5, 5:02*pm, RicodJour wrote:
On Nov 5, 10:54*am, "
wrote:



Had Bush not acted and Saddam used WMDs, *you would be
here bitching about how Bush should be impeached because everyone
KNEW Iraq had WMDs and Bush did nothing.

Now we're playing alternative realities to justify cooking the
intelligence gathering books? *Sigh.

Again, this is not a red state blue state thing. *There are no red
states and blue states. *What I'm seeing is a lot of white states.
White either from fear of the boogeymen or white from being livid with
rage with the way that things are playing out on our political scene.

Any statements made at the time of the Iraq vote were based on what
information that the powers that be chose to release. *There was
essentially no mention of Saudi Arabia at all. *You didn't find that
odd considering the nationalities of the 9/11 idjits?

Another interesting relevant tale.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niger_uranium_forgeries

On Nov 5, 12:02*pm, RicodJour wrote:
On Nov 5, 10:54*am, "
wrote:



Had Bush not acted and Saddam used WMDs, *you would be
here bitching about how Bush should be impeached because everyone
KNEW Iraq had WMDs and Bush did nothing.

Now we're playing alternative realities to justify cooking the
intelligence gathering books? *Sigh.

Again, this is not a red state blue state thing. *There are no red
states and blue states. *What I'm seeing is a lot of white states.
White either from fear of the boogeymen or white from being livid with
rage with the way that things are playing out on our political scene.

Any statements made at the time of the Iraq vote were based on what
information that the powers that be chose to release. *There was
essentially no mention of Saudi Arabia at all. *You didn't find that
odd considering the nationalities of the 9/11 idjits?

R

That's because the Iraq war was justified on Saddam's threat to
the world by refusing to fully account for the WMDs that we know
he did have at the end of the first Gulf War. And US, British,
Israeli, and Russian intelligence all believing he had ongoing
WMD programs. And his continuing to fire missles at US
aircraft enforcing the no-fly zone. His playing games with the
UN inspectors, behaving like he did have weapons programs
that he was hiding. Then factor in the genocide
he had committed in the past, the hundreds of thousands
that died as a result of his actions.

None of that had anything to do with Saudi Arabia. What you
apparently are suggesting is that the Iraq war was some kind
of revenge for 911. The links between the two at the time
we

1 - Seeing what terrorists had just done to NYC, Bush was
determined to make sure rogue countries run by nut cases
would not be able to get to the point where they had WMD
that could be used against the US or to start another war
in the middle east.

2 - Iraq was a major sponsor of state terrorism, supporting
many terrorists organizations. There was some sketchy
evidence possibly linking them to Al-Qaeda at the time.
Yes, later it looks like that evidence was wrong, but
that's after the fact. Bush saw this as an opportunity to
get rid of one very bad actor on the world stage. Similar
to what Obama just did in Libya. The obvious difference
being in the cost of the two outcomes. But that is different
than denying that there was justification for the action.

My view is the worst you can accuse Bush of doing is not
giving more weight to the possible reasons not to go to war.
The war was easily justifiable for the reasons above. But
if you imagine a sheet of paper with two sides, for and against,
for going to war, I think the Bush administration paid too
little attention to the against side, ie the possible bad outcomes.
All in all it will likely be another 10 or 20 years before we know
the outcome.

" wrote in news:22232125-
:

On Nov 5, 12:02*pm, RicodJour wrote:
On Nov 5, 10:54*am, "
wrote:



Had Bush not acted and Saddam used WMDs, *you would be
here bitching about how Bush should be impeached because everyone
KNEW Iraq had WMDs and Bush did nothing.

Now we're playing alternative realities to justify cooking the
intelligence gathering books? *Sigh.

Again, this is not a red state blue state thing. *There are no red
states and blue states. *What I'm seeing is a lot of white states.
White either from fear of the boogeymen or white from being livid with
rage with the way that things are playing out on our political scene.

Any statements made at the time of the Iraq vote were based on what
information that the powers that be chose to release. *There was
essentially no mention of Saudi Arabia at all. *You didn't find that
odd considering the nationalities of the 9/11 idjits?

