Whats Obama afraid of ? (seeing progress?)

[Plane]

Finally, with the chilling precision of an actuary, the authors measure what the U.S. taxpayer's money would have produced if instead it had been invested in the further growth of the U.S. economy. Written in language as simple as the details are disturbing, this book will forever change the way we think about the war.

http://www2.gsb.columbia.edu/faculty/jstiglitz/


Three trillian seems a little high untill you realise he is talking about the intrest a few billion would have earned in a few centurys along with everything elese.

This leaves out all of the cost of maintaining the embargo in Iraq till Saddams Children died of old age, there is a half trillian saved right there.

[Plane]

<<A prosperous and free Iraq will still be imperfect .>>

Imperfect, huh?  I think the word you are looking for is "impossible."

<<I forsee an Iraq no more gratefull than France eager to kick us out and speak ill of us .>>

That's hilarious.  How many Americans were killed by the French Resistance after the Liberation?  Now if you'll just compare that number with how many Americans were killed by the Iraq Resistance after the "Liberation" of Iraq, you'll have a good idea of how the Iraqis will compare to the French in "gratitude" to the U.S. for their "Liberation."

<<But if they are prosperous and free that is all that we need to call the project a success.>>

Yeah, I suppose that's true, and if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle.

<<The high profit availible to them in Oil sales might speed this day , imagine an Iraq as freindly as Saudi Arabia, oh boy.>>

The trouble with you, plane, is I never know when you are kidding me.  Saudi Arabia isn't all that friendly, but I guess you knew that, eh?

We can't require perfection of our freinds , freindlyness is enough to get.

[Michael Tee]

<<And any criticisms you level at the military for their so-called "conducting tours" can be equally applied to the likes of Castro, Kim, and Ajhmanutjob>>

Well, in that case, we seem to be in agreement.  I think.  If visiting foreign dignitaries wish to save their valuable time and skip the Potemkin tours of Kim, Ahmadinejad and Fidel, it's probably a wise decision, and if Obama wants to similarly avoid a waste of HIS valuable time by skipping Petraeus' bullshit "tour" then that too is a wise decision.  Glad to see we can agree on something.

[sirs]

If visiting foreign dignitaries wish to save their valuable time and skip the Potemkin tours of Kim, Ahmadinejad and Fidel, it's probably a wise decision, and if Obama wants to similarly avoid a waste of HIS valuable time by skipping Petraeus' bullshit "tour" then that too is a wise decision.  Glad to see we can agree on something.

And no matter how many rationalizations you apply to messers Iran, NK, Cuba, can be equally applied to our military.

Absolutely

[Michael Tee]

<<Three trillian seems a little high untill you realise he is talking about the intrest a few billion would have earned in a few centurys along with everything elese.>>

He INCLUDED interest, but since the war is being deficit-financed, that interest had already started to run when the war began.  The biggest unexpected cost was the life-time care for the seriously injured, who in earlier wars would have done their country the favour of dying on the battlefield but were saved due to advances in medical science.

<<This leaves out all of the cost of maintaining the embargo in Iraq till Saddams Children died of old age, there is a half trillian saved right there.>>

Not really, since there still has to be a marine embargo on arms shipments, explosives etc. being smuggled into Iraq for the Resistance.

[Michael Tee]

<<That $3 trillion has made a lot of defense contracting companies very wealthy.
That's progress right there.  Not.>>

Depends on your POV, obviously.  From Cheney's and Bush's POV, this is REAL progress.  Progress you can take to the bank.  But it's good for the working class too - - must be a huge boom in the PSW industry.

<<(PS good to see you.)>>

Thanks, Lanya.  Glad to be back.

[Plane]

Not really, since there still has to be a marine embargo on arms shipments, explosives etc. being smuggled into Iraq for the Resistance.

Oh , from where?

[Michael Tee]

<<Oh , from where?>>

from any port with access to the Persian Gulf, I'd guess.  These guys would probably change routes and MOs all the time.  That's the challenge of smuggling, isn't it?

[Plane]

<<Oh , from where?>>

from any port with access to the Persian Gulf, I'd guess.  These guys would probably change routes and MOs all the time.  That's the challenge of smuggling, isn't it?

That is Basra , only.

[Michael Tee]

Smuggling is a funny thing.  The routes always change.  Basra would be ideal but it doesn't have to be Basra, because something can be off-loaded at any point on the Gulf and smuggled in overland.  It all depends, where are they cracking down and where is somebody paid to look the other way?  You're a Southerner, I bet you know more about blockade runners than I do.

[Plane]

Smuggling is a funny thing.  The routes always change.  Basra would be ideal but it doesn't have to be Basra, because something can be off-loaded at any point on the Gulf and smuggled in overland.  It all depends, where are they cracking down and where is somebody paid to look the other way?  You're a Southerner, I bet you know more about blockade runners than I do.

Yes , the tecnology of the 18th century ws too advanced to allow much to get through.


More to the present point, you really don't know any of the sorces for the arms showing up in Iraq?

[Michael Tee]

<<you really don't know any of the sorces for the arms showing up in Iraq?>>

Huh?  Never said that I didn't.  We were discussing routes, interdictment, alternate routes.  I got a pretty good idea where they're coming from, but if you really wanna know, you should ask OBAMA.  Barak HUSSEIN Obama, know what I mean?  He's the guy who's behind it all.  Him 'n them libruls he hangs with that just hate America so much they won't even wear flag pins to prove they don't. 

I think some of the Shi'ite militias are getting weapons from Iran.  The biggest Shi'ite militia, the so-called "Iraqi Army" is getting its stuff from the U.S.A. and Britain, probably Israel as well.  The Sunni are getting theirs from the U.S.A. via the Kurds or maybe also the Israelis and probably some from the Pakistanis.  The Kurds from Israel and America.  All of which are really just guesses on my part, I hasten to add. 

[fatman]

even the new york times admits progress in iraq
so now lets see
everybody including the NY Times is in on the big conspiracy to connect your looney dots?
obama doesn't want to go to iraq because he'll be in a "catch 22"
he'll see lots of progress and thus his doom/gloom wont make sense or sell as well

So why are the majority of Americans still against the war in Iraq?  I'm serious here, if the bastion of liberalism, the NYT is admitting progress, why are the people against it?

[Xavier_Onassis]

So why are the majority of Americans still against the war in Iraq?  I'm serious here, if the bastion of liberalism, the NYT is admitting progress, why are the people against it?

===============================
(1) It was a dumb idea to invade Iraq in the first place. If it is dumb to go somewhere, is it not dumber to stay?
If one makes progress at tatooing one's body with Looney Tune characters, does that justify doing it?
How can the US win an Iraqi Civil War, when we have not even chosen sides?
(2) It is costing us a fortune and causing serious inflation.

[Plane]

even the new york times admits progress in iraq
so now lets see
everybody including the NY Times is in on the big conspiracy to connect your looney dots?
obama doesn't want to go to iraq because he'll be in a "catch 22"
he'll see lots of progress and thus his doom/gloom wont make sense or sell as well

So why are the majority of Americans still against the war in Iraq?  I'm serious here, if the bastion of liberalism, the NYT is admitting progress, why are the people against it?

"Which comes closest to your view about what the U.S. should now do about the number of U.S. troops in Iraq? The U.S. should send more troops to Iraq. The U.S. should keep the number of troops as it is now. The U.S. should withdraw some troops from Iraq. OR, The U.S. should withdraw all of its troops from Iraq."
 
     .
 
  Send More   Keep SameNumber  WithdrawSome  WithdrawAll  Unsure
  %                  %                     %                      %           %
  15                 17                      28                     34           6

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A majority doesn't like war , a minority wants to retreat.

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm