Author Topic: SOTU  (Read 13937 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

_JS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3500
  • Salaires legers. Chars lourds.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SOTU
« Reply #30 on: January 29, 2008, 05:50:05 PM »
Cost of Iraq war = 4 % of gdp

Total defense spending in 2006 will probably be around 4 percent of gross national product, notes Mr. Cordesman. The average since 1992 for this measure has been 3.6 percent.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0519/p01s03-usmi.html



Cost of wwii = 38 % of gdp
http://www.antiwar.com/henderson/?articleid=8727

How much is Amtrak and PBS? Yet we always hear bitching to cut funding for those.  :P
I smell something burning, hope it's just my brains.
They're only dropping peppermints and daisy-chains
   So stuff my nose with garlic
   Coat my eyes with butter
   Fill my ears with silver
   Stick my legs in plaster
   Tell me lies about Vietnam.

Cynthia

  • Guest
Re: SOTU
« Reply #31 on: January 29, 2008, 06:18:35 PM »
The generals, the military, the government, the machinests, the average housewife, heck even American children had a  better strategy to fight (and win) that WW2 war. DO we have that now? Saving rubber, recycling for the war, women working, playing baseball....:) ....support, support and more support.....one heck of a strategy, I'd say.  MY point, Sirs, is that we didn't have that going into this war. We should have known that it takes a lot more to win a war. We have History books to help us with that little thing.  

PRECISELY Cynthia......HISTORY.  We let Hitler go unchecked, and look what it brought about.  I'd argue that history is PRECISELY one of the rationales Bush used in going into Iraq.  We had clear justification following 911, with the connections terrorists had with Iraq, and the WMD that nearly every intel conclusion said Saddam had.  We just watched thousands of our citizens die nearly instantaneously when the planes hit, and when the towers came down.  You actually help make my point.  Sure we "didn't have to" do anything.  France didn't have to deal with Hitler when he broke their treaty.....and they didn't.  Bush wasn't going to let history repeat itself




Well, I was thinking about the History of war planning. I think that we were justified to go to some kind of 'fight back'....but really, I thought that Iraq did not have anything to do with 9-11. Maybe I'm wrong.

In the past, we fought a war against the direct enemy. We didn't fight Japan and then jump over to China just because they were communists.

Cynthia

  • Guest
Re: SOTU
« Reply #32 on: January 29, 2008, 06:27:12 PM »
We just watched thousands of our citizens die nearly instantaneously when the planes hit, and when the towers came down.

I wanted to reply to this, as well.
I realize that we watched so many people die at the hand of an evil set of terrorizing bastards.....but my point wasn't that we shouldn't have gone to war...my question was about Iraq specifically.

Did Saddam claim responsibility for 9-11?

I realize this horse has been beaten to death, but it's ghost jsut raised it's head again.....and my inquiry  is more about the money that has been spent on this war...was it worth it?
....oh and there are the lives spent and used as well...........
It seems like just yesterday when I first posted on this issue..supporting the war....back when--- 2003. That was 5 years ago!. Gosh how time flies. But, time can't fly forever.....How successful have we really been in this Iraqi/Afghanistan war on Osama's military who blasted our people on that fateful day?
« Last Edit: January 29, 2008, 06:31:09 PM by Cynthia »

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SOTU
« Reply #33 on: January 29, 2008, 06:29:55 PM »
We let Hitler go unchecked, and look what it brought about.  I'd argue that history is PRECISELY one of the rationales Bush used in going into Iraq.  We had clear justification following 911, with the connections terrorists had with Iraq, and the WMD that nearly every intel conclusion said Saddam had.  We just watched thousands of our citizens die nearly instantaneously when the planes hit, and when the towers came down.  You actually help make my point.  Sure we "didn't have to" do anything.  France didn't have to deal with Hitler when he broke their treaty.....and they didn't.  Bush wasn't going to let history repeat itself

Well, I was thinking about the History of war planning. I think that we were justified to go to some kind of 'fight back'....but really, I thought that Iraq did not have anything to do with 9-11. Maybe I'm wrong.

No, you're absolutely right, and for the umpteenth hundred time, We didn't go into Iraq because they caused 911, or even had anything to do with it.  You can really thank Usama for that.  He screwed Saddam by the fact that Iraq had both direct and indirect ties to muslim terrorists, that have been factually chronicled, and it was AlQeada that brought down the Towers and hit the Pentagon.  By virtue of his terrorist connections, and WMD that nearly every credible source believed he had ----> we went into Iraq, when it was made patently clear Saddam was not going to abide by 1441.....analogus to Hitler not abiding by his treaty


Did Saddam claim responsibility for 9-11?

No, as answered above. 
« Last Edit: January 29, 2008, 06:31:56 PM by sirs »
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Cynthia

  • Guest
Re: SOTU
« Reply #34 on: January 29, 2008, 06:32:33 PM »
We had clear justification following 911, with the connections terrorists had with Iraq, and the WMD that nearly every intel conclusion said Saddam had.
No, you're absolutely right, and for the umpteenth hundred time, We didn't go into Iraq because they caused 911, or even had anything to do with it.

Sorry....I was responding to your own words, here Sirs.

So, they didn't have ANYTHING to do with 9-11? What connections did the terrorists have with Iraq, then?

It seems that your former statement indicates that Iraq had some sort of connection with terrorists---according to intel?

not to mention "clear justification' following 9-11. Then the latter statement says...otherwise.... had nothing to do with 9-11.?

 
« Last Edit: January 29, 2008, 07:05:53 PM by Cynthia »

yellow_crane

  • Guest
Re: SOTU
« Reply #35 on: January 29, 2008, 07:23:59 PM »
We just watched thousands of our citizens die nearly instantaneously when the planes hit, and when the towers came down.

I wanted to reply to this, as well.
I realize that we watched so many people die at the hand of an evil set of terrorizing bastards.....but my point wasn't that we shouldn't have gone to war...my question was about Iraq specifically.

Did Saddam claim responsibility for 9-11?

I realize this horse has been beaten to death . . . . .


To folks like Sirs, that particular equine metaphor has no meaning whatsoever.

Perhaps you saw the excellent movie "The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada?"

A closer metaphor, I can tell you. `

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SOTU
« Reply #36 on: January 29, 2008, 07:39:23 PM »
We had clear justification following 911, with the connections terrorists had with Iraq, and the WMD that nearly every intel conclusion said Saddam had.
No, you're absolutely right, and for the umpteenth hundred time, We didn't go into Iraq because they caused 911, or even had anything to do with it.


So, they didn't have ANYTHING to do with 9-11? What connections did the terrorists have with Iraq, then?

When I get home, if no one else has yet, I'll endeavor to pull up some of the commentaries I came across, made by high level ranking officials that referenced specifics.......so that our fellow luny leftists can then claim how much of a Bush puppet they are.  But at least you'll have a better appreciation


It seems that your former statement indicates that Iraq had some sort of connection with terrorists---according to intel?

Yes


not to mention "clear justification' following 9-11. Then the latter statement says...otherwise.... had nothing to do with 9-11.?

That Iraq had nothing to do with 911.  That Terrorists who had connections with Iraq did, however.  And Saddam's continued defiance of UN resolutions, which mandated complete and full compliance, made the justification for serious consequences, complete.  As I said, Saddam can thank Usama and his own arrogance, for his being dethrowned as dictator

 

"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Cynthia

  • Guest
Re: SOTU
« Reply #37 on: January 29, 2008, 07:52:11 PM »
We had clear justification following 911, with the connections terrorists had with Iraq, and the WMD that nearly every intel conclusion said Saddam had.
No, you're absolutely right, and for the umpteenth hundred time, We didn't go into Iraq because they caused 911, or even had anything to do with it.


So, they didn't have ANYTHING to do with 9-11? What connections did the terrorists have with Iraq, then?

When I get home, if no one else has yet, I'll endeavor to pull up some of the commentaries I came across, made by high level ranking officials that referenced specifics.......so that our fellow luny leftists can then claim how much of a Bush puppet they are.  But at least you'll have a better appreciation


It seems that your former statement indicates that Iraq had some sort of connection with terrorists---according to intel?

Yes


not to mention "clear justification' following 9-11. Then the latter statement says...otherwise.... had nothing to do with 9-11.?

That Iraq had nothing to do with 911.  That Terrorists who had connections with Iraq did, however.  And Saddam's continued defiance of UN resolutions, which mandated complete and full compliance, made the justification for serious consequences, complete.  As I said, Saddam can thank Usama and his own arrogance, for his being dethrowned as dictator

 



ok sirs, thanks..i look forward to it....I want the truth....yes, I CAN handle the truth!! ....Jack Nicholsen...to Tom Cruise;)

Ciao for now....

I had the best "snow day" today..and the ice melted by 10:30! Gosh, we are whimps when it comes to snow in NM>


hnumpah

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2483
  • You have another think coming. Use it.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SOTU
« Reply #38 on: January 29, 2008, 08:45:55 PM »
Quote
Good thing that's not why we went to war then, isn't it

Ooh, right...to depose Saddam and bring democracy to the Iraqi people, right? Sorry, if that were the reson, why didn't Bushco just say so, instead of drumming up the WMD/ties to Al Qaeda/mushroom cloud excuses to give it a greater sense of urgency to the American people? Had to sell them on something, eh?

Quote
I believe he is sincere. I also sincerely believe he is an idiot. I also have reservations about his honesty.

Not an oxymoron at all. He is, or was, I believe, sincere in believing that we had to go to war, for whatever reason his demented mind conjured up. In order to sell that, I believe he was also dishonest and did the best he could to sell the American people on war. Sincerity does not always equal honesty.
« Last Edit: January 29, 2008, 08:52:51 PM by hnumpah »
"I love WikiLeaks." - Donald Trump, October 2016

hnumpah

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2483
  • You have another think coming. Use it.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SOTU
« Reply #39 on: January 29, 2008, 08:48:40 PM »
Quote
I thought that Iraq did not have anything to do with 9-11. Maybe I'm wrong.


Nah, you're right. But in order to keep from having to admit they were led astray by their glorious leader, some folks have to keep insisting there were valid reasons.
"I love WikiLeaks." - Donald Trump, October 2016

hnumpah

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2483
  • You have another think coming. Use it.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SOTU
« Reply #40 on: January 29, 2008, 08:51:46 PM »
Quote
That Terrorists who had connections with Iraq did, however.

You're still trying to sell that hokum? The claim that Saddam had ties to Al Qaeda was debunked years ago.
"I love WikiLeaks." - Donald Trump, October 2016

Amianthus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7574
  • Bring on the flames...
    • View Profile
    • Mario's Home Page
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SOTU
« Reply #41 on: January 29, 2008, 09:04:29 PM »
You're still trying to sell that hokum? The claim that Saddam had ties to Al Qaeda was debunked years ago.


BY ELI LAKE - Staff Reporter of the Sun
March 24, 2006
URL: http://www.nysun.com/article/29746

CAIRO, Egypt - A former Democratic senator and 9/11 commissioner says a recently declassified Iraqi account of a 1995 meeting between Osama bin Laden and a senior Iraqi envoy presents a "significant set of facts," and shows a more detailed collaboration between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

In an interview yesterday, the current president of the New School University, Bob Kerrey, was careful to say that new documents translated last night by ABC News did not prove Saddam Hussein played a role in any way in plotting the attacks of September 11, 2001.

Nonetheless, the former senator from Nebraska said that the new document shows that "Saddam was a significant enemy of the United States." Mr. Kerrey said he believed America's understanding of the deposed tyrant's relationship with Al Qaeda would become much deeper as more captured Iraqi documents and audiotapes are disclosed.

Last night ABC News reported on five recently declassified documents captured in Iraq. One of these was a handwritten account of a February 19, 1995, meeting between an official representative of Iraq and Mr. bin Laden himself, where Mr. bin Laden broached the idea of "carrying out joint operations against foreign forces" in Saudi Arabia. The document, which has no official stamps or markers, reports that when Saddam was informed of the meeting on March 4, 1995 he agreed to broadcast sermons of a radical imam, Suleiman al Ouda, requested by Mr. bin Laden.

The question of future cooperation is left an open question. According to the ABC News translation, the captured document says, "development of the relationship and cooperation between the two parties to be left according to what's open [in the future] based on dialogue and agreement on other ways of cooperation." ABC notes in their report that terrorists, believed to be Al Qaeda, attacked the Saudi National Guard headquarters on November 13, 1995.

The new documents suggest that the 9/11 commission's final conclusion in 2004, that there were no "operational" ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda, may need to be reexamined in light of the recently captured documents.

While the commission detailed some contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda in the 1990s, in Sudan and Afghanistan, the newly declassified Iraqi documents provide more detail than the commission disclosed in its final conclusions. For example, the fact that Saddam broadcast the ser mons of al-Ouda at bin Laden's request was previously unknown, as was a conversation about possible collaboration on attacks against Saudi Arabia.

"This is a very significant set of facts," former 9/11 commissioner, Mr. Kerry said yesterday. "I personally and strongly believe you don't have to prove that Iraq was collaborating against Osama bin Laden on the September 11 attacks to prove he was an enemy and that he would collaborate with people who would do our country harm. This presents facts should not be used to tie Saddam to attacks on September 11. It does tie him into a circle that meant to damage the United States."

Mr. Kerry also answered affirmatively when asked whether or not the release of more of the documents captured in Iraq could possibly shed further light on Iraq's relationship with al Qaeda. The former senator was one of the staunchest supporters of the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act, which made the policy of regime change U.S. law.

However, Mr. Kerry has also been a critic of how the administration has waged the campaign in Baghdad, which he calls the "third Iraq war," meaning that the period between the invasions of 1991 and 2003 was a prolonged military engagement.

The directorate of national intelligence with the U.S. Army foreign military studies office has begun to make over 50,000 boxes of documents and some 3,000 hours of audio tape captured in Iraq available on the Web at http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/products-docex.htm. The release of these files comes after the chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Rep. Peter Hoekstra, a Republican from Michigan, threatened to introduce legislation that would force the federal government to make the new information available.

A reporter for the Weekly Standard, Steven Hayes, yesterday said he thought the memorandum of the 1995 meeting demolishes the view of some terrorism experts that bin Laden and Saddam were incapable of cooperating for ideological and doctrinal reasons.

"Clearly from this document bin Laden was willing to work with Saddam to achieve his ends, and clearly from this document Saddam did not immediately reject the idea of working with bin Laden," Mr. Hayes said. "It is possible that documents will emerge later that suggest skepticism on the part of Iraqis to working with bin Laden, but this makes clear that there was a relationship."

Mr. Hayes's story this week makes the case that the Iraqi embassy in Manila was funding and keeping close tabs on the Al Qaeda affiliate in the Philippines, Abu Sayyaf.
Do not anticipate trouble, or worry about what may never happen. Keep in the sunlight. (Benjamin Franklin)

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SOTU
« Reply #42 on: January 29, 2008, 09:07:42 PM »
This is a world where everybody talks to everybody but some conversations can't be admitted.  The U.S. for example, was talking to Iran when Iran was the personification of evil.  Under the table, they kept talking.  Not President to President of course, but some guy who could claim he spoke for the U.S. President with some guy who could claim he spoke for the Iranian President.

Saddam's government was no different.  His intelligence officers would have to keep tabs on lots of stuff.  Although al Qaeda demonized Saddam as an enemy of Islam, and Saddam persecuted Muslim extremists, at some level some of the extremists were speaking to guys from Saddam's intelligence services.  That's just the way the world works.

So the U.S.A. at any time can point to contacts it discovers and say, "See?  They were meeting, they were talking."  Not in itself a lie, but a misleading and deceptive truth put to the service of a Big Lie (that Saddam was in on 911) by the lying Bush and his inner circle.  Bush's intelligence would know of the meeting, who participated, where and when it was held - - what was said at the meeting, they'll never know.  They can use the innuendo to convince the dumbass Amerikkkan public that they HAD to be plotting the 911 attacks.

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SOTU
« Reply #43 on: January 29, 2008, 11:20:12 PM »
Invading Iraq was a bad idea.


If...



If there was a better choice ,but there was not.


Leaving the status quo would have allowed Saddam to grow his underground economy ad bribehis warders more and more , Saddam and his hold on power did fine during sanction , it was the poor and marginal of Iraq that suffered , the sanctions were sinfully ineffective that had to stop.

Letting Saddam go would have allowed him to claim a genuine victory and rebuild his WMD program , no matter how little was left Saddam could have started over an made more and more modern WMD in short order, when the US and the rest of the world left Saddam alone he made war and participated in terror by financing , letting Saddam go would not have worked.

So it is too easy to call invading Iraq a bad decision , the alternatives were more painfull , more dangerous and more expensive , but those potentials are invisible.

Cynthia

  • Guest
Re: SOTU
« Reply #44 on: January 29, 2008, 11:35:56 PM »
Invading Iraq was a bad idea.


If...



If there was a better choice ,but there was not.


Leaving the status quo would have allowed Saddam to grow his underground economy ad bribehis warders more and more , Saddam and his hold on power did fine during sanction , it was the poor and marginal of Iraq that suffered , the sanctions were sinfully ineffective that had to stop.

Letting Saddam go would have allowed him to claim a genuine victory and rebuild his WMD program , no matter how little was left Saddam could have started over an made more and more modern WMD in short order, when the US and the rest of the world left Saddam alone he made war and participated in terror by financing , letting Saddam go would not have worked.

So it is too easy to call invading Iraq a bad decision , the alternatives were more painfull , more dangerous and more expensive , but those potentials are invisible.


Plane,

I don't mind that Saddam is gone and dead. Period. He was evil.

What I am concerned about is the fact that Osama has yet to be found.....

I wonder if that little detail is not going to be the sign of the times, in that if we can't catch the bad guy who was responsible for

so much pain in our world, then how skilled are we in the end to take care that it won't happen again?

Saddam Hussein was a bad man. No doubt he had influence in the arena of terrorism, but our leaders made decisions to go to war.....

and that war is still raging with a new agenda every time we turn around.

Oneyear it's WMD...the next year it's the mix and match of terrorist in the region.....could have would have should have....

Would he have made life worse for us?

He's dead.

LIfe isn't any better for the region.  Terror is still lurking in the wings.

Fear that liberals will allow another 9-11 to happen looms over us all..

WE don't even trust our own leaders. We expect our leaders to be the end all to end all.....they will never be such.

They will never be able to control evil. . . or terror.

We bash Clinton ( I do) for not taking care to stop Terrorism...but in the end, the terror is out there. It will always be out there.

Picking battles one at a time with skill is the issue here.

Nothing wrong with bringing Saddam down.....but where are we five years later......6 years later?

I see that we are

unscathed......in terms of towers falling.

safer.....for now, at least.

nervous....about who will win this election.


but overall............we have yet to bring down the leader who constructed the beginning of our demise in '01.

I think as a strong nation, we could have done better.

It's not only about Bush's decision to go to Iraq as well as Afghanistan.

It's more about precision, and accuracy to bring peace to our people.

Ironically, I feel that we could have taken down Saddam in the end, if Bush had focused more on Osama from the getgo...with that precision and accuracy.

He wanted it all.

He wanted to succeed as  a Republican.

Time will tell....unfortunately, time will also cost us mucho.