R

That's because the Iraq war was justified on Saddam's threat to
the world by refusing to fully account for the WMDs that we know
he did have at the end of the first Gulf War. And US, British,
Israeli, and Russian intelligence all believing he had ongoing
WMD programs. And his continuing to fire missles at US
aircraft enforcing the no-fly zone. His playing games with the
UN inspectors, behaving like he did have weapons programs
that he was hiding. Then factor in the genocide
he had committed in the past, the hundreds of thousands
that died as a result of his actions.

None of that had anything to do with Saudi Arabia. What you
apparently are suggesting is that the Iraq war was some kind
of revenge for 911. The links between the two at the time
we

1 - Seeing what terrorists had just done to NYC, Bush was
determined to make sure rogue countries run by nut cases
would not be able to get to the point where they had WMD
that could be used against the US or to start another war
in the middle east.

2 - Iraq was a major sponsor of state terrorism, supporting
many terrorists organizations. There was some sketchy
evidence possibly linking them to Al-Qaeda at the time.
Yes, later it looks like that evidence was wrong, but
that's after the fact. Bush saw this as an opportunity to
get rid of one very bad actor on the world stage. Similar
to what Obama just did in Libya. The obvious difference
being in the cost of the two outcomes. But that is different
than denying that there was justification for the action.

My view is the worst you can accuse Bush of doing is not
giving more weight to the possible reasons not to go to war.
The war was easily justifiable for the reasons above. But
if you imagine a sheet of paper with two sides, for and against,
for going to war, I think the Bush administration paid too
little attention to the against side, ie the possible bad outcomes.
All in all it will likely be another 10 or 20 years before we know
the outcome.

I agree with all that, but came to the conclusion the war wasn't
justifiable, mainly because Iraq was a totally secular state where
religious fanaticism was totally absent, except perhaps for religious
purposes. Moreover, there was a total absence of a possible Iraqi
government post-Saddam because the Iraqi exiles were in total disarray
and never have gotten together at all, even now. Then the absence of an
agreement with Turkey to be able to attack from north and south made the
dismissal of Saddam last 3 times longer than it should have. Last but
one reason for the war to have been a bad move was the fact that there
was no plan to guard the munitions left behind by the Iraqi army.
Lastly, it was insane nonsense to totally disband and make jobless the
large military and police apparatus of Saddam. That generated a large
number of capable, armed jobless discontents who (thank whoever) are
mostly fighting each other, but also the Allies and the somewhat
"legitimate" current Iraqi ruling elite.

Our withdrawal now is opening up (I am afraid) another cicil war in Iraq,
that is being fought along tribal and religious schisms, the worst of all
possible.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Nov 6, 9:16 am, Han wrote:

I agree with all that, but came to the conclusion the war wasn't
justifiable, mainly because Iraq was a totally secular state where
religious fanaticism was totally absent, except perhaps for religious
purposes. Moreover, there was a total absence of a possible Iraqi
government post-Saddam because the Iraqi exiles were in total disarray
and never have gotten together at all, even now. Then the absence of an
agreement with Turkey to be able to attack from north and south made the
dismissal of Saddam last 3 times longer than it should have. Last but
one reason for the war to have been a bad move was the fact that there
was no plan to guard the munitions left behind by the Iraqi army.
Lastly, it was insane nonsense to totally disband and make jobless the
large military and police apparatus of Saddam. That generated a large
number of capable, armed jobless discontents who (thank whoever) are
mostly fighting each other, but also the Allies and the somewhat
"legitimate" current Iraqi ruling elite.

Our withdrawal now is opening up (I am afraid) another civil war in Iraq,
that is being fought along tribal and religious schisms, the worst of all
possible.

If you believe that you need an addition, it's lunacy to start without
adequate plans and hire the first contractor that shows up at the
door.

R

On Nov 6, 1:28*pm, "
wrote:
On Nov 5, 12:02*pm, RicodJour wrote:





On Nov 5, 10:54*am, "
wrote:

Had Bush not acted and Saddam used WMDs, *you would be
here bitching about how Bush should be impeached because everyone
KNEW Iraq had WMDs and Bush did nothing.

Now we're playing alternative realities to justify cooking the
intelligence gathering books? *Sigh.

Again, this is not a red state blue state thing. *There are no red
states and blue states. *What I'm seeing is a lot of white states.
White either from fear of the boogeymen or white from being livid with
rage with the way that things are playing out on our political scene.

Any statements made at the time of the Iraq vote were based on what
information that the powers that be chose to release. *There was
essentially no mention of Saudi Arabia at all. *You didn't find that
odd considering the nationalities of the 9/11 idjits?

R

That's because the Iraq war was justified on Saddam's threat to
the world by refusing to fully account for the WMDs that we know
he did have at the end of the first Gulf War. * And US, British,
Israeli, and Russian intelligence all believing he had ongoing
WMD programs. *And his continuing to fire missles at US
aircraft enforcing the no-fly zone. *His playing games with the
UN inspectors, behaving like he did have weapons programs
that he was hiding. *Then factor in the genocide
he had committed in the past, the hundreds of thousands
that died as a result of his actions.

None of that had anything to do with Saudi Arabia. *What you
apparently are suggesting is that the Iraq war was some kind
of revenge for 911. * The links between the two at the time
we

1 - Seeing what terrorists had just done to NYC, Bush was
determined to make sure rogue countries run by nut cases
would not be able to get to the point where they had WMD
that could be used against the US or to start another war
in the middle east.

2 - Iraq was a major sponsor of state terrorism, supporting
many terrorists organizations. *There was some sketchy
evidence possibly linking them to Al-Qaeda at the time.
Yes, later it looks like that evidence was wrong, but
that's after the fact. *Bush saw this as an opportunity to
get rid of one very bad actor on the world stage. *Similar
to what Obama just did in Libya. *The obvious difference
being in the cost of the two outcomes. *But that is different
than denying that there was justification for the action.

My view is the worst you can accuse Bush of doing is not
giving more weight to the possible reasons not to go to war.
The war was easily justifiable for the reasons above. *But
if you imagine a sheet of paper with two sides, for and against,
for going to war, I think the Bush administration paid too
little attention to the against side, ie the possible bad outcomes.
All in all it will likely be another 10 or 20 years before we know
the outcome.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So what was/is his reason for not seeking redress from Saudi Arabia?
Bush and Bliar gave the reason for the war as WMD. THEY LIED.

Pakistan, North Korea, Israel, Iran and India HAVE WMDs, Why haven't
they been attacked?
You are talking gibberish.

The whole war was a colossal cockup for from start to date.
And you have lost the war.
The Islamonuts have won.

On Nov 6, 2:16*pm, Han wrote:
" wrote in news:22232125-
:





On Nov 5, 12:02 pm, RicodJour wrote:
On Nov 5, 10:54 am, "
wrote:

Had Bush not acted and Saddam used WMDs, you would be
here bitching about how Bush should be impeached because everyone
KNEW Iraq had WMDs and Bush did nothing.

Now we're playing alternative realities to justify cooking the
intelligence gathering books? Sigh.

Again, this is not a red state blue state thing. There are no red
states and blue states. What I'm seeing is a lot of white states.
White either from fear of the boogeymen or white from being livid with
rage with the way that things are playing out on our political scene.

Any statements made at the time of the Iraq vote were based on what
information that the powers that be chose to release. There was
essentially no mention of Saudi Arabia at all. You didn't find that
odd considering the nationalities of the 9/11 idjits?

R

That's because the Iraq war was justified on Saddam's threat to
the world by refusing to fully account for the WMDs that we know
he did have at the end of the first Gulf War. * And US, British,
Israeli, and Russian intelligence all believing he had ongoing
WMD programs. *And his continuing to fire missles at US
aircraft enforcing the no-fly zone. *His playing games with the
UN inspectors, behaving like he did have weapons programs
that he was hiding. *Then factor in the genocide
he had committed in the past, the hundreds of thousands
that died as a result of his actions.

None of that had anything to do with Saudi Arabia. *What you
apparently are suggesting is that the Iraq war was some kind
of revenge for 911. * The links between the two at the time
we

1 - Seeing what terrorists had just done to NYC, Bush was
determined to make sure rogue countries run by nut cases
would not be able to get to the point where they had WMD
that could be used against the US or to start another war
in the middle east.

2 - Iraq was a major sponsor of state terrorism, supporting
many terrorists organizations. *There was some sketchy
evidence possibly linking them to Al-Qaeda at the time.
Yes, later it looks like that evidence was wrong, but
that's after the fact. *Bush saw this as an opportunity to
get rid of one very bad actor on the world stage. *Similar
to what Obama just did in Libya. *The obvious difference
being in the cost of the two outcomes. *But that is different
than denying that there was justification for the action.

My view is the worst you can accuse Bush of doing is not
giving more weight to the possible reasons not to go to war.
The war was easily justifiable for the reasons above. *But
if you imagine a sheet of paper with two sides, for and against,
for going to war, I think the Bush administration paid too
little attention to the against side, ie the possible bad outcomes.
All in all it will likely be another 10 or 20 years before we know
the outcome.

I agree with all that, but came to the conclusion the war wasn't
justifiable, mainly because Iraq was a totally secular state where
religious fanaticism was totally absent, except perhaps for religious
purposes. *Moreover, there was a total absence of a possible Iraqi
government post-Saddam because the Iraqi exiles were in total disarray
and never have gotten together at all, even now. *Then the absence of an
agreement with Turkey to be able to attack from north and south made the
dismissal of Saddam last 3 times longer than it should have. *Last but
one reason for the war to have been a bad move was the fact that there
was no plan to guard the munitions left behind by the Iraqi army.
Lastly, it was insane nonsense to totally disband and make jobless the
large military and police apparatus of Saddam. *That generated a large
number of capable, armed jobless discontents who (thank whoever) are
mostly fighting each other, but also the Allies and the somewhat
"legitimate" current Iraqi ruling elite.

Our withdrawal now is opening up (I am afraid) another cicil war in Iraq,
that is being fought along tribal and religious schisms, the worst of all
possible.


It was a cockup because Bush &co were too thick to think about VI day
+1.
Mission accomplished Heh Heh.
The US army never even had the wit to disarm the Iraqi army and secure
the arsenals.
They never even had the wit to just install new officers in the Iraqi
army and use it.
They just disbanded it and sent the personnel home (with their guns).
What a bunch of knuckleheads.
I suppose they were too busy steaing the Iraqi billions.

On Nov 6, 9:16*am, Han wrote:
" wrote in news:22232125-
:





On Nov 5, 12:02 pm, RicodJour wrote:
On Nov 5, 10:54 am, "
wrote:

Had Bush not acted and Saddam used WMDs, you would be
here bitching about how Bush should be impeached because everyone
KNEW Iraq had WMDs and Bush did nothing.

Now we're playing alternative realities to justify cooking the
intelligence gathering books? Sigh.

Again, this is not a red state blue state thing. There are no red
states and blue states. What I'm seeing is a lot of white states.
White either from fear of the boogeymen or white from being livid with
rage with the way that things are playing out on our political scene.

Any statements made at the time of the Iraq vote were based on what
information that the powers that be chose to release. There was
essentially no mention of Saudi Arabia at all. You didn't find that
odd considering the nationalities of the 9/11 idjits?

R

That's because the Iraq war was justified on Saddam's threat to
the world by refusing to fully account for the WMDs that we know
he did have at the end of the first Gulf War. * And US, British,
Israeli, and Russian intelligence all believing he had ongoing
WMD programs. *And his continuing to fire missles at US
aircraft enforcing the no-fly zone. *His playing games with the
UN inspectors, behaving like he did have weapons programs
that he was hiding. *Then factor in the genocide
he had committed in the past, the hundreds of thousands
that died as a result of his actions.

None of that had anything to do with Saudi Arabia. *What you
apparently are suggesting is that the Iraq war was some kind
of revenge for 911. * The links between the two at the time
we

1 - Seeing what terrorists had just done to NYC, Bush was
determined to make sure rogue countries run by nut cases
would not be able to get to the point where they had WMD
that could be used against the US or to start another war
in the middle east.

2 - Iraq was a major sponsor of state terrorism, supporting
many terrorists organizations. *There was some sketchy
evidence possibly linking them to Al-Qaeda at the time.
Yes, later it looks like that evidence was wrong, but
that's after the fact. *Bush saw this as an opportunity to
get rid of one very bad actor on the world stage. *Similar
to what Obama just did in Libya. *The obvious difference
being in the cost of the two outcomes. *But that is different
than denying that there was justification for the action.

My view is the worst you can accuse Bush of doing is not
giving more weight to the possible reasons not to go to war.
The war was easily justifiable for the reasons above. *But
if you imagine a sheet of paper with two sides, for and against,
for going to war, I think the Bush administration paid too
little attention to the against side, ie the possible bad outcomes.
All in all it will likely be another 10 or 20 years before we know
the outcome.

I agree with all that, but came to the conclusion the war wasn't
justifiable, mainly because Iraq was a totally secular state where
religious fanaticism was totally absent, except perhaps for religious
purposes. *Moreover, there was a total absence of a possible Iraqi
government post-Saddam because the Iraqi exiles were in total disarray
and never have gotten together at all, even now. *Then the absence of an
agreement with Turkey to be able to attack from north and south made the
dismissal of Saddam last 3 times longer than it should have. *Last but
one reason for the war to have been a bad move was the fact that there
was no plan to guard the munitions left behind by the Iraqi army.
Lastly, it was insane nonsense to totally disband and make jobless the
large military and police apparatus of Saddam. *That generated a large
number of capable, armed jobless discontents who (thank whoever) are
mostly fighting each other, but also the Allies and the somewhat
"legitimate" current Iraqi ruling elite.

Our withdrawal now is opening up (I am afraid) another cicil war in Iraq,
that is being fought along tribal and religious schisms, the worst of all
possible.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'm surprised we finally agree on something, and this of all things...
I had mixed feelings about the war before the start too and was
concerned
about the possible outcome. I was hoping that when the coalition had
400,000 troops ready to invade and knowing that we had kicked his
ass last time, that Saddam would finally fully cooperate with the UN.
Unfortunately that didn't happen.

There is no question that there was considerable validity to the
argument against invading. However that is different than claiming
that Bush lied. Most of those saying he lied would have been calling
for his impeachment had he done nothing and later Iraqi WMDs were
used. I can just hear the same Monday morning quaterbacks saying
"Everyone knew he had WMDs. He had used them against his own
people. The CIA, British Intelligence, Israeli
intelligence, all knew he had them. Look at what Hillary Clinton,
Obama, John Edwards, etc all said in 2002! They knew he had
WMDs and was a threat. Bush should be impeached!

Unfortunately in the real world you have to make decisions based
on what inteliigence information you have at the time and what is
believed to be correct.

On Nov 6, 12:46*pm, harry wrote:
On Nov 6, 1:28*pm, "
wrote:





On Nov 5, 12:02*pm, RicodJour wrote:

On Nov 5, 10:54*am, "
wrote:

Had Bush not acted and Saddam used WMDs, *you would be
here bitching about how Bush should be impeached because everyone
KNEW Iraq had WMDs and Bush did nothing.

Now we're playing alternative realities to justify cooking the
intelligence gathering books? *Sigh.

Again, this is not a red state blue state thing. *There are no red
states and blue states. *What I'm seeing is a lot of white states.
White either from fear of the boogeymen or white from being livid with
rage with the way that things are playing out on our political scene.

Any statements made at the time of the Iraq vote were based on what
information that the powers that be chose to release. *There was
essentially no mention of Saudi Arabia at all. *You didn't find that
odd considering the nationalities of the 9/11 idjits?

R

That's because the Iraq war was justified on Saddam's threat to
the world by refusing to fully account for the WMDs that we know
he did have at the end of the first Gulf War. * And US, British,
Israeli, and Russian intelligence all believing he had ongoing
WMD programs. *And his continuing to fire missles at US
aircraft enforcing the no-fly zone. *His playing games with the
UN inspectors, behaving like he did have weapons programs
that he was hiding. *Then factor in the genocide
he had committed in the past, the hundreds of thousands
that died as a result of his actions.

None of that had anything to do with Saudi Arabia. *What you
apparently are suggesting is that the Iraq war was some kind
of revenge for 911. * The links between the two at the time
we

1 - Seeing what terrorists had just done to NYC, Bush was
determined to make sure rogue countries run by nut cases
would not be able to get to the point where they had WMD
that could be used against the US or to start another war
in the middle east.

2 - Iraq was a major sponsor of state terrorism, supporting
many terrorists organizations. *There was some sketchy
evidence possibly linking them to Al-Qaeda at the time.
Yes, later it looks like that evidence was wrong, but
that's after the fact. *Bush saw this as an opportunity to
get rid of one very bad actor on the world stage. *Similar
to what Obama just did in Libya. *The obvious difference
being in the cost of the two outcomes. *But that is different
than denying that there was justification for the action.

My view is the worst you can accuse Bush of doing is not
giving more weight to the possible reasons not to go to war.
The war was easily justifiable for the reasons above. *But
if you imagine a sheet of paper with two sides, for and against,
for going to war, I think the Bush administration paid too
little attention to the against side, ie the possible bad outcomes.
All in all it will likely be another 10 or 20 years before we know
the outcome.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So what was/is his reason for not seeking redress from Saudi Arabia?

Redress for what, exactly? Most of the 911 terrorists were Saudi
citizens, but there was never any link to the Saudi govt. Al-Qaeda
was ****ed off at the Saudis, Bin Laden in particular had no use
for them. The Al-Qaeda training camps were in Afghanistan, not
Saudi Arabia.


Bush and Bliar gave the reason for the war as WMD. THEY LIED.

We know without question that Iraq had WMDs and Saddam had used them
against his own people. We know from the UN weapons inspectors that
Iraq never accounted for what became of them and consistently refused
to cooperate with the inspectors right up until the end. Saddam was
sure
acting like he had WMDs.

Nice to be a Monday morning quarterback. But that does not make
Bush, Blair or the UN liars.





Pakistan, North Korea, Israel, Iran and India *HAVE WMDs, Why haven't
they been attacked?
You are talking gibberish.

Because none of them signed a treaty ending the invasion of Kuwait
that called for full cooperation with the UN weapons inspectors and
the
destruction of all their WMDs. None of them were shooting missles
at US planes patroling the no-fly zone in Iraq either. And I think
Bush
and Blair saw the opportunity to eliminate one more rogue country
acquiring WMDs. As for Iran, they may get whacked yet. Stay
tuned. Or do you think it's peachy keen that Iran get an A bomb?

harry wrote:


It was a cockup because Bush &co were too thick to think about VI day
+1.
Mission accomplished Heh Heh.
The US army never even had the wit to disarm the Iraqi army and secure
the arsenals.
They never even had the wit to just install new officers in the Iraqi
army and use it.
They just disbanded it and sent the personnel home (with their guns).
What a bunch of knuckleheads.
I suppose they were too busy steaing the Iraqi billions.

It is generally held that the Iraqi army self-disbanded. That is, the people
in the army were not "fired," they simply went home. Just like the
Confederate Army, the German and Japanese armies after WW2, and virtually
all the other armies of a defeated belligerent (although many believe the
Confederate army didn't REALLY disband, but is simply waiting for the right
moment...).

On Nov 6, 5:55*pm, "
wrote:
On Nov 6, 9:16*am, Han wrote:





" wrote in news:22232125-
:

On Nov 5, 12:02 pm, RicodJour wrote:
On Nov 5, 10:54 am, "
wrote:

Had Bush not acted and Saddam used WMDs, you would be
here bitching about how Bush should be impeached because everyone
KNEW Iraq had WMDs and Bush did nothing.

Now we're playing alternative realities to justify cooking the
intelligence gathering books? Sigh.

Again, this is not a red state blue state thing. There are no red
states and blue states. What I'm seeing is a lot of white states.
White either from fear of the boogeymen or white from being livid with
rage with the way that things are playing out on our political scene..

Any statements made at the time of the Iraq vote were based on what
information that the powers that be chose to release. There was
essentially no mention of Saudi Arabia at all. You didn't find that
odd considering the nationalities of the 9/11 idjits?

R

That's because the Iraq war was justified on Saddam's threat to
the world by refusing to fully account for the WMDs that we know
he did have at the end of the first Gulf War. * And US, British,
Israeli, and Russian intelligence all believing he had ongoing
WMD programs. *And his continuing to fire missles at US
aircraft enforcing the no-fly zone. *His playing games with the
UN inspectors, behaving like he did have weapons programs
that he was hiding. *Then factor in the genocide
he had committed in the past, the hundreds of thousands
that died as a result of his actions.

None of that had anything to do with Saudi Arabia. *What you
apparently are suggesting is that the Iraq war was some kind
of revenge for 911. * The links between the two at the time
we

1 - Seeing what terrorists had just done to NYC, Bush was
determined to make sure rogue countries run by nut cases
would not be able to get to the point where they had WMD
that could be used against the US or to start another war
in the middle east.

2 - Iraq was a major sponsor of state terrorism, supporting
many terrorists organizations. *There was some sketchy
evidence possibly linking them to Al-Qaeda at the time.
Yes, later it looks like that evidence was wrong, but
that's after the fact. *Bush saw this as an opportunity to
get rid of one very bad actor on the world stage. *Similar
to what Obama just did in Libya. *The obvious difference
being in the cost of the two outcomes. *But that is different
than denying that there was justification for the action.

My view is the worst you can accuse Bush of doing is not
giving more weight to the possible reasons not to go to war.
The war was easily justifiable for the reasons above. *But
if you imagine a sheet of paper with two sides, for and against,
for going to war, I think the Bush administration paid too
little attention to the against side, ie the possible bad outcomes.
All in all it will likely be another 10 or 20 years before we know
the outcome.

I agree with all that, but came to the conclusion the war wasn't
justifiable, mainly because Iraq was a totally secular state where
religious fanaticism was totally absent, except perhaps for religious
purposes. *Moreover, there was a total absence of a possible Iraqi
government post-Saddam because the Iraqi exiles were in total disarray
and never have gotten together at all, even now. *Then the absence of an
agreement with Turkey to be able to attack from north and south made the
dismissal of Saddam last 3 times longer than it should have. *Last but
one reason for the war to have been a bad move was the fact that there
was no plan to guard the munitions left behind by the Iraqi army.
Lastly, it was insane nonsense to totally disband and make jobless the
large military and police apparatus of Saddam. *That generated a large
number of capable, armed jobless discontents who (thank whoever) are
mostly fighting each other, but also the Allies and the somewhat
"legitimate" current Iraqi ruling elite.

Our withdrawal now is opening up (I am afraid) another cicil war in Iraq,
that is being fought along tribal and religious schisms, the worst of all
possible.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'm surprised we finally agree on something, and this of all things...
I had mixed feelings about the war before the start too and was
concerned
about the possible outcome. * I was hoping that when the coalition had
400,000 troops ready to invade and knowing that we had kicked his
ass last time, that Saddam would finally fully cooperate with the UN.
Unfortunately that didn't happen.

There is no question that there was considerable validity to the
argument against invading. * However that is different than claiming
that Bush lied. *Most of those saying he lied would have been calling
for his impeachment had he done nothing and later Iraqi WMDs were
used. *I can just hear the same Monday morning quaterbacks saying
"Everyone knew he had WMDs. *He had used them against his own
people. * The CIA, British Intelligence, Israeli
intelligence, all knew he had them. * Look at what Hillary Clinton,
Obama, John Edwards, etc all said in 2002! * They knew he had
WMDs and was a threat. *Bush should be impeached!

Unfortunately in the real world you have to make decisions based
on what inteliigence information you have at the time and what is
believed to be correct.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Not only did he invade a foreign country illegally for regime change
purposes (also illegal) he sanctioned concentration camps and torture.
He also used it as an excuse to erode democracy. (Patriot act)

On Nov 6, 6:06*pm, "
wrote:
On Nov 6, 12:46*pm, harry wrote:





On Nov 6, 1:28*pm, "
wrote:

On Nov 5, 12:02*pm, RicodJour wrote:

On Nov 5, 10:54*am, "
wrote:

Had Bush not acted and Saddam used WMDs, *you would be
here bitching about how Bush should be impeached because everyone
KNEW Iraq had WMDs and Bush did nothing.

Now we're playing alternative realities to justify cooking the
intelligence gathering books? *Sigh.

Again, this is not a red state blue state thing. *There are no red
states and blue states. *What I'm seeing is a lot of white states..
White either from fear of the boogeymen or white from being livid with
rage with the way that things are playing out on our political scene.

Any statements made at the time of the Iraq vote were based on what
information that the powers that be chose to release. *There was
essentially no mention of Saudi Arabia at all. *You didn't find that
odd considering the nationalities of the 9/11 idjits?

R

That's because the Iraq war was justified on Saddam's threat to
the world by refusing to fully account for the WMDs that we know
he did have at the end of the first Gulf War. * And US, British,
Israeli, and Russian intelligence all believing he had ongoing
WMD programs. *And his continuing to fire missles at US
aircraft enforcing the no-fly zone. *His playing games with the
UN inspectors, behaving like he did have weapons programs
that he was hiding. *Then factor in the genocide
he had committed in the past, the hundreds of thousands
that died as a result of his actions.

None of that had anything to do with Saudi Arabia. *What you
apparently are suggesting is that the Iraq war was some kind
of revenge for 911. * The links between the two at the time
we

1 - Seeing what terrorists had just done to NYC, Bush was
determined to make sure rogue countries run by nut cases
would not be able to get to the point where they had WMD
that could be used against the US or to start another war
in the middle east.

2 - Iraq was a major sponsor of state terrorism, supporting
many terrorists organizations. *There was some sketchy
evidence possibly linking them to Al-Qaeda at the time.
Yes, later it looks like that evidence was wrong, but
that's after the fact. *Bush saw this as an opportunity to
get rid of one very bad actor on the world stage. *Similar
to what Obama just did in Libya. *The obvious difference
being in the cost of the two outcomes. *But that is different
than denying that there was justification for the action.

My view is the worst you can accuse Bush of doing is not
giving more weight to the possible reasons not to go to war.
The war was easily justifiable for the reasons above. *But
if you imagine a sheet of paper with two sides, for and against,
for going to war, I think the Bush administration paid too
little attention to the against side, ie the possible bad outcomes.
All in all it will likely be another 10 or 20 years before we know
the outcome.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So what was/is his reason for not seeking redress from Saudi Arabia?

Redress for what, exactly? *Most of the 911 terrorists were Saudi
citizens, but there was never any link to the Saudi govt. *Al-Qaeda
was ****ed off at the Saudis, Bin Laden in particular had no use
for them. *The Al-Qaeda training camps were in Afghanistan, not
Saudi Arabia.

Bush and Bliar gave the reason for the war as WMD. THEY LIED.

We know without question that Iraq had WMDs and Saddam had used them
against his own people. *We know from the UN weapons inspectors that
Iraq never accounted for what became of them and consistently refused
to cooperate with the inspectors right up until the end. *Saddam was
sure
acting like he had WMDs.

Nice to be a Monday morning quarterback. *But that does not make
Bush, Blair or the UN liars.



Pakistan, North Korea, Israel, Iran and India *HAVE WMDs, Why haven't
they been attacked?
You are talking gibberish.

Because none of them signed a treaty ending the invasion of Kuwait
that called for full cooperation with the UN weapons inspectors and
the
destruction of all their WMDs. *None of them were shooting missles
at US planes patroling the no-fly zone in Iraq either. *And I think
Bush
and Blair saw the opportunity to eliminate one more rogue country
acquiring WMDs. * As for Iran, they may get whacked yet. *Stay
tuned. *Or do you think it's peachy keen that Iran get an A bomb?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The perpetrators were from SA and were member of a cult based there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabi