DebateGate

General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: hnumpah on March 29, 2008, 03:00:25 PM

Title: When?
Post by: hnumpah on March 29, 2008, 03:00:25 PM
By CHARLES J. HANLEY, AP Special Correspondent

Iraq's new army is "developing steadily," with "strong Iraqi leaders out front," the chief U.S. trainer assured the American people. That was three-plus years ago, the U.S. Army general was David H. Petraeus, and some of those Iraqi officials at the time were busy embezzling more than $1 billion allotted for the new army's weapons, according to investigators.

The 2004-05 Defense Ministry scandal was just one in an unending series of setbacks in the five-year struggle to "stand up" an Iraqi military and allow hard-pressed U.S. forces to "stand down" from Iraq.

The latest discouraging episode was unfolding this weekend in bloody Basra, the southern city where Iraqi government forces ? in their toughest test yet ? were still struggling to gain the upper hand in a five-day-old battle with Shiite Muslim militias.

Year by year, the goal of deploying a capable, freestanding Iraqi army has seemed always to slip further into the future. In the latest shift, with Petraeus now U.S. commander in Iraq, the Pentagon's new quarterly status report quietly drops any prediction of when homegrown units will take over security responsibility nationwide, after last year's reports had forecast a transition in 2008.

Earlier, in January last year, President Bush said Iraqi forces would take charge in all 18 Iraqi provinces by November 2007. Four months past that deadline, they control only half the 18.

Responsibility for these ever-unfulfilled goals lies in Washington, contends retired Maj. Gen. Paul D. Eaton, who preceded Petraeus as chief trainer in Iraq.

"We continue to fail to properly resource and build the very force that will enable a responsible drawdown of our forces," Eaton told The Associated Press.

Retired Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey, a West Point professor and frequent Iraq visitor, also sees insufficient "energy" in the U.S. effort. "Even now, there is no Iraqi air force; there's no national military medical system; there's no maintenance system," he told a New York audience on March 13.

The current chief trainer counters that his Multi-National Security Transition Command-Iraq, known as MNSTC-I, has made "huge progress in many areas, quality and quantity."

"But we're not free of difficulties," Lt. Gen. James Dubik told reporters on March 4.

A look back by the AP, as the Iraq conflict enters its sixth year, finds the $22 billion training effort has been a story of uncertain steps and policy reversals, corruption, questionable numbers and distrust, ending with an Iraqi military with narrow capabilities and years more "standing up" ahead.

The first reversal came even before the 2003 U.S. invasion, when the Pentagon discarded prewar plans that called for restructuring the 400,000-man Saddam Hussein-era army into a postwar force of 150,000 to 200,000.

Instead, U.S. occupation chief L. Paul Bremer ordered the old army disbanded, and the Bush administration opted for a token military force to guard Iraq's borders ? an "afterthought," said Eaton.

"President Bush declared 'mission accomplished' on 1 May, and on 9 May I get a phone call, 'Get thee to Iraq and rebuild the Iraqi army.' I looked at my wife and she said, 'A little late for that.' You would have expected this to be an ongoing program," Eaton recalled.

The makeshift plan envisioned putting one 700-man battalion at a time through a nine-week training course ? a rate that would have produced a mere 8,000 troops over two years.

Eaton persuaded Defense Department officials to raise that target to 40,000 troops by late 2004, but even that was a "patently inadequate force," says Ali Allawi, later Iraq's defense minister.

"Deep suspicions began to be harbored as to the true intentions" of the Americans, Allawi writes in his memoir, "The Occupation of Iraq."

Abdulwahab al-Qassab, a retired Iraqi major general who observed developments from a post at Baghdad University, contends the Americans never wanted to rebuild a solid Iraqi army.

"It wasn't welcomed by the Israelis, the Kurdish factions that used to fight the Iraqi army, and some of the Shiites," al-Qassab said in an interview.

Walter B. Slocombe, who was Bremer's chief defense aide, denied to the AP that Israel's interests influenced U.S. actions, but he and other U.S. officials have acknowledged that the animosity of Iraq's Kurds and Shiites to the old Iraqi army helped shape those early decisions.

As 2003 wore on, Vinnell Corp., the U.S. military contractor hired to do the training, proved unequal to the task. The first Iraqi battalion, graduating in October, quickly fell apart because of desertions, and the second battalion refused to fight against insurgents in Fallujah in April 2004. The Jordanian army, meanwhile, was asked to take over training Iraqi officers.

As of June 2004, when Bremer's occupation authority gave way to a sovereign Iraqi government, the military still numbered only 7,000 men, as the focus shifted to fielding Iraqi police. Paul Wolfowitz, deputy defense secretary, predicted ? incorrectly ? the Iraqis could soon "take local control of the cities."

The evolving training program, now a mixed U.S.-Iraqi effort, was plagued with problems. Petraeus' new MNSTC-I was slow to be staffed. Meanwhile, top Defense Ministry officials, including the minister, Hazem Shaalan, were methodically looting the procurement budget of at least $1.3 billion, Iraqi investigators allege. Shaalan, who denies the accusations, and most of the others left the country by mid-2005.

By then the Pentagon was reporting 60,000 "trained and equipped" Iraqi troops available, a number achieved only by integrating lightly armed national guard units into the army. American commanders "do not report reliable data" on training and equipping Iraqi forces, U.S. government auditors complained. By late 2005, the U.S. command had to acknowledge that only one of 86 Iraqi army battalions was ready to fight on its own.

The Iraqis still were not given artillery, big mortars or other heavy weapons. Iraq's political unpredictability and dangerous sectarian-political divides clearly made the Americans wary that heavy weapons might be turned against them, concludes Arab military analyst Nizar Adul Kader.

"This could have been one of the fears that Americans had to take into consideration," said Kader, a retired Lebanese major general.

Auditors also found that the training command kept such poor records on distribution of personal weapons to Iraqi soldiers that some may have been passed on to insurgents or anti-American militias.

When Sunni-Shiite hostilities exploded into a bloodbath in 2006 ? up to 60 civilian killings a day in Baghdad alone ? it exposed the unreliability of the Iraqi military, some of whose units, paralyzed by desertions and reluctant officers and troops, failed to back up U.S. operations.

The U.S. command's goals for a homegrown takeover of most Iraqi security slipped ? from spring 2006, to late summer, and then beyond. In November 2006, the Pentagon forecast that all 18 provinces would come under Iraqi security control "in 2007."

Reviews in 2007, by a congressionally mandated commission, by Government Accountability Office analysts, by the Pentagon itself, found that Iraq's sectarian animosities had permeated and weakened army units, heavily Shiite and Kurdish. A civil war among Kurdish, Shiite and Sunni factions could shatter the military.

Last November, GAO auditors again sharply questioned Pentagon claims on the number of Iraqi battalions able to operate "independently," since such units often depend on U.S. fuel, ammunition and other supplies, American advisers and intelligence, and U.S. air support.

Desertions persisted. In its latest quarterly report, in early March, the Pentagon says some 197,000 military personnel have now been trained, but that number includes the equivalent of two divisions ? 27,000 men ? estimated to have gone AWOL in 2007. Some 224,000 police are listed as trained, including an unknown number who left their posts.

The Iraqi military's list of unmet needs remains long: artillery and modern armor; advanced communications and intelligence systems; a logistics network able to supply everything from food and fuel to transport and ammunition; combat hospitals; airpower.

"This is not a balanced fighting force," said al-Qassab, the retired Iraqi general. "It's only people armed with assault rifles and pickup trucks and they go and raid like a militia."

The Iraqis and Americans are working to make Iraqi logistics self-sufficient by mid-2009. But as for "fire support," training command spokesman Lt. Col. Dan Williams said, "heavier artillery is still a ways down the road."

Regarding Iraq's tiny air force, a handful of helicopters, old transports and light planes, "in my opinion, we were late to start on this," Air Force Maj. Gen. Robert R. Allardice told the AP last June, as he took over aviation training in Baghdad.

Today, as he leaves the command, Allardice confirms there are still no plans for modern jet fighters for the Iraqis, only small, propeller-driven attack planes.

Chief trainer Dubik, meanwhile, is troubled by a shortage of midlevel Iraqi officers. The Pentagon's March report says this shortage "will take years to close."

It looks like years, not months, will be the measure of progress. After a half-decade of war, Dubik says Iraqi defense officials don't expect to take over internal security until as late as 2012, and won't be able to defend Iraq's borders until 2018.

Title: Re: When?
Post by: sirs on March 29, 2008, 03:35:54 PM
When they're done        ::)
Title: Re: When?
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on March 29, 2008, 05:10:00 PM
When they're done        Roll Eyes

===================================
MOre like "when they are done, unless the enormous cost of this colonial adventurism has beggared the economy of the US."


Americans have to ask themselves at this point if Iraq is worth the cost of  $7.00 gasoline, $500,000 homes and $4.00 a loaf bread.

This war is being fought in credit. Interest is being paid to the Chinese. If the plan is to wreck China rather than repay it or pay the modest interest these loans cost, everyone needs to know that this is an unworkable plan, not to mention an unjust one.

The one thing the US has control over that China wants is Taiwan, whose people have finally attained a democracy and a decent standard of living. Will the US be forced to agree to cease arming Taiwan and supporting it just so the huge debt to China that this grotesque war is costing can be paid?

Title: Re: When?
Post by: sirs on March 29, 2008, 05:30:01 PM
When they're done        Roll Eyes
===================================
MOre like "when they are done, unless the enormous cost of this colonial adventurism has beggared the economy of the US."

Not happening anywhere close to that degree, so I guess that option is out the window.  More so, unless we have a Political leader who has no sane grasp of the threat Islamofascism is to this world, and decides to pull troops and screw the consequences to both the region and the world


Title: Re: When?
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on March 29, 2008, 05:34:03 PM
MOre like "when they are done, unless the enormous cost of this colonial adventurism has beggared the economy of the US."

Not happening anywhere close to that degree, so I guess that option is out the window.  More so, unless we have a Political leader who has no sane grasp of the threat Islamofascism is to this world, and decides to pull troops and screw the consequences to both the region and the world

===================
No, not happening. Go to the Wal*Mart. Go to the gas station. Try to buy a house. It is happening and it is happening NOW.

Elect McCain and watch it get worse. How many crippled, blind and insane American vets will have to suffer for the rest of their lives, their every cost being paid for out of your taxes before you renounce this insane madness?
Title: Re: When?
Post by: sirs on March 29, 2008, 06:24:56 PM
MOre like "when they are done, unless the enormous cost of this colonial adventurism has beggared the economy of the US."

Not happening anywhere close to that degree, so I guess that option is out the window.  More so, unless we have a Political leader who has no sane grasp of the threat Islamofascism is to this world, and decides to pull troops and screw the consequences to both the region and the world

===================
No, not happening. Go to the Wal*Mart. Go to the gas station. Try to buy a house. It is happening and it is happening NOW.

That's called cyclical economic activity. 


Elect McCain and watch it get worse.  

OR, elect McCain and get it less worse than Obama & Hillary would have it


How many crippled, blind and insane American vets will have to suffer for the rest of their lives, their every cost being paid for out of your taxes before you renounce this insane madness?  

That'd be based on believing it was insane madness to have gone in.  Since I didn't buy that garbage, much like it wasn't insane to have gone into France back in the 40's, I have no need to renounce anything.  How many crippled, blind or killed vets occured on D-Day again??  12,000+ deaths alone, on just 1 day.  Based on those #'s, when are you planning on renouncing that "insane madness"?
Title: Re: When?
Post by: hnumpah on March 30, 2008, 12:43:16 PM
Quote
When they're done

Right. They've had five years to build an army and get it trained and equipped to take over and be responsible for their own security. We can train our own kids to go to war and be killed in a matter of weeks; we can train our officers in 90 days to 4 years, depending on the route they take; but we can't train an army in five years? Screw 'em; if they're not willing to step up and take over the responsibility now, I doubt they will be in another five years, or another five after that, as long as we keep holding their hands and doing the job for them, while we make excuses for why they're not ready yet.
Title: Re: When?
Post by: Universe Prince on March 30, 2008, 12:52:42 PM

Right. They've had five years to build an army and get it trained and equipped to take over and be responsible for their own security. We can train our own kids to go to war and be killed in a matter of weeks; we can train our officers in 90 days to 4 years, depending on the route they take; but we can't train an army in five years?


The way I understand it, any time you ask when on this issue, the answer is "sometime in the next 12-18 months." Which it to say, 12-18 months ago that was the answer, that is the answer today, and in 12-18 months that will likely still be the answer.
Title: Re: When?
Post by: sirs on March 30, 2008, 01:12:34 PM
Quote
When they're done

Right.  

Yea, right.  So, what is the going timetable for achieving a free & democratic society now??  I must have missed that memo.  5 years, and that's it, right?  What timetable did our country adhere to?


Title: Re: When?
Post by: Christians4LessGvt on March 30, 2008, 02:55:55 PM
(http://news.enquirer.com/graphics/logos/logo_cincinnati.com_157x40.gif)
(http://news.enquirer.com/graphics/logos/logo_enquirer_170x34.gif)

National Heroes Tour
'Support the troops - finish their mission'

BY PETER BRONSON

The bumper sticker on the car in front of me says, "Support the Troops - Bring Them Home."

I want one that replies: "Be Careful What You Ask For."

Many of the troops are already home. And they have something to say about that kind of "support."

Some of America's most decorated soldiers have started a national tour, backed by thousands of veterans, to fight for their honor at home just as they fought for freedom in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is what they have to say:

"The Vets for Freedom National Heroes Tour is about supporting our troops, honoring their commitment, and rallying the country to complete the missions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"At this critical juncture in our country, we need Americans, lawmakers and the media, to fully recognize - and appreciate - the sacrifice of our brave military, and the dramatic success they have achieved, especially in Iraq with the new counterinsurgency strategy."

Spokesman Adam Fife explained that vets came home and just got fed up by "the lack of understanding here."

Fife, who served in Iraq as a civilian aide to Gen. David Petraeus, said, "There are schools, a medical system, grass-roots democracy - lots of really good things happening that you don't hear about."

And everywhere from Tucson to Texas, they've been welcomed with police escorts, flag-waving and big crowds that say thanks. "It's been even more amazing than we expected," Fife said.

Well, almost everywhere. One stop was amazing for all the wrong reasons.

At Forest Lake High School in Minneapolis, where one of the heroes graduated, the Vets for Freedom were told to stay away. Anti-war parents and Democratic Underground activists called to protest, and the principal folded like Origami. He said the visit was "too political."

"Let's not pull any punches. It's humiliating," said David Bellavia, a founder of Vets for Freedom. Army Staff Sergeant Bellavia earned the Bronze Star and Silver Star for valor. He was nominated for the Medal of Honor for his courage in the battle for Fallujah.

He was good enough to lay down his life for our country - but not good enough for Lake Forest High School.

"It's like telling you that if your dad's a veteran, he can't come to career day to talk about it," Fife said.

Their message is not political. Their web site says they "thank America's men and women who risk their lives by having served ... thank their families; and thank supporters for the conviction and commitment to completing the missions in Afghanistan and Iraq."

But in some corners of America today, that's "too political."

And that's just sad.

These are the soldiers who set free two nations from the dungeons of tyranny and gave them freedom and democracy. They hunted down one of the most horrifying dictators of our times, Saddam Hussein.

Iraqis remember it well. They have their own tour - a traveling museum of grisly pictures and artifacts of the hangings, torture and mass murders by Saddam. The "tribute to martyrs" shows nooses, a torture rack, mass graves and personal items - combs, blood-stained clothing and a rosary, left behind by thousands of victims.

I suppose that's "too political" for some Americans too.

But some anti-war protesters are never "too political." Some of the most radical have insulted wounded veterans, splashed a church with blood on Easter and exploited the 4,000 lives lost in Iraq to clamor anew for surrender and defeat.

But the vets who are coming home don't want their sympathy.

"The media tends to portray soldiers as victims," Fife said. "But 99 percent are proud to have volunteered, and proud that they had the guts to serve their country.""They gave their life not because of a dental plan or college money," Bellavia said in Iowa, "but because they believe that our culture and our way of life are being threatened."

These vets are not homeless vagrants, tower shooters or psycho-killers. They will not be ignored like the veterans of Korea, or demonized like the vets from Vietnam. They are America's very best. They have learned more about leadership, courage and honor in one tour of duty than desk-jockeys like me learn in a lifetime.

And when they come home, they will have something to say about that, too.

"It's a bond that's hard to describe," Fife said. "But that's the way they honor the sacrifice of the soldiers that didn't come home. They want to see the mission completed."

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080330/COL05/803300380/1009/EDIT (http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080330/COL05/803300380/1009/EDIT)

Title: Re: When?
Post by: Rich on March 30, 2008, 03:38:53 PM
>>Try to buy a house.<<

No problem.

Hell, I may even be your new neighbor soon X. Wouldn't that be a hoot!
Title: Re: When?
Post by: hnumpah on March 31, 2008, 12:00:27 AM
Quote
So, what is the going timetable for achieving a free & democratic society now??  I must have missed that memo.


What you missed is that we stood up and fought for ours ourselves. The side of the equation you missed when you whined that by setting a deadline, we made it easier for the terrorists, is that by not setting a deadline, we made it easy for the Iraqis to say, hey, what's the rush, the US is going to stay and fight our battles for us. We gave them their freedom, such as it is; that is when we should have made it clear we would stay only so long to to train and equip their troops to maintain it for them, then they were on their own.

So you tell me - are you willing to send your kids, grandkids and greatgrandkids over there to fight someone else's war? What's your timetable? How open ended is it?
Title: Re: When?
Post by: BT on March 31, 2008, 12:45:00 AM
What's the rush in getting out.

Seems our troops in Iraq are adding stability to the region.

And all i hear from all the major candidates is that the best they will do is start a troop reduction.

That tells me we will be there for a while.

Title: Re: When?
Post by: sirs on March 31, 2008, 01:51:35 AM
Quote
So, what is the going timetable for achieving a free & democratic society now??  I must have missed that memo.


What you missed is that we stood up and fought for ours ourselves.

What you missed is it wasn't the British that came in and dismantled what we had.  Or France, for that matter


So you tell me - are you willing to send your kids, grandkids and greatgrandkids over there to fight someone else's war?  

A) it IS OUR war, since it IS about the threat of Islamofascism to my kids, grandkids, and greatgrandkids.
B) We broke it, we fix it


What's your timetable? How open ended is it?

I'll give it a few more years, and assess the progress.  If it's still moving in the right direction, I'll be ok with it.  If the Iraqi Government starts to really slide, then I'll reassess my position.  Honestly H, I know where you're coming from.  I had the same conversation on this with Fatman, and I can acknowledge that the Iraqi Government isn't doing everything in their power to speed up the process.  That doesn't equate to us abandoning all the sacrafices that got us so far already.  I'm not willing to do that, since every life lost in this war will not be in vain
Title: Re: When?
Post by: Cynthia on March 31, 2008, 01:08:51 PM
Quote
So, what is the going timetable for achieving a free & democratic society now??  I must have missed that memo.


What you missed is that we stood up and fought for ours ourselves.

What you missed is it wasn't the British that came in and dismantled what we had


So you tell me - are you willing to send your kids, grandkids and greatgrandkids over there to fight someone else's war?  

A) it is OUR war, since it IS about the threat of Islamofascism to my kids, grandkids, and greatgrandkids.
B) We broke it, we fix it


What's your timetable? How open ended is it?

I'll give it a few more years, and assess the progress.  If it's still moving in the right direction, I'll be ok with it.  If the Iraqi Government starts to really slide, then I'll reassess my position




If the Iraqi Government starts to really slide, then I'll reassess my position.

 When it STARTS TO SLIDE?? This "mission accomplished" war was not supposed to last THIS LONG!

I CAN'T WAIT to read your new position when you reassess.
Title: Re: When?
Post by: sirs on March 31, 2008, 01:15:15 PM
What's your timetable? How open ended is it?

I'll give it a few more years, and assess the progress.  If it's still moving in the right direction, I'll be ok with it.  If the Iraqi Government starts to really slide, then I'll reassess my position

 When it STARTS TO SLIDE??  

Yea, meaning when the current PROGRESS, stops becoming progress and goes the opposite direction.  Just because progress is slow to some folks opinion, Miss Cynthia, doesn't mean it's "sliding backwards"


This "mission accomplished" war was not supposed to last THIS LONG!

And who the heck told you that??  Certainly not Bush, and certainly not Rumsfeld.  They made it crystal clear from the beginning, this was going to take a while....the post Mission Accomplished stuff.  You would grasp that if you weren't so hell bent on blaming Bush for all the countries woes, like education


I CAN'T WAIT to read your new position when you reassess.

You're going to have to
Title: Re: When?
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on March 31, 2008, 01:19:56 PM
A) it IS OUR war, since it IS about the threat of Islamofascism to my kids, grandkids, and greatgrandkids.
B) We broke it, we fix it
==============================================
Sorry, I didn't break it. I have never voted for one single asshole Bush, ever.
I am not responsible for the idiots that elected this fool, nor the Supremes who put him on the throne after he LOST the popular vote. You guys pay for his mistakes, not me. I see no reason why I should pay for the stupidity of others.


He was given Colin Powell for adult supervision, and Powell said "You break it, you have to fix it."
But he was so effing STOOPID that he failed to listen.

Juniorbush is a bigger threat to the people of this country that any 'Islamofascist' ever has been or ever will be.

=====================================
We are not going to ever see the "light at the end of the tunnel". It is not a tunnel, it's a pit. Just like Vietnam.




Title: Re: When?
Post by: Cynthia on March 31, 2008, 01:29:14 PM
?If we just saved the money instead of spending it, we could have made our deficits smaller, which would have been better for our economic health,? Seiver said.

As it is, our economic health is just another casualty of war.



http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/business/calbreath/20080330-9999-1b30dean.html



What a waste! This was never supposed to be a full out war declared...nor was it a take over to last 100 years.

Unfortunately,  people who can't see through their own clouded vision, out of a need to win at all cost, will support this war no matter what.
Pride?
Ego?
Fear of being wrong?

Who knows, but it takes a very brave soul to admit  a miscalculation.

There are those who still believe that the Vietnam conflict was a good thing, in the end.

Sad.
Title: Re: When?
Post by: BT on March 31, 2008, 01:53:49 PM
Funny how people talk about return on investment when it comes to Iraq but howl like struck pigs when  return on investment is discussed concerning public education.

Public education: Throw more money at the problem, don't hold people accountable, don't expect results.

Cause ya know, it's hard and unfair.

Iraq: Cut off funding, hold people accountable, expect tangible results.

Go figure.

Title: Re: When?
Post by: Cynthia on March 31, 2008, 02:03:01 PM
"And who the heck told you that??  Certainly not Bush, and certainly not Rumsfeld.  They made it crystal clear from the beginning, this was going to take a while....the post Mission Accomplished stuff.  You would grasp that if you weren't so hell bent on blaming Bush for all the countries woes, like education."

 There was a moment in time when BUSH stood on a place of success-Mission Accomplished. ON a ship long ago, far away singin' a tune.....
 I saw it with my own eyes. I know that you will say that he declared that 'M-A" because ......
Saddam was running into the nearest rat hole.
The people were 'DANCING IN THE STREETS' because the US had finally arrived.
Democracy was just around the corner.

To which I say; WHAT? So early? Even his advisors warned him not to post such a sign of victory so early on!

Sirs, come on. The true intentions for this war were never made clear to the American people at that time. NOW they're clear as mud. But, those crystal clear days of  a well planned out MissioN during the Bush administration never prepared us for what is happening. Why? Because they had no idea what we were up against.

I am only pointing out some details as I read them. I, for one, am not afraid to admit if I am wrong. Three years ago, I supported this war for the very reasons you still support this war, Sirs. I believe in democracy in the world.


I believe we should have gone after Osama first, who by the way is still out there. If we had focused more on that element of the "war on terror", all the while keeping a close eye on the Iraq side of things, remaining focused on homeland security, etc, we could have executed a better plan of action. We could have elicited the help of nations then. IF, if  a broader field of attack were "necessary".

Instead, we just plowed right in, nations around the world refusing to back us, pulling out, hating us more.
 Bush and his cronies were not as wise as you think. How many of them have retired by now?

 They too have left us in the dust of Iraq!  Now, another administration has to pick up the pieces. "You made the mess, YOU clean it up", as children say on the playing field, ha. Too bad. Bush shoud never have made such a mess. Now, others like our future grandkids will have to pay for this one. What a mess.
This is not how a war should be fought. Planning is everything.  There should have been a better form of support(as I posted in the article earlier today). This war was a push for power. This was an overreaction to terrorism.  Sure, Iraq's regime was in need of a major overhaul. I still feel that Saddam was a very bad seed.
 Too many people have died for this so called war on Iraqi terrorim,  and I believe they did not have to.



Come on, I don't blame Bush for all the woes of this nation, but,hmmm now that YOU'VE brought it up, perhaps you're on to something there.  ;)

Title: Re: When?
Post by: Cynthia on March 31, 2008, 02:10:36 PM
Funny how people talk about return on investment when it comes to Iraq but howl like struck pigs when  return on investment is discussed concerning public education.

Public education: Throw more money at the problem, don't hold people accountable, don't expect results.

Cause ya know, it's hard and unfair.

Iraq: Cut off funding, hold people accountable, expect tangible results.

Go figure.



The Iraqi war? NCLB?


Same sort of ignorance because both were not well planned out.
Go figure.
Title: Re: When?
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on March 31, 2008, 02:24:00 PM
Public education: Throw more money at the problem, don't hold people accountable, don't expect results.

Cause ya know, it's hard and unfair.

Iraq: Cut off funding, hold people accountable, expect tangible results.

=======================================================================

Well, they aren't the same thing.
Public Education ALWAYS is somewhat successful. We DO educate young people at least as well as the world average. We could be better at it, but it is not a vast money pit where no returns other than dead and wounded soldiers and thousands of foreigners who loathe us, and/or will never believe a word we say again is the result.

The country has no option but to educate its youth.,

ON THE OTHER HAND, the Iraq War was not only optional, but a very, very bad idea, carried out very very poorly, and still could turn out to be the worst US failure since Vietnam, if not the Civil War.

We spend lots more educating and equipping soldiers to fight in imperialist wars than we spend on universities training teachers. It cost more to have one soldier deployed in Iraq than it ever will to deploy a teacher to a classroom.

A smarter population is always an asset. An empire, or a failed empire is not an asset at all to most of the people.
Title: Re: When?
Post by: sirs on March 31, 2008, 03:23:02 PM
"And who the heck told you that??  Certainly not Bush, and certainly not Rumsfeld.  They made it crystal clear from the beginning, this was going to take a while....the post Mission Accomplished stuff.  You would grasp that if you weren't so hell bent on blaming Bush for all the countries woes, like education."

 There was a moment in time when BUSH stood on a place of success-Mission Accomplished. ON a ship long ago, far away singin' a tune..... I saw it with my own eyes. I know that you will say that he declared that 'M-A" because ......

....because it was.  The mission of taking out Saddam and his regime had been accomplished.  Timeline Miss Cynthia.....timeline


The people were 'DANCING IN THE STREETS' because the US had finally arrived.  Democracy was just around the corner.

No, that'd be DNC spin, which apparently you've adopted.  Push a false premice then provide facts that refute said bogus premice.  H does that alot as well.  But I still respect both of yours opinions


Sirs, come on. The true intentions for this war were never made clear to the American people at that time.  

Then either
A) you weren't paying attention
or
B) your anger of Bush has become to the point of irrationally rationalizing a false premise, pushed by the anti-war and anti Bush crowd.


I am only pointing out some details as I read them.  

And I'm pointing out where you're blurring pre and post war actions.


I, for one, am not afraid to admit if I am wrong.  

Well that's good, because you're wrong here.  The mission of taking out Saddam's regime WAS accomplished.  The post-war planning has been poor at best, and did not have near enough contingencies in place to impliment immediately when the insurgency became much greater than anyone had anticipated (outside of the anti-war anti Bush crowd perhaps).  There, you CAN legitimately criticize Bush and co.  But the reasons we went in, and how long we might be there, were clear from the get-go, for anyone who was paying attention.


Three years ago, I supported this war for the very reasons you still support this war, Sirs. I believe in democracy in the world.....Too many people have died for this so called war on Iraqi terrorim,  and I believe they did not have to.  

And I beleive that taking the Neville Chamberlain approach to the threat of Islamofascism, would have led to exponentially far more lives taken, that didn't have to be.


Title: Re: When?
Post by: BT on March 31, 2008, 03:25:15 PM
375 billion dollars per year spent on education at the federal level going all the way back to LBJ.

And for that we have kids who can't fill out job applications and if they go to college they need remedial courses.

You don't think the war is worth it? Your representatives do. They voted for it, and they continue to fund it. Don't like your reps, vote them out.

Wait you already did that.



Title: Re: When?
Post by: _JS on March 31, 2008, 03:38:10 PM
When they're done        ::)

Right now there are quite a few MCT's and similar units from the Army Reserve and National Guard preparing to mobilize to Iraq. If you are enlisted and have an MOS of 88 November or the more common 88 Mike then you may be highly likely to see your name on a short list.

One might ask why the army would need more Movement Control Teams in Iraq. Well, you can decide for yourself, but their primary mission is to move personnel and material. So an educated guess is that they are either moving more people into Iraq - or starting to move more personnel out of Iraq and likely in big numbers.
Title: Re: When?
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on March 31, 2008, 03:51:25 PM
But the reasons we went in, and how long we might be there, were clear from the get-go, for anyone who was paying attention.

==============================================
No, it WAS NOT made clear at all. You need to review what Rumsfeld said.
We invaded Iraq becauase of the threat of some Weapons of Mass Destruction: Nucleau weapons, poison gas, weaponized anthrax and smallpox. Juniorbush demanded that Saddam leave Iraq within a determined short time period, but that proviso was not included in the authorization.

Juniorbush mad some weird landing on a carrier off the coast of California in a flightsuit, and there was this huge banner
behind him. Her announced that the military phase of the war was complete. This turned out to be every bit as bogus as Bush, Cheney and Rummy themselves.

It said MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.

It did NOT SAY : FOUR OR MORE YEARS OF THIS.

It did not say: ONE HUNDRED YEARS IF THAT IS WHAT IT TAKES.

Democracy was not mentioned anywhere, either.

It made NO reference whatever to 'Islamofascism'.

I was paying attention. It might be that you weren't.
Title: Re: When?
Post by: Lanya on March 31, 2008, 03:51:56 PM
<<And who the heck told you that??  Certainly not Bush, and certainly not Rumsfeld. >>

Oh, wait....

Other top officials, including Cheney and Rumsfeld, said the war would last "weeks, not months."

Influential outside advisers who urged the administration to target Saddam went even further. Kenneth Adelman, a Reagan administration official who serves on a Pentagon advisory board, said in a Washington Post column in February that the war would be "a cakewalk." Richard Perle, who chaired that board until last week, predicted in July that support for Saddam, even within the Iraqi military, would "collapse after the first whiff of gunpowder."

from a USA Today article in 2003
http://www.usatoday.com/educate/war28-article.htm
Title: Re: When?
Post by: Lanya on March 31, 2008, 04:02:50 PM
Mission Accomplished

Monday, March 31, 2008
Iran Brokers Call for Ceasefire;
Bush reduced to Irrelevancy in Iraq;
Fighting Continues

McClatchy provides a lot of important detail about Sunday's surprising developments regarding the fight between the Iraqi government and the Mahdi Army. A parliamentary delegation from Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's own coalition (mainly now the Da`wa Party and the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq) defied him by going off to the holy seminary city of Qom in Iran and negotiating directly with Sayyid Muqtada al-Sadr and with the leader of the Quds Brigades of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, Brig. Gen. Qasim Sulaymani.

As a result of those parleys, Muqtada al-Sadr called on his followers to stand down, though I read his statement as permitting continued armed self-defense, as at Basra where the Iraqi Army is attacking them and the US is bombing them. Significantly, he calls on the Mahdi Army to stop attacking the HQs of rival political parties. That language suggests that the parties are suffering from such attacks and are worried that party infrasture is being degraded ahead of the October 1 provincial elections. The southern parties have essentially defied al-Maliki and Bush to make a separate peace.

The entire episode underlines how powerful Iran has become in Iraq. The Iranian government had called on Saturday for the fighting to stop. And by Sunday evening it had negotiated at least a similar call from Sadr (whether the fighting actually stops remains to be seen and depends on local commanders and on whether al-Maliki meets Sadr's conditions).

Al-Sadr's statement is translated here. The main points:


    ' We have decided the following:

    1. Cancel the armed manifestation in Basra and all over the governorates.

    2. Stopping the illegal and random raids and arrests.

    3. Demanding the government to apply the General Amnesty law and release all the prisoners that was not proved to be guilty and especially the prisoners of Sadr movement.

    4. We announce our innocence from any one who caries the weapon and target the government and services apparatuses and establishments and parties offices.

    5. Cooperating with the government apparatuses in achieving security and condemn criminals according to the legal procedures.

    6. We assure that the Sadr movement doesn't have any heavy weapons.

    7. Working on returning the displaced people that moved due to security events to their original places.

    8. We are asking the government to take care of the Human rights on all of its procedures.

    9. Working on achieving the constructional and services projects all over the governorates.

    [Signed and stamped Muqtada Sadr 22/Rabi Awal/1429]'



The NYT notes the irony here that the al-Maliki government is dependent on Muqtada al-Sadr to pull its fat from the fire:

    'Many Iraqi politicians say that Mr. Maliki?s political capital has been severely depleted by the campaign and that he is now in the curious position of having to turn to Mr. Sadr, a longtime rival and now his opponent in battle, for a solution to the crisis.'



McClatchy reports civil war violence on Sunday, suggesting that any cease fire has not yet taken hold:


    ' Baghdad

    - Rockets hit the Green Zone (IZ) in Baghdad in different times in the morning and afternoon. No casualties reported.

    - Around 5 pm, gunmen attacked New Baghdad police station (east Baghdad) .Three policemen were injured.

    - Around 5 pm, mortars hit Dora police station .No casualties recorded.

    - Around 5 pm, clashes took place in Ur between gunmen and Iraqi police . Six people were injured including two policemen.

    - At 5:10 pm, two mortars hit Karrada neighborhood , one hit Al-Hussein intersection near Al-Hussein two floor bridge killing 3 and injuring 8 others while the second shell hit a barber shop few meters of the same intersection killing 3 and injuring 13 others.

    - Police found five dead bodies in . . . neighborhoods in Baghdad . . .

    Basra

    - Around 7:30 pm, three people were killed due to a fighter plane bombing at Abu Sukheir neighborhood (north Basra).

    Diyala

    - Around 9:30 am, American planes bombed Jizan neighborhood of Wajihiyah (20 east Baquba).One civilian was killed and another was injured.

    - In the morning, one civilian was killed during the clashes between the Iraqi army and gunmen at Kanaan (10 km south east Baquba)

    - Around 10 am, a roadside bomb targeted the convoy of Ibrahim Hassan, the head of Diyala governorate council , while it was on its way at Saadiya (90 km east Baquba) between Baquba and Khanaqeen .Two of his guards were killed in that incident.

    Karbala

    - Around 9.30 pm of Saturday night, a roadside bomb targeted an Iraqi army patrol at Al-Haidriyah (Khan Al-Nus) in midway between Najaf and Karbala. One officer was killed with two other soldiers.

    Salahuddin

    - In the morning, gunmen attacked a police check point at Bishkan village (10 km east of Dhulwiyah near Balad) .Six policemen were killed including an officer with their vehicle damaged.

    - Today, an American force arrested two members of Al-Alam supporting council near AlLaqlaq village (35 km north of Tikrit) one of them is an officer .

    Mosul

    - In the morning, clashes took place between gunmen and police at Sahachi (west Mosul).Colonel Qasim Ziad, the commander of the first police battalion in Mosul was killed with one of his guards.

    Kirkuk

    - In the morning, a roadside bomb targeted a rescue police patrol at Tiseen street in Kirkuk city. Three people were injured in that incident including two women. '
http://juancole.com/
Title: Re: When?
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on March 31, 2008, 05:29:04 PM
375 billion dollars per year spent on education at the federal level going all the way back to LBJ.

And for that we have kids who can't fill out job applications and if they go to college they need remedial courses.

We DO graduate Seniors that can fill out job applications, and do not require remedial courses. All students should be able to do these things, but there is a degree of success in doing these things that shows a greater degree of success than the Iraq War.
======================================================

Not all students can do everything they are supposed to do. I imagine that there are many, or perhaps just some on this forum who always have someone else do their income taxes. If this is true, do you blame your high school math or accounting teacher, or do you blame the government, for making the forms so difficult?  I imagine that most would tend to blame the government.

I always do mine with the help of the computer and some software, by the way. I suppose I am an exception to the average professor of humanities, at least where I teach.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

You don't think the war is worth it? Your representatives do. They voted for it, and they continue to fund it. Don't like your reps, vote them out.

Wait you already did that.

Again, if you blame Congress for not passing laws, it is probable that you do not understand that if there is no compromise between parties (and there has been little of that lately), there will be no bills passed.

You could blame the Democrats for not compromising or the Republicans for being obstructionist. But the truth is that no party can push legislation throgh without a supermajority.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               


Title: Re: When?
Post by: BT on March 31, 2008, 05:39:15 PM
Fewer Oklahoma high school grads need remedial courses in college


OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) ? A report presented to Oklahoma state higher education regents notes that first-time freshmen direct from state high schools are taking fewer remedial courses at state colleges and universities.

The remediation report of the 2006-2007 High School Indicators Project found that 35 percent of Oklahoma's college freshmen need remediation. That's a drop from 36.7 percent during the previous school year.

The most recent rate is the second-lowest for Oklahoma students in 10 years.

The report notes that students who take remedial courses graduate from college at a lower rate than those who do not need such classes.

http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2008/03/21/68493okcollegesremedialcourses_ap.html


pitiful
Title: Re: When?
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on March 31, 2008, 05:52:35 PM
The remediation report of the 2006-2007 High School Indicators Project found that 35 percent of Oklahoma's college freshmen need remediation. That's a drop from 36.7 percent during the previous school year.

==========================================================
So that is 65% that do NOT need remediation. One assumes that their HS teachers did their job adequately.

Is the Iraq War 65% successful? With 2 million Iraqis in exile, maybe a hundred thousand dead, and lower oil production than before the war, I doubt that Iraqis woud agree with a 65% success rate.

Would the families and friends of the 4000 US troops dead and something like 20,000 blind, insane, or turned into human vegetables agree with a 65% success rate?

I imagine Dick Cheney would say that itr has been a crowing success, but then that could be because no one has shot at Dick Cheney, or perhaps that he continues to profit from his Halliburton stock.

The actual percentage success rate might be somewhere in between.

Some activities are inherently doomed to meet with failure: skunk soup, the electric fork, the atomic airplane and asbestos airfilters come to mind. Perhaps the Iraq War is one of these.

When Saddam was in power, Al Qaeda Iraq did not exist and was no threat to anyone.
Title: Re: When?
Post by: sirs on March 31, 2008, 06:15:12 PM
But the reasons we went in, and how long we might be there, were clear from the get-go, for anyone who was paying attention.

==============================================
No, it WAS NOT made clear at all.  

Yea, it was......at least to those with an objective (let the head control decision making vs letting the feelings) mindset, and/or not already predisposed to hating anything and everything Bush

Title: Re: When?
Post by: sirs on March 31, 2008, 06:17:14 PM
<<And who the heck told you that??  Certainly not Bush, and certainly not Rumsfeld. >>

Oh, wait....Other top officials, including Cheney and Rumsfeld, said the war would last "weeks, not months."

And the war to take out Saddam DID last far shorter than ANYONE had predicted.  Again, for those that actually care about the facts, timeline folks........timeline



Title: Re: When?
Post by: BT on March 31, 2008, 07:43:37 PM
Quote
So that is 65% that do NOT need remediation. One assumes that their HS teachers did their job adequately

65% is a failing grade.

At least it was when i went to school.

Title: Re: When?
Post by: fatman on March 31, 2008, 09:37:18 PM
Actually, it's less than 65%.  It's only 65% of graduated high schoolers that attended an Oklahoma university or community college.  Factor in the number of students who didn't go to college (and these would be the students who are probably in greater need of remediation than those who choose to pursue college) and I think that it would come out substantially lower.
Title: Re: When?
Post by: BT on March 31, 2008, 09:40:03 PM
Actually, it's less than 65%.  It's only 65% of graduated high schoolers that attended an Oklahoma university or community college.  Factor in the number of students who didn't go to college (and these would be the students who are probably in greater need of remediation than those who choose to pursue college) and I think that it would come out substantially lower.

Pisses ya off, doesn't it.

Title: Re: When?
Post by: Christians4LessGvt on March 31, 2008, 09:46:54 PM
"So that is 65% that do NOT need remediation"

OMG you are not bragging about that disgrace are yo XO?

Stop the disgrace.

(http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/images/2003/06/11/image558190x.jpg)
Title: Re: When?
Post by: Lanya on March 31, 2008, 10:00:15 PM
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAwallaceG.htm

Interesting facts about George Wallace.
How is he relevant here?
Title: Re: When?
Post by: Rich on March 31, 2008, 10:20:04 PM
>>This "mission accomplished" war was not supposed to last THIS LONG!<<

As I recall President Bush told the nation the war on terror would be a long one. One that might last generations. So it WAS supposed to last this long! Perhaps longer still.
Title: Re: When?
Post by: fatman on March 31, 2008, 10:28:52 PM
Quote
Pisses ya off, doesn't it.


Yes, quite a bit actually.

There's really no excuse for it.

The fault can be spread around, probably somewhat evenly, between the student, the parents, and the teachers, but the fact is that we all pay for it.
Title: Re: When?
Post by: Universe Prince on March 31, 2008, 10:30:16 PM

As I recall President Bush told the nation the war on terror would be a long one. One that might last generations. So it WAS supposed to last this long! Perhaps longer still.


The war on terror, yes, they said that would last a long time. The Iraq war, on the other hand, was going to be quick, a few weeks, or at most a few months. And that is why we should not call what is happening now the Iraq war. The Iraq war is done. It did happen quickly. What is happening now is something else. Call it occupation, call it military conflict in Iraq, whatever. But let's not deny that the Iraq war was promised to be short by making it and the war on terror the same thing. The Iraq war may have been part of the war on terror, but let's not confuse the two.
Title: Re: When?
Post by: Christians4LessGvt on March 31, 2008, 10:32:21 PM
"How is he relevant here?"

(http://media.npr.org/programs/morning/features/2003/jun/wallace/wallace_140.jpg)

George Wallace was the Democrat that stood in front of the school door
attempting to defend a disgrace that kept black children from the right
to a decent education. (LOCKED OUT)

Today Democrats stand in front of the school doors keeping
black children locked into a poor education by refusing to allow
some serious wide spread experiments with school vouchers. (LOCKED IN)

Teachers Unions should not be more important than the children.

One day both disgraces will be a part of ancient history
and the children will get the education they deserve.

Title: Re: When?
Post by: Rich on March 31, 2008, 10:38:19 PM
>>The war on terror, yes, they said that would last a long time. The Iraq war, on the other hand, was going to be quick, a few weeks, or at most a few months.<<

I don?t recall the adminstration making such claims, particularly President Bush.

>>The Iraq war may have been part of the war on terror, but let's not confuse the two.<<

I?m sorry, but you do seem to be confused. The war in Iraq is most definitely part of the war on terror, and has always been. I think perhaps you have it exactly backwards. We should ALWAYS refer to it as the war on terror, not come up with something different to placate the left, or those who despite what they?ve been told from the beginning refuse to call it what it is.

Title: Re: When?
Post by: Rich on March 31, 2008, 10:47:42 PM
>George Wallace was the Democrat that stood in front of the school door
attempting to defend a disgrace that kept black children from the right
to a decent education.

Today Democrats stand in front of the school doors keeping
black children locked into a poor education by refusing to allow
some serious wide spread experiments with school vouchers.

Teachers Unions should not be more important than the children.<<


Bravo!
Title: Re: When?
Post by: hnumpah on March 31, 2008, 11:04:21 PM
Quote
...since every life lost in this war will not be in vain...

I feel they already are, and your only hope to truly convince yourself otherwise is for some miracle to occur that will 'fix' the problem for us. Then you can claim, well, hell yes, they all died for a good cause...
Title: Re: When?
Post by: Universe Prince on March 31, 2008, 11:12:10 PM

>>The war on terror, yes, they said that would last a long time. The Iraq war, on the other hand, was going to be quick, a few weeks, or at most a few months.<<

I don?t recall the adminstration making such claims, particularly President Bush.


Rumsfeld did. Cheney did. Both at different times said the war would likely last weeks rather than months. Rumsfeld said at one point he doubted it would last six months.


I?m sorry, but you do seem to be confused. The war in Iraq is most definitely part of the war on terror, and has always been.


Okay, for the sake of argument, let's agree that it is part of the war on terror. The two are still not the same thing.


I think perhaps you have it exactly backwards. We should ALWAYS refer to it as the war on terror, not come up with something different to placate the left, or those who despite what they?ve been told from the beginning refuse to call it what it is.


I'm not trying to placate anybody. I'm trying to advocate for clarity. The Iraq war is won and done. Been so for sometime. We went to war against Iraq, and defeated Iraq, squarely, quickly and completely. Bush said mission accomplished, and in that regard he was correct. What is happening now in Iraq is not the Iraq war. It is military conflict against insurgents and/or terrorists, but it is not the Iraq war. The Iraq war and what is happening now in Iraq are, for the sake of argument, part of the war on terror. Part, not the whole. My car's transmission is part of my car, but I am not going to call the transmission my car or call my car a transmission. That would be unnecessarily confusing when I tried to communicate with other people about my vehicle and/or my car's transmission. The transmission is the transmission and my car is my car. The Iraq war is the Iraq war and the war on terror is the war on terror. The Iraq war is over. The war on terror is not over. The current conflict in Iraq is the current conflict in Iraq. If all the insurgents et al went to, let's say, Turkmenistan tomorrow never to return, the current conflict in Iraq would be finished, but the war on terror, presumably, would not be. So there is no reason to not to be clear about what is the war on terror and what is merely a part of the war on terror.
Title: Re: When?
Post by: hnumpah on March 31, 2008, 11:28:36 PM
C - This "mission accomplished" war was not supposed to last THIS LONG!

S - And who the heck told you that??  Certainly not Bush, and certainly not Rumsfeld.


"It is unknowable how long that conflict [the war in Iraq] will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months." - Rummy, in Feb. 2003
Title: Re: When?
Post by: Rich on March 31, 2008, 11:32:06 PM
>>Bush said mission accomplished, ?<<

If you?re looking for clarity, the above statement is far from clear. It wasn?t Bush who hung that sign, and you know it.

>>So there is no reason to not to be clear about what is the war on terror and what is merely a part of the war on terror.<<

You went the long way around to get here, but aren?t battles part of the war? Are battles fought ina war separate from the whole?

I think not.

The Battle of Bunker Hill WAS the Revolutionary war. Iwo Jima WAS WWII. Gettysburgh WAS the Civil War.

The battles fought are the war. Iraq is the War on Terror.
Title: Re: When?
Post by: Cynthia on March 31, 2008, 11:33:24 PM
"When Saddam was in power, Al Qaeda Iraq did not exist and was no threat to anyone."


Right on!

This war is just beginning, unfortunately.

I used to believe that this war was going to be the best thing since blue grapevines! I used to believe in my heart that soldiers would not have died in vain, I was sure that Democracy would bloom in the desert like a rose!

But, ironically, this TIMELINE that Sirs speaks about will last for decades! That's Sad.

It's a clear and present shame!

Title: Re: When?
Post by: Rich on March 31, 2008, 11:42:34 PM
Decades ... decades ...

People don't really change. I'm sure there were people pissing and moaning about how long the Revolution was taking, and the Civil War. there's always going to be short sighted people who don't see the forest for the trees. Thankfully we had leadership who believed that America was worth fighting for and fighting to protect in those days. We haven't had much of that kind of leadership since perhaps Kennedy stared down the Soviet bear and President Reagan administered the coup de gr?ce to the same bear. President Bush will be seen as that sort of leader. Despite anything else he has done, he'll be known for standing up against an enemy of all civilization while others whined about timelines, body counts, and wire taps.
Title: Re: When?
Post by: Amianthus on March 31, 2008, 11:43:50 PM
"When Saddam was in power, Al Qaeda Iraq did not exist and was no threat to anyone."

When Saddam was in power, he supported Islamic Jihad (which was led by Al-Zawahiri), which also received support from al Qaeda. It has since merged with al Qaeda.
Title: Re: When?
Post by: Cynthia on March 31, 2008, 11:48:23 PM
"America was worth fighting for and fighting to protect in those days. "


Rhetoric!
Clear and present crap.

The reason for any war should not be called for based solely on the idea  "worth fighting for". A 'war' that is worth fighting for comes about in that context, when a person is directly assulted..hand to hand.

LIfe is worth fighting for, sure
But, not in this conflict.
I have a feeling you will always support war, Rich.

Is there a war you have not supported in the history of America?
Title: Re: When?
Post by: Cynthia on March 31, 2008, 11:53:44 PM
"When Saddam was in power, Al Qaeda Iraq did not exist and was no threat to anyone."

When Saddam was in power, he supported Islamic Jihad (which was led by Al-Zawahiri), which also received support from al Qaeda. It has since merged with al Qaeda.

When Saddam was in power, he supported killing many people..and he did.
He's dead. I'm glad.
Others are dead. I'm not glad.
Did they have to die?
I say, no.

When Bush was in power, he told us that Saddam was hiding W's of MD and that was the reason for the 'WAR'.
He's almost gone. Thank God.
So are so too many innocent human beings. I pray for their souls. I also pray for Bush's soul. He will need the prayers.
Did they have to die?
I say, no.
Title: Re: When?
Post by: Christians4LessGvt on March 31, 2008, 11:58:52 PM
"When Bush was in power, he told us that Saddam was hiding W's of MD and that was the reason for the 'WAR'"

President Bush and a few others.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNgaVtVaiJE[/youtube]





Title: Re: When?
Post by: Cynthia on April 01, 2008, 12:00:50 AM
"When Bush was in power, he told us that Saddam was hiding W's of MD and that was the reason for the 'WAR'"

President Bush and a few others.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNgaVtVaiJE[/youtube]



But, did those "few others" call for this war?
Did they hire the idiots who set the world on fire, with this war, Christian.

Bush is the president of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

The Bush buck stops at his desk.


Title: Re: When?
Post by: BT on April 01, 2008, 12:01:29 AM
Country    Year of Death    Number Killed
USA[4]
   1956-1964    401
   1965    1,863
   1966    6,143
   1967    11,153
   1968    16,592
   1969    11,616

   1970    6,081
   1971    2,357
   1972    641
   1973    168
   1974-1998    1178

War to date Iraq  4000
Title: Re: When?
Post by: Cynthia on April 01, 2008, 12:06:08 AM
Country    Year of Death    Number Killed
USA[4]
   1956-1964    401
   1965    1,863
   1966    6,143
   1967    11,153
   1968    16,592
   1969    11,616

   1970    6,081
   1971    2,357
   1972    641
   1973    168
   1974-1998    1178

War to date Iraq  4000

BT, that's a shame.

Pitiful.

4000 too many.
Title: Re: When?
Post by: BT on April 01, 2008, 12:07:52 AM
Why ?

Title: Re: When?
Post by: Universe Prince on April 01, 2008, 12:10:04 AM

>>Bush said mission accomplished, ?<<

If you?re looking for clarity, the above statement is far from clear. It wasn?t Bush who hung that sign, and you know it.


Pooh yi. No, he didn't hang the sign. He did say "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed." So if you prefer, Bush said "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed", and in that regard he was correct. Either way my point is the same.


You went the long way around to get here, but aren?t battles part of the war? Are battles fought ina war separate from the whole?


Battles part of the war, yes, the key word there (for this discussion) being part. Are battles fought in a war separate from the whole. That depends on what you mean by "separate". They are a part, not the whole.


The Battle of Bunker Hill WAS the Revolutionary war. Iwo Jima WAS WWII. Gettysburgh WAS the Civil War.


Um, no. The battle of Bunker Hill was part of the Revolutionary War. Iwo Jima was part of World War II. We don't say that the Battle of the Bulge took place during the Battle of Iwo Jima, do we? Of course not. Do we say the Battle of Yorktown took place during the Battle of Bunker Hill? Of course not. Do we say the Battle of Antietam took place during the Battle of Gettysburg? Of course not.  I get that you're trying to justify calling the Iraq war the same as the war on terror, but I don't know why. It doesn't make a lot of sense to do so, isn't necessary, and doesn't help in any way.
Title: Re: When?
Post by: Christians4LessGvt on April 01, 2008, 12:14:53 AM
But, did those "few others" call for this war?
Did they hire the idiots who set the world on fire, with this war, Christian.
Bush is the president of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.


Yes and you are changing the subject.

You stated "When Bush was in power, he told us that Saddam was hiding W's of MD and that was the reason for the 'WAR'"

And it is a fact that besides President Bush many, many Democrats also thought Saddam had WMD's.

(Personally I think he did have WMD's, but thats a different subject)

The Bush buck stops at his desk.

Yes and when the last election was held the election was basically about Iraq and President Bush
got the most votes of any US President in history. Yes the buck stops at his desk and hopefully
he will attack Iran before his term runs out.

Title: Re: When?
Post by: Universe Prince on April 01, 2008, 12:18:57 AM

Yes the buck stops at his desk and hopefully
he will attack Iran before his term runs out.


So then we'll be fighting on three fronts: Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran. And that would be a good idea because...?

Yes, I know ChristiansUnited4LessGvt is supposedly ignoring me (still not sure why), so the floor is open to anyone with an answer to the question.

I'll be back to look for answers after I watch Top Gear. (Anyone else watch that show? I only just recently started watching it on BBC America, and it is one of the funniest and most entertaining shows I've seen.)
Title: Re: When?
Post by: Cynthia on April 01, 2008, 01:03:14 AM
Why ?



Dead for no good reason is always pitiful, BT.
Title: Re: When?
Post by: sirs on April 01, 2008, 03:15:43 AM
As I recall President Bush told the nation the war on terror would be a long one. One that might last generations. So it WAS supposed to last this long! Perhaps longer still.

The war on terror, yes, they said that would last a long time. The Iraq war, on the other hand, was going to be quick, a few weeks, or at most a few months. And that is why we should not call what is happening now the Iraq war. The Iraq war is done. It did happen quickly. What is happening now is something else.

Could you PLEASE pass that bit of info on to messers Cynthia, Lanya, and Xo?  They seem hell bent on making that point clear as mud

 
Title: Re: When?
Post by: Universe Prince on April 01, 2008, 04:29:43 AM

Could you PLEASE pass that bit of info on to messers Cynthia, Lanya, and Xo?  They seem hell bent on making that point clear as mud


Rich too, apparently.

I get what you're saying, Sirs, but quite frankly, I blame the current President and administration for not pointing it out. They seem unwilling to differentiate between the Iraq war and the current status of Iraq. Maybe they have, but I've missed it if they have. They, like Rich, seem to want to confuse the current conflict in Iraq with the Iraq war and both of those together with the war on terror as a whole. So they have only themselves to blame for the way this whole public debate has been framed.
Title: Re: When?
Post by: sirs on April 01, 2008, 04:51:05 AM

Could you PLEASE pass that bit of info on to messers Cynthia, Lanya, and Xo?  They seem hell bent on making that point clear as mud

I get what you're saying, Sirs, but quite frankly, I blame the current President and administration for not pointing it out.

So, how was I able to figure it out so easily, right from the get go?

Title: Re: When?
Post by: BT on April 01, 2008, 07:30:51 AM
Quote
Dead for no good reason is always pitiful, BT.

The opportunity for a stable Middle-East is not a good reason?

That seems to be a myopic and selfish attitude to me.
Title: Re: When?
Post by: Rich on April 01, 2008, 11:52:19 AM
>>A 'war' that is worth fighting for comes about in that context, when a person is directly assulted..hand to hand.<<

Pardon me, but that's just dumb.

Title: Re: When?
Post by: Rich on April 01, 2008, 11:53:52 AM
>>Are battles fought in a war separate from the whole. That depends on what you mean by "separate". They are a part, not the whole.<<

Prince, I have to say, that is as close as I've ever heard you come to questioning the meaning of the word "is."
Title: Re: When?
Post by: Rich on April 01, 2008, 11:57:24 AM
>>Rich too, apparently.<<

<chuckle>

Well, if you want to disqualify everything anyone in the adminstration has ever said regarding the war in Iraq, then fine, I guess the war on terror is confined to ... where?
Title: Re: When?
Post by: Cynthia on April 01, 2008, 12:44:05 PM
>>A 'war' that is worth fighting for comes about in that context, when a person is directly assulted..hand to hand.<<

Pardon me, but that's just dumb.



Chuckle...

I thought so too.

War is just dumb.
Title: Re: When?
Post by: Cynthia on April 01, 2008, 12:49:05 PM

Yes the buck stops at his desk and hopefully
he will attack Iran before his term runs out.


So then we'll be fighting on three fronts: Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran. And that would be a good idea because...?

Yes, I know ChristiansUnited4LessGvt is supposedly ignoring me (still not sure why), so the floor is open to anyone with an answer to the question.

I'll be back to look for answers after I watch Top Gear. (Anyone else watch that show? I only just recently started watching it on BBC America, and it is one of the funniest and most entertaining shows I've seen.)

Top Gear? Sounds fun.

Iran is not a country we want to invade! My god. Christian, what are you thinking?
Title: Re: When?
Post by: Cynthia on April 01, 2008, 12:50:51 PM

Could you PLEASE pass that bit of info on to messers Cynthia, Lanya, and Xo?  They seem hell bent on making that point clear as mud


Rich too, apparently.

I get what you're saying, Sirs, but quite frankly, I blame the current President and administration for not pointing it out. They seem unwilling to differentiate between the Iraq war and the current status of Iraq. Maybe they have, but I've missed it if they have. They, like Rich, seem to want to confuse the current conflict in Iraq with the Iraq war and both of those together with the war on terror as a whole. So they have only themselves to blame for the way this whole public debate has been framed.

WOW!
SPot on, Universe Prince.

Spot on post!
Title: Re: When?
Post by: sirs on April 01, 2008, 01:22:53 PM
Spot on??  Ok, so then I assume now then, you realize you were wrong in trying to lay claim to mission accomplished as equating it to being the near end of our being in Iraq, right?  I was able to grasp the difference immediately.  I can only speculate as to why so may others are unable, or worse, unwilling, to
Title: Re: When?
Post by: BT on April 01, 2008, 02:10:36 PM
Quote
War is just dumb.

Sounds like a bumper sticker.


and carries as much weight
Title: Re: When?
Post by: Universe Prince on April 01, 2008, 02:20:17 PM

So, how was I able to figure it out so easily, right from the get go?


I don't know. But if you can show me quotes of the President and/or those in his administration saying and clearly delineating that the Iraq war is done and what is happening in Iraq now is not a war, I'll be happy to revise my opinion.
Title: Re: When?
Post by: Universe Prince on April 01, 2008, 02:21:41 PM

>>Are battles fought in a war separate from the whole. That depends on what you mean by "separate". They are a part, not the whole.<<

Prince, I have to say, that is as close as I've ever heard you come to questioning the meaning of the word "is."


Cute, but it doesn't counter anything I said.
Title: Re: When?
Post by: Universe Prince on April 01, 2008, 02:23:13 PM

Well, if you want to disqualify everything anyone in the adminstration has ever said regarding the war in Iraq, then fine, I guess the war on terror is confined to ... where?


Oh get a clue. I'm not saying the war on terror is confined to any place at all. I'm saying just the opposite in fact.
Title: Re: When?
Post by: Christians4LessGvt on April 01, 2008, 02:55:47 PM
"War is just dumb"


(http://www.protestwarrior.com/nimages/the_sign.jpg)
Title: Re: When?
Post by: sirs on April 01, 2008, 03:09:05 PM

So, how was I able to figure it out so easily, right from the get go?


I don't know.


I do.  Because I was paying attention to the time line of events, and facts as they took place.  Because it was made clear from day one, that this would be a long and difficult process, the helping to bring stability and democracy to the region, once Saddam and his regime had been taken out.  It wasn't rocket science, Prince


But if you can show me quotes of the President and/or those in his administration saying and clearly delineating that the Iraq war is done and what is happening in Iraq now is not a war, I'll be happy to revise my opinion.

But it is still a war, the war on terror, the war on Islamofascism/militant Islam, whatever, with Iraq having become a kinda front line.  I call it the Post-Saddam war myself, but the point of the matter is that it was clear as day. way back when
Title: Re: When?
Post by: Universe Prince on April 01, 2008, 03:29:37 PM

But it is still a war, the war on terror, the war on Islamofascism/militant Islam, whatever, with Iraq having become a kinda front line.  I call it the Post-Saddam war myself, but the point of the matter is that it was clear as day. way back when


I don't believe the current situation in Iraq is a war. But even if it is, you're doing what Rich was doing. The current situation in Iraq is not the war on terror. It would be part of the war on terror. If all the insurgents and the like left Iraq and moved to some other country, ending the conflict in Iraq and the continued need for massive presence of troops in Iraq, would the war on terror be over? Would that be the end? The answer is no, correct? So why do we need to say the conflict in Iraq is the war on terror. We keep calling it the war in Iraq, when the actual war with Iraq has been over for some time. We just keep mashing it all together apparently only so that when people say "so-and-so said the war in Iraq would be short" someone else can say "no, they said the war on terror would last a long time, you moron." Here's an idea, instead of that response, how about we try saying "the Iraq war did end quickly, and what is happening now is another part of the war on terror." Would that be so wrong?
Title: Re: When?
Post by: Universe Prince on April 01, 2008, 03:38:02 PM

(http://www.protestwarrior.com/nimages/the_sign.jpg)


Except war did not end slavery or fascism or communism. Slavery was ended by political means, though it still exists in some form today, communism is still around, and I'm pretty sure if you ask socialists and/or war on terror supporters they will tell you fascism is around as well. Well, you got one out of four.
Title: Re: When?
Post by: Rich on April 01, 2008, 04:44:28 PM
>> but it doesn't counter anything I said.<<

If you're saying something other than "Iraq is not part of the war on terror," please try and be a bit clearer. If you can't, then I suggest it's you who's being "cute." But I know you, you'll go on and on and on and on and on ... And frankly, you're making no sense at all. You?re making a statement which clearly goes against what everyone involved says. Sorry, but I?ll take their opinion over yours. No offense.

One person who is clear, is President Bush. The Commander in Chief says it's part of the war on terror, therefore, it is.

You're dissembling not withstanding.
Title: Re: When?
Post by: sirs on April 01, 2008, 04:51:05 PM
But it is still a war, the war on terror, the war on Islamofascism/militant Islam, whatever, with Iraq having become a kinda front line.  I call it the Post-Saddam war myself, but the point of the matter is that it was clear as day, way back when

I don't believe the current situation in Iraq is a war.

Then obviously, we disagree


But even if it is, you're doing what Rich was doing. The current situation in Iraq is not the war on terror.

I never said it was, so apparently I'm not "doing what Rich is doing", if that's what he's doing.  I said, if anything, it's a front line, but not to be confused with the mission of taking Saddam & his regime out, which you at least are rational enough to be able and differentiate



Title: Re: When?
Post by: Universe Prince on April 01, 2008, 05:16:39 PM

If you're saying something other than "Iraq is not part of the war on terror," please try and be a bit clearer.


I'm not sure how much clearer I can be. "The Iraq war may have been part of the war on terror, but let's not confuse the two." "My car's transmission is part of my car, but I am not going to call the transmission my car or call my car a transmission. That would be unnecessarily confusing when I tried to communicate with other people about my vehicle and/or my car's transmission. The transmission is the transmission and my car is my car. The Iraq war is the Iraq war and the war on terror is the war on terror. The Iraq war is over. The war on terror is not over." So how much clearer to you need it to be?


If you can't, then I suggest it's you who's being "cute." But I know you, you'll go on and on and on and on and on ... And frankly, you're making no sense at all. You?re making a statement which clearly goes against what everyone involved says. Sorry, but I?ll take their opinion over yours. No offense.

One person who is clear, is President Bush. The Commander in Chief says it's part of the war on terror, therefore, it is.


Oh for the love of pizza. Don't be dense. At no point have I said that the Iraq war or the current situation in Iraq are not a part of the war on terror, and I've argued the opposite for several posts now. Pay attention.


You're dissembling not withstanding.


Physician, heal thyself.
Title: Re: When?
Post by: Universe Prince on April 01, 2008, 05:19:49 PM

Quote
But even if it is, you're doing what Rich was doing. The current situation in Iraq is not the war on terror.

I never said it was,


Didn't you?


But it is still a war, the war on terror, the war on Islamofascism/militant Islam, whatever, with Iraq having become a kinda front line.  I call it the Post-Saddam war myself, but the point of the matter is that it was clear as day, way back when

Title: Re: When?
Post by: Rich on April 01, 2008, 05:21:21 PM
Once again, you're making absolutely no sense.

Battles in a war = That war.

Iraq is a front in the war on terror. Pakistan is a front in the war on terror. Afghanistan is a front in the war on terror. Put them all together and what do you have?

The war on terror.

And, if I've sounded insulting, I haven't meant to be. You on the other hand ...
Title: Re: When?
Post by: sirs on April 01, 2008, 05:35:51 PM

Quote
But even if it is, you're doing what Rich was doing. The current situation in Iraq is not the war on terror.

I never said it was,


Didn't you?

But it is still a war, the war on terror, the war on Islamofascism/militant Islam, whatever, with Iraq having become a kinda front line.  I call it the Post-Saddam war myself, but the point of the matter is that it was clear as day, way back when

So, as you can planely see, no, I didn't.  "A" war on terror/Islamofascism does not equate to "the" war on terrorism.  Then again, you knew that, or should.  Call it a front line, like I inferred.  But I appreciate you pulling my quote up again for reinforcement
Title: Re: When?
Post by: Universe Prince on April 01, 2008, 05:43:19 PM

"A" war on terror/Islamofascism does not equate to "the" war on terrorism.


I'm not sure how "it is still a war, the war on terror, the war on Islamofascism/militant Islam, whatever" is not you equating "a war" with "the war on terror", but if you say so, okay. Looked to me like you were making them all out to be the same, but if you say it was a misunderstanding, I'll take your word for it.
Title: Re: When?
Post by: Christians4LessGvt on April 01, 2008, 05:57:56 PM
ya ever notice they always pretend they want to fight the enemy elsewhere
they pretend they support the war on terror, but always elsewhere
first they say we shouldn't have gone to iraq because saddam wasn't tied Al Killya
now that we are there and so is Al KillYa they still don't want us there
they don't really want to fight Al Killya
they wanna surrender



Title: Re: When?
Post by: Christians4LessGvt on April 01, 2008, 06:01:38 PM
What part of the War on Terrorism do they support?

This year's Democratic plan for the future is another inane sound bite designed to trick American voters into trusting them with national security.

To wit, they're claiming there is no connection between the war on terror and the war in Iraq, and while they're all for the war against terror ? absolutely in favor of that war ? they are adamantly opposed to the Iraq war. You know, the war where the U.S. military is killing thousands upon thousands of terrorists (described in the media as "Iraqi civilians," even if they are from Jordan, like the now-dead leader of al-Qaida in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi). That war.

As Howard Dean put it this week, "The occupation in Iraq is costing American lives and hampering our ability to fight the real global war on terror."

This would be like complaining that Roosevelt's war in Germany was hampering our ability to fight the real global war on fascism. Or anti-discrimination laws were hampering our ability to fight the real war on racism. Or dusting is hampering our ability to fight the real war on dust.

Maybe Dean is referring to a different globe, like Mars or Saturn, or one of those new planets they haven't named yet.

Assuming against all logic and reason that the Democrats have some serious objection to the war in Iraq, perhaps they could tell us which part of the war on terrorism they do support. That would be easier than rattling off the long list of counterterrorism measures they vehemently oppose.

They oppose the National Security Agency listening to people who are calling specific phone numbers found on al-Qaida cell phones and computers. Spying on al-Qaida terrorists is hampering our ability to fight the global war on terror!

Enraged that the Bush administration deferred to the safety of the American people rather than the obstructionist Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court, one Clinton-appointed judge, James Robertson, resigned from the FISA court in protest over the NSA spying program.

Democratic Sen. Russell Feingold called for a formal Senate censure of President Bush when he found out the president was rude enough to be listening in on al-Qaida phone calls. (Wait until Feingold finds out the White House has been visiting Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's "MySpace" page!)

Last week a federal judge appointed by Jimmy Carter ruled the NSA program to surveil phone calls to al-Qaida members in other counties unconstitutional.

Democrats oppose the detainment of Taliban and al-Qaida soldiers at our military base in Guantanamo, Cuba. Democrats such as Rep. Jane Harman, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, have called for Guantanamo to be shut down.

The Guantanamo detainees are not innocent insurance salesmen imprisoned in some horrible mix-up like something out of a Perry Mason movie. The detainees were captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan. You remember ? the war liberals pretended to support right up until approximately one nanosecond after John Kerry conceded the 2004 election to President Bush.

But apparently, imprisoning al-Qaida warriors we catch on the battlefield is hampering our ability to fight the global war on terror.

Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin has compared Guantanamo to Nazi concentration camps and Soviet gulags, based on a report that some detainees were held in temperatures so cold that they shivered and others were forced to listen to loud rap music ? more or less approximating the conditions in the green room at "The Tyra Banks Show." Also, one of the detainees was given a badminton racket that was warped.

New York Times columnist Bob Herbert complained this week that detainees in Guantanamo have "no hope of being allowed to prove their innocence." (I guess that's excluding the hundreds who have been given administrative hearings or released already.)

Of course all the usual "human rights" groups are carping about how brutally our servicemen in Guantanamo are treating the little darlings who are throwing feces at them.

Democrats oppose the Patriot Act, the most important piece of legislation passed since 9/11, designed to make the United States less of a theme park for would-be terrorists.

The vast majority of Senate Democrats (43-2) voted against renewing the Patriot Act last December, whereupon their minority leader, Sen. Harry Reid, boasted: "We killed the Patriot Act" ? a rather unusual sentiment for a party so testy about killing terrorists.

In 2004, Sen. John Kerry ? the man they wanted to be president ? called the Patriot Act "an assault on our basic rights." At least all "basic rights" other than the one about not dying a horrible death at the hand of Islamic fascists. Yes, it was as if Congress had deliberately flown two commercial airliners into the twin towers of our Constitution.

They oppose profiling Muslims at airports.

They oppose every bust of a terrorist cell, sneering that the cells in Lackawanna, New York City, Miami, Chicago and London weren't a real threat like, say, a nondenominational prayer before a high school football game. Now that's a threat.

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/coulter082406.php3 (http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/coulter082406.php3)

Title: Re: When?
Post by: Universe Prince on April 01, 2008, 06:20:52 PM

ya ever notice they always pretend they want to fight the enemy elsewhere


Who is "they"?
Title: Re: When?
Post by: sirs on April 01, 2008, 06:25:44 PM
I'm not sure how "it is still a war, the war on terror, the war on Islamofascism/militant Islam, whatever" is not you equating "a war" with "the war on terror", but if you say so, okay. Looked to me like you were making them all out to be the same, but if you say it was a misunderstanding, I'll take your word for it.

And as you are now well aware, my point was they aren't, so I'm glad we're on the same page, on this regard.  Similar fronts, but wholly different ojectives (Saddam/Iraq vs the war on Terror).  The former was the Mission Accomplished moment, the latter is ongoing, and will be for quite a while.  Bush even said so himself
Title: Re: When?
Post by: Rich on April 01, 2008, 06:34:37 PM
>>The former was the Mission Accomplished moment, the latter is ongoing, and will be for quite a while.<<

If you want to parse it that way, okay. However, they are both part of the war on terror as defined by the President.
Title: Re: When?
Post by: fatman on April 01, 2008, 09:44:28 PM
"War is just dumb"


(http://www.protestwarrior.com/nimages/the_sign.jpg)


With the exception of Nazism, all of those things are alive and well in the world today.

I guess war didn't eradicate them, did it?
Title: Re: When?
Post by: fatman on April 01, 2008, 09:46:19 PM

(http://www.protestwarrior.com/nimages/the_sign.jpg)


Except war did not end slavery or fascism or communism. Slavery was ended by political means, though it still exists in some form today, communism is still around, and I'm pretty sure if you ask socialists and/or war on terror supporters they will tell you fascism is around as well. Well, you got one out of four.


Dammit, you beat me to it.
Title: Re: When?
Post by: Christians4LessGvt on April 01, 2008, 10:46:47 PM
Dammit, you beat me to it.

Oh come on Fatman.

Dont we both know the sign refers to for all practical matters "ending slavery" in the United States and ending Nazism in Germany?

Of course slavery still exists in the world today, but it is generally accepted that the US Civil War freed the slaves from slavery.

The point is that war has solved major problems, forced political solutions, or at the least forced people to change their behaviors for the better.
Title: Re: When?
Post by: Universe Prince on April 01, 2008, 11:48:42 PM

Dammit, you beat me to it.


No, no, no. It's Universe Prince, not Dammit.
Title: Re: When?
Post by: Universe Prince on April 01, 2008, 11:49:54 PM

Of course slavery still exists in the world today, but it is generally accepted that the US Civil War freed the slaves from slavery.


Except that it didn't.
Title: Re: When?
Post by: Cynthia on April 02, 2008, 12:23:29 AM
Quote
Dead for no good reason is always pitiful, BT.

The opportunity for a stable Middle-East is not a good reason?

That seems to be a myopic and selfish attitude to me.


Selfish?

Myopic?

to you?

You put words in my mouth. You think I do not want a stable middle east? I live for a stable middle east. We all do. If we don't have that, we are dead in the water.

I do not believe that Bush was intelligent enough to bring about change, let alone, solve centuries old bloodshed problems within that region, BT.

You think there is a quick fix?

You would be wrong.

You would be selfish in your assessment of such a stance.

This is not 1941 Dec. 7th.

This is not your typical war on what terrorizes others.

It is, however, a war to bring down a very bad seed, aka Saddam. We did that. NOw, hmmm, is there a chance that we can really tear down that element of terrorism that will be underground for centuries to come?
\
I say it will not occur with just ONE WAR in a country rich in history, culture and beauty. . . Iraq.

It will come about through attention to those minor details that sneak into our lives via holes of opportunity such as the club of men/women who ONE BY ONE plan well enough to do us in.

Perhaps Bush's administration has done all it can to secure our airports and such, but anyone in his position would have done the same after 9-11, imo.

Bush has not helped out one bit by invading Iraq.
Now, those who hate want more blood. Iran.
AFghanistan is the stage of the fight we should have focused on with more clarity.

THE UNITED NATIONS has troops there. But, we wanted more. We wanted more. We always want MORE...and at what cost?

Some day we are going to have to admit that we were wrong based on our greed to want MORE...I think this administration is greedy and willing to bully others in order to flex muscles.

Hell, then again, I have to admit, as much as I HATED CLINTON BILLY....and his ignorance in the arena of stopping the crap that could have been stopped. . . perhpas Bush isn't that bad.

Bill Clinton was wrong to let the terror "notices" slide. Those attacks were under his watch.

There's so much blame to go around.

We will never understand the scope of it all, because we will never be able to understand that the world is divided into many segments of beings who only want to find their own peace.

The terrorists have a chance to die now. They will not. Why?
 Because hate begets hate...and their fuel is only fired up.

I don't blame Bush for that. I do hold Clinton "accountable" for the lack of hearing that ugly call.

But, we have bitten off more than we were supposed to chew.

That's my stance.

Wisdom is key here...and Bush did not have enough of that to save his life. ....let alone those boys who die each day on teh battle field.
Title: Re: When?
Post by: BT on April 02, 2008, 12:57:39 AM
So your solution is to bring the troops home.

Become an isolationist nation once again.

To strike back only when stricken.

That an attack on our friends is simply an attack on our friends. Their problem, not ours.

That sacrifice is a fools game, that the Iraqi's are not worth one more drop of our boys blood.

For that matter, what really is.

 

Title: Re: When?
Post by: Cynthia on April 02, 2008, 01:12:40 AM
So your solution is to bring the troops home.

Become an isolationist nation once again.

To strike back only when stricken.

That an attack on our friends is simply an attack on our friends. Their problem, not ours.

That sacrifice is a fools game, that the Iraqi's are not worth one more drop of our boys blood.

For that matter, what really is.

 


What is your solution?
What can you bring to the discussion that is void of ego and the need to be right, BT?

Is there only one way or the highway for you here?

I am curious.
Title: Re: When?
Post by: BT on April 02, 2008, 01:19:16 AM
Where is the ego in that post.

Where is the need to be right.

The fact is i could be quite comfortable with an isolationist approach to foreign policy.

Problem is that it isn't practical in this shrinking world.

I learned a long time ago that life isn't like TV.

Problems aren't always solved in the 23 minutes allotted a 30 minute sitcom.

That some results are worth the wait.




Title: Re: When?
Post by: Cynthia on April 02, 2008, 01:23:34 AM
Well, then, show it, BT.

This is a sound bite atmosphere.

I have NEVER heard you admit you are wrong.
Never.

You can't do it...and yet, change has to come via a willingness to admit mistakes.

I think we need to discuss more.....without the ego underlying factor that has been a factor on this board for years.

I don't see anyone new on this board. I wonder why?

Perhaps the good old boys mentality has finally taken this place to a disadvantage.

The rush to bash, react, prove others wrong..is palpable. ...not contructive.

I am just saying that we might need to get into healthy discussions of such that we might have to admit we need to "rethink" an issue.

My god, that is human nature. That is the essence of learning.

Cindy
Title: Re: When?
Post by: BT on April 02, 2008, 01:27:55 AM
I don't believe i have bashed you personally in any of my posts.

And are we now discussing this board instead of Iraq?

Title: Re: When?
Post by: BT on April 02, 2008, 02:00:13 AM
http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/2008/04/the-liberation-1.php
Title: Re: When?
Post by: fatman on April 02, 2008, 09:25:34 AM
Oh come on Fatman.

Dont we both know the sign refers to for all practical matters "ending slavery" in the United States and ending Nazism in Germany?

Of course slavery still exists in the world today, but it is generally accepted that the US Civil War freed the slaves from slavery.

The point is that war has solved major problems, forced political solutions, or at the least forced people to change their behaviors for the better.


UP's point aside, even if it were to be believed that the Civil War ended slavery in this country, it didn't end it in others.  Britain and the Dutch colonies, both heavily into the slave trade, ended slavery without war.

As far as knowing that the sign says that war ended slavery in the US, how do I know that?  How do I know that the sign wasn't made by a Canadian, or a Lithuanian?  It lists four things which war supposedly ended, which it didn't end in all cases.  Nowhere does that sign make it clear.

For every example of war solving major problems, forcing political solutions, or forcing people to change their actions for the better, another example could be brought to light where it did the opposite of those things.  Is war always wrong?  No.  Is war always the best course?  No.  The truth lies somewhere in the grey area.
Title: Re: When?
Post by: Christians4LessGvt on April 02, 2008, 11:48:00 AM
it didn't end it in others.  Britain and the Dutch colonies, both heavily into
the slave trade, ended slavery without war.


Yes but does one always have to encompass 100% of everything possible with
every statement? Gosh Fatman that makes a discussion unneccessarily difficult.

If I say in a conversation "I love Ford Mustangs", but you interrupt and say "yeah but you
don't love every single Ford Mustang that has ever been made", it makes it very difficult
to converse if nothing can be taken for granted in a discussion.

If we end polio with a vaccine and a headline reads "Polio cured"
Obviously most people realize that the headline means "almost all".
And of course there will be isolated cases still around and not every single case is cured.

Or when a headline reads "US Civil War Over".
Most readers that are not "define is" freaks (not saying you are) realize that it
means "for all practical purposes" the civil war is ended even if there are still
a few pockets of resistance.

The point I was making by showing the sign that said "War ended slavery"
was that war does solve things, not every time, but at times it does solve things.
It did free the slaves in the United States.

As far as knowing that the sign says that war ended slavery in the US,
how do I know that?  How do I know that the sign wasn't made by a Canadian,
or a Lithuanian? It lists four things which war supposedly ended, which it didn't
end in all cases. Nowhere does that sign make it clear.


Honestly Fatman, and I say this 100% respectfully, this is more of the "define is" crap
that is such a waste of time. If we are going to have a decent flowing discussion can't we be
civil enough to not block the exchange of ideas with constant little "gotcha games" or distractions
away from the real point at hand? You and I both know the point I was making and the point
the sign was making. Deep down, we both really honestly know. But instead "define is" gets
thrown up and brings the discussion into a different direction, and really is such a waste of time.

Of course a protest sign is not going to be able to list every single country where war has
ended slavery. War ended slavery in the United States. The little protest sign lists things
which war ended but not ended in every single case. It's kind of like a "DUH". But it is a fact
that in each category listed war has ended those thing in various instances around the world.

For every example of war solving major problems, forcing political solutions, or forcing
people to change their actions for the better, another example could be brought to light
where it did the opposite of those things.
 

Of course, my statement nor the sign said "War Solves Everything".
My statment is in response to a comment that "War Is Dumb".
War ended slavery in the United States which isn't dumb.

Is war always wrong?  No.  Is war always the best course?  No.  T
he truth lies somewhere in the grey area.


Exactly Fatman, we agree again.

Title: Re: When?
Post by: Universe Prince on April 02, 2008, 12:24:30 PM

War ended slavery in the United States.


Except that it didn't.
Title: Re: When?
Post by: Universe Prince on April 02, 2008, 12:25:48 PM

I just thought maybe we could hear the other person's point with sincere and respectful ears.


So who's stopping you?
Title: Re: When?
Post by: Christians4LessGvt on April 02, 2008, 12:57:06 PM
I have noticed that very few people have ever really heard
another person's point of view and agreed with that point.


Gosh Cynthia look at the post right before the post you made the above statement.
It stated I agreed with Fatman and Fatman and I have been at each others
throats many times.

But, I was wrong. This is not a classroom.  This is a debate gate.

I disagree.
I think 3DHS is a wondeful "classroom".
At least I know it is for me.
Cynthia I learn alot in here, because of disagreement.

Every single day I must learn about varying subjects so that
you can respond and post coherently.

If we all agreed all the time, why would you need to go look stuff
up so that you can source your opinion?

Jeezzz honestly I have to research topics every single day.
It is really enlightening.

I hear what you are saying Cynthia, but I really don't get the constant need for
people to always agree. You hear about that in the election campaign. Ya know the
"we all need to put aside our differences and get along". What? Isn't that was democracy
is about? I don't view differing opinions as a bad thing. Thats the way hopefully we can
come up with the best solutions in a democracy. There are no disagreements in many non-
democratic systems, it's "one way or a bullet in your head". So I view disagreement as
a positive, it means there is freedom of expression, and free exchange of very differing views.

I think BT remains in the background alot.
He believes in not being a nanny and getting involved in every little spat.
Sure he manipulates and tries to massage us towards a more civil discourse.
But I think it would be unwise to crack down too much on freedom of expression
as long as it isn't too personal or threatening to fellow members.

Cynthia even though we might not admit it, even though like you said it's sometimes
about ego, it can still be a learning experience. I know sometimes when
people won't admit the obvious it is basically pride/ego holding them back
but even if they can't publicly admit something, I know deep down they
have learned a lesson.



Title: Re: When?
Post by: Universe Prince on April 02, 2008, 01:07:30 PM

sometimes I get the feeling that members (and I have done this too) react instead of accept the other person's point of view as "right"...with a counter point.
Instead the rush to "take down" the other member takes center stage.

No big deal...I just had a thought about the difference between real life deabating and how we could improve the room here. When I discuss the NCLB act, for example, or IRAQ ....with a real life individual, the  discussion holds more water, if you will.


We're all real life individuals here. We're people who think we are right and believe it strongly enough to be bothered to participate here. The experience of discussion here at the Saloon is necessarily going to be somewhat different than an average conversation held with another person face to face. It's good that you seek more understanding. We all should. But don't let it discourage you. We're all just human beings after all.
Title: Re: When?
Post by: Cynthia on April 02, 2008, 01:21:37 PM

sometimes I get the feeling that members (and I have done this too) react instead of accept the other person's point of view as "right"...with a counter point.
Instead the rush to "take down" the other member takes center stage.

No big deal...I just had a thought about the difference between real life deabating and how we could improve the room here. When I discuss the NCLB act, for example, or IRAQ ....with a real life individual, the  discussion holds more water, if you will.


We're all real life individuals here. We're people who think we are right and believe it strongly enough to be bothered to participate here. The experience of discussion here at the Saloon is necessarily going to be somewhat different than an average conversation held with another person face to face. It's good that you seek more understanding. We all should. But don't let it discourage you. We're all just human beings after all.

Thanks, UP. I realize that. I do.

I find indepth discussions with give and take to be so much more valuable and worthwhile. Constructive thoughts, responsed, ideas for change without the need to put down the other fella is what I enjoy. I get that to an extent in here, but not always. So, I will continue to provide my thoughts, my feelings and facts as I see them, just like everyone else. This saloon is ahome for many of us in a way. Otherwise, you're right we wouldn't bother.

HEy, where is Plane??
Straypooch?
Professor?
Calling all dogs! :)

D'oh
I love this place....I really do.

Thanks, Up.
Title: Re: When?
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on April 02, 2008, 03:27:11 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So your solution is to bring the troops home.

Become an isolationist nation once again.

To strike back only when stricken.

That an attack on our friends is simply an attack on our friends. Their problem, not ours.

====================================================================\
This has worked REALLY WELL for Switzerland and Sweden since the 1600's, and for dozens more countries since the end of WWII.

The US has no reason to defend Israel, nor did it have any good reason to throw the Russians out of Afghanistan. There is a war in Iraq because Juniorbush started a war in Iraq.

None of us average Americans will get one damned thing out of it, other than dead or maimed relatives.

Guys like Dick Cheney will get millions, but when he dies, he's not leaving it to us, either.







Title: Re: When?
Post by: sirs on April 02, 2008, 04:16:17 PM
Guys like Dick Cheney will get millions, but when he dies, he's not leaving it to us, either.

Nor should he.  Do I have some rightful claim to your money, after you die?? 

sheesh
Title: Re: When?
Post by: Christians4LessGvt on April 02, 2008, 05:07:14 PM
"even if it were to be believed that the Civil War ended slavery in this country"

PBS: "The Civil War ended slavery....."
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/historyofus/web06/index.html (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/historyofus/web06/index.html)


Title: Re: When?
Post by: Universe Prince on April 02, 2008, 05:37:04 PM
Then PBS is wrong. Wouldn't be the first time.
Title: Re: When?
Post by: _JS on April 02, 2008, 07:37:45 PM
Getting back to the point of the Iraq War, the problem is one of understanding history.

Trying to catch President Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, or Dick Cheney in a quote that shows them guilty of war mongering is only ever going to be met with retaliatory comments of how Saddam was really a threat "at the time" or how other politicians in the US or other nations viewed the Iraq situation.

The issue is not one of simple "gotcha" politics.

The issue is that this administration, and if we're honest the past two administrations as well (though not nearly to this degree), have completely misunderstood the place of the United States in the post-Cold War world. The folly of this administration was to believe that "everything changed after 9/11." Whether they believed that in earnest, or used it as a tag line to drive changes dishonestly is up for debate. Yet, from a conceptual level the notion itself is completely false.

The two primary false historical conceptions are these:

1. The United States is now the sole Superpower and we are more powerful now than any nation has ever been in history.
2. Septmeber 11, 2001 changed everything. Every issue must be viewed through a post 9/11 prism.

The problem with these conceptions are this:

1. When the Soviet Union and the entire Eastern Bloc fell, the United States lost its counter-balancing influence. In other words, the days of us going into another country and saying "choose sides" are over. Diplomacy lost its dichotomy. It lost its us or them attitude. The nations of Europe, Africa, Southwest & Southeast Asia, Latin America, etc no longer have to do as we say or face a complete withdrawal of US military support and aid. Our economy is so internationally intertwined that we cannot even use our strongest weapon to simply bend nations to our will (OK, so that may work on Benin, but not France, China, or Brazil).

Now we have to work with and alongside nations, build relationships, manage alliances, and make the case for our causes. We no longer have the power we once had as the other side of the Cold War coin.

2. The reality is that September 11, 2001 changed next to nothing. Yes, air travel is considerably different. Otherwise, we experienced something that many other nations have known for decades (some for even longer). It was only different because it happened to us. The truth is that international politics, international business, military tactics, and international economics had not changed significantly at all. There was (and is) no September 11th prism. International terrorism had existed before and still exists after the travesties of that day. The British, Germans, Greeks, Italians, Austrians, French, Israelis, Egyptians, Syrians, Saudis, Russians, on and on...had all experienced it.

Read all the books you like on how Islam is taking over the world, how "Islamofascism" is a real threat, how terrorists are coming for you and your family, how "democracy must be protected"...and the bottom line at the end of the day is that on a very fundamental level 9/11 changed nothing. Counterinsurgency tactics are fought using the manual General Petraeus authored in 2006: here (http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-24.pdf). As you can see, not a lot has even changed in this field (and interestingly much of this document is being blatantly disregarded at the moment). International terrorism exists, yes, but the death rate is fairly consistent and even including 2001, it has never been very high.

Despite quotes from the radical fringe, Islam is not the dangerous and bloody religion that it was made out to be by some. Much of the "academics" involved in "Islamofascism" come from a time when France was fighting in Algeria and racial attitudes from the French in Algeria (and in this country as well) were deplorable. Democracy as an entity is under no realistic threat except from the usual weight of corporate, personal, and PAC greed in most democratic nations.

In light of these two misread historical conceptions, it is little wonder that not only are we in the quagmires we are in (both economic and military), but that Americans enthusiastically cheered us right into these situations. We don't have the stomach, leadership, or desire to be a full on explicit Empire with the economic and military ramifications that would bring. Nor are we, apparently, willing to fit back into a role that is of great, but lesser, importance than we had as the big dog of the Cold War world. As long as we stay in the limbo between those two we are going to be stuck in this situation of both economic and military pig shit (for lack of a better term).
Title: Re: When?
Post by: BT on April 02, 2008, 07:54:06 PM
Quote
1. When the Soviet Union and the entire Eastern Bloc fell, the United States lost its counter-balancing influence. In other words, the days of us going into another country and saying "choose sides" are over. Diplomacy lost its dichotomy. It lost its us or them attitude. The nations of Europe, Africa, Southwest & Southeast Asia, Latin America, etc no longer have to do as we say or face a complete withdrawal of US military support and aid. Our economy is so internationally intertwined that we cannot even use our strongest weapon to simply bend nations to our will (OK, so that may work on Benin, but not France, China, or Brazil).

With this I agree.
Title: Re: When?
Post by: fatman on April 03, 2008, 09:44:23 AM
Yes but does one always have to encompass 100% of everything possible with
every statement? Gosh Fatman that makes a discussion unneccessarily difficult.


I'm not ignoring you christian, with work and trying to get the garden in this week has been pretty busy.  I'll get to this thread this weekend.
Title: Re: When?
Post by: Christians4LessGvt on April 03, 2008, 10:11:15 AM
Fatman, thanks, I know you're not.
Good luck with the begonias, caladiums, ect.

(http://www.designyourwall.com/store/images/P/1864_big.jpg)
Title: Re: When?
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on April 03, 2008, 02:35:58 PM
Nor should he.  Do I have some rightful claim to your money, after you die??

sheesh
====================================
My thought is that Dickless Cheney is stealing OUR money, so it would be right for him to return it upon his demise.

But since he won;t be doing this, perhaps we'd all be better off if he were prevented from stealing it.
Title: Re: When?
Post by: Rich on April 03, 2008, 03:08:30 PM
>>My thought is that Dick {} Cheney is stealing OUR money<<

Source?
Title: Re: When?
Post by: sirs on April 03, 2008, 04:05:10 PM
Do I have some rightful claim to your money, after you die??
====================================
My thought is that Dickless Cheney is stealing OUR money, so it would be right for him to return it upon his demise.

Well, that's an intesting "thought", but your OPINION not withstanding, his money is his money.  Your money is your money.  Wow, I just had a "thought", I think Xo is stealing OUR money.  Now, I have some claim to it when he dies.  Hoooraaaaa 


But since he won;t be doing this, perhaps we'd all be better off if he were prevented from stealing it.

We'll look forward to when you can actually validate said accusation.  Then we can go about in preventing the so called theft
Title: Re: When?
Post by: sirs on April 03, 2008, 04:47:02 PM
Maybe this board isn't such a "nice place" to hang one's hat and discuss. Man, you have changed, Sirs. . .  Geezzus, man...with comments like WHEN HE DIES! Hoooraaaa!? You seem desperate to win points.

And, with all due respect Miss Cynthia, you sound alot like Arriana Huffington, in how you've changed from a common sense conservative, to a letting-your-emotions-dictate-your judgements-liberal.  Now, have you NOT noticed that my comment you referenced above is rare, yet, equates to what Xo opines on a daily basis??  Of course not, because you are more inclined to agree with him now adays, so his all too frequent snide slurs and demeaning insults, largely get a pass.  But if sirs says something "mean", oh my, boy have I "changed"    :-\   

And when you've been demnstrated to be wrong, on vasrious subjects of education & the war, it's "where's the debate?"  "Why can't we just have a discussion?" (In other words, demonstrating the same thing you keep trying to accuse myself, Bt, Ami, Prince, etc., of always thinking we're right)  You have yet to admit to any wrong you may have stood on originally, be it NCLB or MA, and instead either defer responding, or claim how others see themselves as always being right.....all the while dodging where you've been wrong.  It's called deflection

Now, that may all sound "mean", and give you more reason to claim how I've "changed", but it doesn't refute the point being made.  My apologies if the truth here, as I see it, stings a bit
Title: Re: When?
Post by: Christians4LessGvt on April 03, 2008, 04:52:03 PM
"Maybe this board isn't such a "nice place" to hang one's hat and discuss. Man, you have changed, Sirs"

Cynthia I can't speak for SIRS but do you not understand that XO is one of the biggest
insulting name callers on this site?

We know you don't and we know he doesn't, but many of us conservatives have great respect
for the sitting Vice President of the United States.

So when XO refers to our Vice President as "Dickless Cheney" has he did
in this thread yeah Sirs and others may throw a return "punch".
(and "dickless cheney" is actually mild for XO)

XO on an almost daily basis throws insulting degrading names at Republicans. I nor SIRS cares
at all for the super super liberal Obama, but we don't call him insulting petty names like "Dickless Obama".

I am not saying that if SIRS implied it would be good if XO died that is ok, but I am saying
your outrage about the lack of civility should also examine the name calling and very insulting
things XO says about Republicans. For the most part he deserves any punches thrown his way.


Title: Re: When?
Post by: sirs on April 03, 2008, 05:02:39 PM
I see nothing wrong with a bit of jousting, but your statement about someone's death, Sir? Wow!

Did you see ANYWHERE in my comment my desire to see Xo die??  ANYWHERE that wished/wanted death for him??  No, you didn't.  You saw where I was laying claim to his money WHEN he dies, (which could be 100years from now), just as he was implying how Cheney's money should be taken away when he dies.  

Notice the difference??

 ::)

Title: Re: When?
Post by: sirs on April 03, 2008, 05:29:23 PM
Did you see ANYWHERE in my comment my desire to see Xo die??  ANYWHERE that wished/wanted death for him??  No, you didn't.  You saw where I was laying claim to his money WHEN he dies, (which could be 100years from now), just as he was implying how Cheney's money should be taken away when he dies.   Notice the difference??

Ok ok....but, it still isn't a way to end a point.

End what point?  The point that Cheney's money doesn't belong to Xo, no matter how much Xo hates Cheney??


Maybe your tongue in cheek got a bit stuck there.  

But Xo's is just fine, apparently

oy



Title: Re: When?
Post by: _JS on April 03, 2008, 05:32:18 PM
End what point?  The point that Cheney's money doesn't belong to Xo, no matter how much Xo hates Cheney??

Why not?
Title: Re: When?
Post by: BT on April 03, 2008, 05:36:22 PM
Quote
Why not?

Because XO has no legal claim to it, that's why.



Title: Re: When?
Post by: sirs on April 03, 2008, 05:37:47 PM
oy
Title: Re: When?
Post by: BT on April 03, 2008, 05:38:03 PM
Albuquerque graduation is 60% based on the methodology used in this report.

http://www.edweek.org/media/swansoncitiesincrisis040108.pdf
Title: Re: When?
Post by: _JS on April 03, 2008, 05:38:54 PM
Quote
Why not?

Because XO has no legal claim to it, that's why.

I'm not asking from a legal standpoint. Laws aren't always what is right. Legally you might have had to turn over your best friend to the Nazis for being a Jew, that certainly does not make it right.

My question still stands.

Why not?
Title: Re: When?
Post by: BT on April 03, 2008, 05:41:41 PM
Quote
I'm not asking from a legal standpoint.

That's the only standpoint that matters.

Without a legal basis he has no claim.

Nation of laws.

Most of which deal with property.

Title: Re: When?
Post by: BT on April 03, 2008, 05:43:50 PM
Quote
Ha. and you would be one of those who sits back on your laurels without the "rest of the story"  as reported in the afterstatement...not on paper

You have made...My point.


The rest of the story is in the link. Did you read it?

Title: Re: When?
Post by: _JS on April 03, 2008, 05:52:09 PM
Quote
I'm not asking from a legal standpoint.

That's the only standpoint that matters.

Without a legal basis he has no claim.

Nation of laws.

Most of which deal with property.



Yeah right. This would be the same nation of laws that beat the shit out of peaceful African-American marchers in Selma. This would be the same nation of laws that had countless people murdered in Latin America throughout the 70's and 80's. Nice response.

Or how about the law against mixed marriages, when were those repealed in the Southern states again?

XO made the point not based on legalism, but on general philosophy. I'll grant that he could have done a much better job in explaining it.

Then again, I didn't realize that the Pharisees were out in full force today. Better hope a Samaritan finds you if you're lying on the side of the road bloody and not a member of the nation of laws.
Title: Re: When?
Post by: Christians4LessGvt on April 03, 2008, 05:52:17 PM
Cheney's money is not XO's
SIRS money is not XO's
BT's money is not XO's
and my money is not XO's
because we own it.

If people are not allowed
to reap the benefits of
their own work then what
incentive is there to work harder?
"For the good of all?"
Yeah sure, we see how well thats done.
China is making huge strides because the genie is out of the bottle!

I read some of your give and take with UP about the socialist utopia
you believe in. I thought he would fare better than he did, but still
I think you are wrong. But honestly I do not have the time to spar
right now, especially in such a long drawn out manner as you and he did.


Title: Re: When?
Post by: Amianthus on April 03, 2008, 06:03:53 PM
Did it mention the 18%? Didn't read it yet, no...still posting here....

Perhaps you should explain where your 18% number comes from. You just threw it out there with no backing info.
Title: Re: When?
Post by: BT on April 03, 2008, 06:13:43 PM
Quote
Yeah right.

Laws can be changed. They often are.

But they still prevail.

Title: Re: When?
Post by: Rich on April 03, 2008, 07:04:45 PM
>>Yeah right. This would be the same nation of laws that beat the shit out of peaceful African-American marchers in Selma. This would be the same nation of laws that had countless people murdered in Latin America throughout the 70's and 80's. Nice response.<<

America ... boy does it suck.

Here's the simple reason why Vice President Cheney's money is his; He earned it. And yes, I do know that in the world of the America/Bush hating left, Vice President Cheney is somehow still receiving a salary, stock options, and God knows what else from Haliburton. But those of us in the real world know he divested his stock prior to being elected, and stopped receiving any type of money from Haliburton 2 years after he left the company and the majority of the $2 million he received ($1.6 million) he received prior to taking office.

It is sad however, and educational, to see socialists/liberals/communists still living in the past and seathing with hatred for America. Most of which is based on falsehoods and distortions. I think we're seeing the same ugly hatred from Michelle Obama and Barack Obama's pastor (and probably Barack himself) the Black Hitler Wright. They have been raised to hate America. They get it from their parents, their churches, and their leaders.
Title: Re: When?
Post by: Amianthus on April 03, 2008, 07:05:15 PM
Well, Ami, I didn't just throw it out there from my head. It was information via other teachers and emails and the anchors chitchat after the story was broadcast, in fact . . But, I will find those specifics if you want them. The numbers were close to accurate, if not correct, btw. The reasons are basically to do with number of kids who leave, come into system etc.

No problem. Show us the numbers.

You'll find that many around here don't take information seriously if it's just thrown out there with no backup. It's called supporting your arguments.
Title: Re: When?
Post by: Christians4LessGvt on April 03, 2008, 07:06:48 PM
BT it's funny JS proudly rattles off some of the past disgraces by the US gvt and US laws of that gvt but yet he wants to turn over more control to a gvt in the form of socialism utopia. How does that jive JS?
Title: Re: When?
Post by: Christians4LessGvt on April 03, 2008, 07:34:38 PM
Cynthia where are you vacationing?
Title: Re: When?
Post by: _JS on April 03, 2008, 07:35:39 PM
>>Yeah right. This would be the same nation of laws that beat the shit out of peaceful African-American marchers in Selma. This would be the same nation of laws that had countless people murdered in Latin America throughout the 70's and 80's. Nice response.<<

America ... boy does it suck.

Here's the simple reason why Vice President Cheney's money is his; He earned it. And yes, I do know that in the world of the America/Bush hating left, Vice President Cheney is somehow still receiving a salary, stock options, and God knows what else from Haliburton. But those of us in the real world know he divested his stock prior to being elected, and stopped receiving any type of money from Haliburton 2 years after he left the company and the majority of the $2 million he received ($1.6 million) he received prior to taking office.

It is sad however, and educational, to see socialists/liberals/communists still living in the past and seathing with hatred for America. Most of which is based on falsehoods and distortions. I think we're seeing the same ugly hatred from Michelle Obama and Barack Obama's pastor (and probably Barack himself) the Black Hitler Wright. They have been raised to hate America. They get it from their parents, their churches, and their leaders.

The "Black Hitler Wright?"

Wow.

I know about Cheney's divestments, thank you. The Cheney's made $8.8 million in 2006, not $1.6 million. You're looking at only taxable income, you need to look at line 22 of a 1040 for total income. Otherwise I'm not sure what you're talking about, Cheney received far more than $2 million for his interests in Halliburton. And you are wrong, Cheney has a deferred compensation account with Halliburton arranged in 1998 of which he is still legally entitled to own.

I don't "hate" America either. Perhaps you can explain how pointing out past problem is "hatred." Or was Selma some sort of "leftist lie?"
Title: Re: When?
Post by: _JS on April 03, 2008, 07:37:20 PM
BT it's funny JS proudly rattles off some of the past disgraces by the US gvt and US laws of that gvt but yet he wants to turn over more control to a gvt in the form of socialism utopia. How does that jive JS?

How do you know that I "proudly rattle off past disgraces?" Why do you assume that I "proudly" do so? Perhaps your assumptions are incorrect.

Where do you get the idea that I want to turn over more power to a government? Again, you assume much.
Title: Re: When?
Post by: Christians4LessGvt on April 03, 2008, 08:15:33 PM
How do you know that I "proudly rattle off past disgraces?"
Why do you assume that I "proudly" do so?
Perhaps your assumptions are incorrect.


Yes JS on the internet it is sometimes easy to misinterpret, however it
does appear to me often that those on the Left race to point out the worst about America.
Ya know "the glass is half empty".


Where do you get the idea that I want to turn over more power to a government?
Again, you assume much


JS doesn't socialism advocate the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production
and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the hands of governemnt? Wouldn't that be turning
over power to the governemnt that the government does not currently have?
Title: Re: When?
Post by: Christians4LessGvt on April 03, 2008, 08:18:00 PM
"Well, in my estate here....ha"

Umm ok, not sure what that means
but Cynthia I hope you enjoy your vacation.
Title: Re: When?
Post by: Christians4LessGvt on April 03, 2008, 08:19:37 PM
Oh and JS
can you explain
why
BT's, SIRS, Rich's, mine, and Vice President Cheney's money is XO's?
Title: Re: When?
Post by: Amianthus on April 03, 2008, 08:27:07 PM
I didn't throw out just any numbers without backup.

BT provided the source for the 60% claim.

Have you done likewise for the 18% claim?
Title: Re: When?
Post by: _JS on April 03, 2008, 08:34:56 PM
Yes JS on the internet it is sometimes easy to misinterpret, however it
does appear to me often that those on the Left race to point out the worst about America.
Ya know "the glass is half empty".

I have two countries I call home. It made for an interesting childhood. They are: Germany and the United States. This has given me a vantage point that is not so emotionally invested in nationalism. There are things I love about both countries, but a joke about America or Germany does not send me off a cliff in anger, either.

Germany has a history that is not whitewashed. There is no paint that can cover the historical sins of the Nazis. The atrocities of the Holocaust, especially to the Jews, the Roma, and the Slavs, are imprinted on history forever (or at least for a long, long time). This history should be there. It should be a stain on German history. It is something Germans have to come to terms with.

To me, Americans a bit like children when it comes to their history and their sense of nationalism. They are insulted very easily even at words meant in jest. As for history, much of our history is whitewashed to make the United States look very good. The Revolutionary War or the Civil War are two excellent examples. Even at a High School level, these tend to be taught with a clear bias towards the idea of a "glorious America."  It is a very sophomoric cowboys and Indians approach to national history. We were the good guys and these were the bad guys. God Bless America!

I think that one day Americans will come to terms with their history and nationalism. We're just a young country, like a teenager with too many hormones going on at once and who thinks he knows everything.

Quote
JS doesn't socialism advocate the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production
and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the hands of governemnt? Wouldn't that be turning
over power to the governemnt that the government does not currently have?

No. That isn't what socialism advocates at all.

Socialism advocates at the most basic level, turning over the means of production to the proletariat and creating a classless society. Not all socialists believe that land should be communal. There would be far less government to the point of eventually having none at all.
Title: Re: When?
Post by: _JS on April 03, 2008, 08:36:08 PM
Oh and JS
can you explain
why
BT's, SIRS, Rich's, mine, and Vice President Cheney's money is XO's?

No.

I asked the question, which was never answered except by Bt, who in fairness I snapped at somewhat. Apologies Bt.
Title: Re: When?
Post by: BT on April 03, 2008, 08:44:36 PM
Quote
Apologies Bt.

No problem, and really no need.

Title: Re: When?
Post by: Amianthus on April 03, 2008, 09:10:32 PM
Socialism advocates at the most basic level, turning over the means of production to the proletariat and creating a classless society.

OK, "means of production" is labor.

What's the difference between this system and a capitalist system with little to no government regulation?
Title: Re: When?
Post by: Christians4LessGvt on April 03, 2008, 09:16:32 PM
JS doesn't socialism advocate the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production
and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the hands of governemnt? Wouldn't that be turning
over power to the governemnt that the government does not currently have?

"No. That isn't what socialism advocates at all"

Socialism advocates at the most basic level, turning over the means of production to the proletariat and creating a classless society. Not all socialists believe that land should be communal. There would be far less government to the point of eventually having none at all.

 
SO JS in Socialist Counties there is "far less government" than in the United States?
Title: Re: When?
Post by: Christians4LessGvt on April 03, 2008, 09:17:49 PM
Oh and JS
can you explain
why
BT's, SIRS, Rich's, mine, and Vice President Cheney's money is XO's?

"No"


NO?
LOL
WHY NOT?
Title: Re: When?
Post by: Cynthia on April 03, 2008, 10:35:57 PM
"Well, in my estate here....ha"

Umm ok, not sure what that means
but Cynthia I hope you enjoy your vacation.

Hey, dear...You were being sincere,my apologies.

I am here at my home, which overlooks a million dollar view...quite literally. The mountains are vast and my view is all the way to Santa Fe.

I'll share a photo or two on my profile for you, Christians...thanks.

I am spent on the board for awhile. I guess it's my time to bow out.

God bless you and all.

It was fun.

Cindy
Title: Re: When?
Post by: Amianthus on April 03, 2008, 11:13:26 PM
But, there is nothing I gain from being bullied and pushed instead of heard.Ami, of all people I thought you would understand that dynamics.

Regardless of who brought up the claim of 60% (yes, I remember you mentioning it) BT did source the numbers. Requesting that you provide backup for your claims is NOT being "bullied and pushed" - any members of any debate forum should be expected to backup ANY of their claims.

As I have said many times, I usually only ask for sources when I think you're wrong. It allows you to look up the information yourself, and if you still think you're right, present it.

What I think is funny is that those of liberal persuasion are usually the ones who claim that being asked for sources is being "bullied." I didn't accept "because I said so" from my parents or my teachers, I don't know why I should be expected to accept it from relatively complete strangers on the Internet. If I'm asked for a source for any of my claims, I ALWAYS provide it. It's called rational debating.
Title: Re: When?
Post by: Amianthus on April 03, 2008, 11:36:57 PM
The fact in this particular point is..that the actual number of drop outs is more likely around 18% which WHICH in the mind of your average Joe/Jane makes more of an impression for the district than against.

OK, I got around to reading the report, and the math within looks pretty correct. A 60-70% graduation rate (ie, 30-40% of children entering 9th grade do not get a diploma) looks like the reasonable conclusion from this report.

Do you have any evidence that either the numbers collected or the methodology used is incorrect?
Title: Re: When?
Post by: Amianthus on April 03, 2008, 11:49:26 PM
Well, then I'll leave it at that. I was only making a point about details in the news and facts in the information age in which we live.

And the point I was trying to make is that if you want to convince others that your point is correct, produce the evidence. I have seen the evidence for the 60% graduation rate; I have yet to see any evidence for a higher graduation rate. If it exists, I would be happy to review it and accept the numbers if they look reasonable.

The simple fact is that I have not seen the numbers you're claiming. And for some reason, you're not providing them, either.
Title: Re: When?
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on April 03, 2008, 11:55:00 PM
OK, "means of production" is labor.

What's the difference between this system and a capitalist system with little to no government regulation?

=====================================
No, the means of production is NOT labor. Factories are the means of production, because they sell what labor produces.

The laborers in a socialist society receive the benefits pof all their labor through the state, not through the small salaries they receive from the capitalist under capitalism.

Read Marx someday.

Dickless Cheney did not divest himself of doodly-squat. He still owns a huge chunk of Halliburton through some sort of blind trust. He just denies everything. But he lies. And lies. And lies some more. Eventually the truth will come out.
Title: Re: When?
Post by: Amianthus on April 04, 2008, 12:01:37 AM
No, the means of production is NOT labor. Factories are the means of production, because they sell what labor produces.

The laborers in a socialist society receive the benefits pof all their labor through the state, not through the small salaries they receive from the capitalist under capitalism.

Read Marx someday.

I'd like to see the factory that makes something without labor.
Title: Re: When?
Post by: Universe Prince on April 04, 2008, 01:46:31 AM

The laborers in a socialist society receive the benefits pof all their labor through the state, not through the small salaries they receive from the capitalist under capitalism.


How does the state know how much to give each laborer?
Title: Re: When?
Post by: Rich on April 04, 2008, 12:26:36 PM
>>Cheney has a deferred compensation account with Halliburton arranged in 1998 of which he is still legally entitled to own.<<

This is interesting. He is still legally entitled to own? Of course he doesn't, and hasn't since 2000.

Or figures seem to differ, but that doesn't change the fact that regardless of what he EARNED while at Haliburton, he hasn't recieved anything additional from it since 2000.

As for hating America, you always revel in reminding us of America's past mistakes. What makes America great is that we've been great enough to fix our mistakes, and we do so unlike most countries on the planet.
Title: Re: When?
Post by: Cynthia on April 04, 2008, 12:29:59 PM
Of course he doesn't, and hasn't since 2000.

Our figures seem to differ, but that doesn't change the fact that regardless of what he EARNED while at Haliburton, he hasn't recieved anything additional from it since 2000.



Rich,

Is there some evidence of this you can provide as fact?

Just curious. I am not being fliappant...ha...seriously, have you posted the "figures" before? If so, I'll go back and read them.
Title: Re: When?
Post by: _JS on April 04, 2008, 12:56:50 PM
Socialism advocates at the most basic level, turning over the means of production to the proletariat and creating a classless society.

OK, "means of production" is labor.

What's the difference between this system and a capitalist system with little to no government regulation?

I would qualify that and say that labor is a variable that forms the means of production.

The difference is that capitalism historically promotes the bourgeoisie and the elite to the detriment of the proletariat. Essentially, there are structures within capitalism that are constantly promoting a society that controls the proletariat and forces class conflict. A perfect example is the racism that still exists today. Another example is the institution of marriage and how it is used to regulate lives. At one time it was law that mixed marriage was illegal. Yet, even though the Southern states legalized it, society still frowns upon it. Homosexuals have gained some acceptance from society in that they can live together in some areas without hassle, yet they are precluded from marriage - a bourgeoisie institution.

The difference is that socialism cannot be decoupled from history. We know that until the proletariat gains class consciousness and overcomes all of these false impediments to succeed in revolution, then all of these societal constructs will continue to promote the bourgeoisie and the elite.
Title: Re: When?
Post by: _JS on April 04, 2008, 01:02:34 PM
Quote
SO JS in Socialist Counties there is "far less government" than in the United States?

There are different socialist theories, just as there are different capitalists and different libertarians.

There are no true socialist countries as there has never been a succesful proletariat revolution and class consciousness has never truly been achieved. I do appreciate the Nordic countries for their ability to take care of their people and prove that much of neoliberal theory is bullshit. Yet, they are but a step towards class consciousness, not the end product.

I find that many people who ridicule Marx have never read Marx. A tiny minority have made a cursory skim of the Manifesto when they were 16. That's interesting to me. I've read and studied both sides, and still do. Most people don't bother to understand socialism, they just attack it without a second thought.

Title: Re: When?
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on April 04, 2008, 01:11:50 PM
What makes America great is that we've been great enough to fix our mistakes, and we do so unlike most countries on the planet.

===================================================================
I think one can say that the Germans, Italians and Japanese did a better job by far of "fixing" the errors caused by Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo that the US ever has at "fixing" the errors caused by slavery.

It would appear that many countries are at least at good at fixing their "mistakes" as the US.

I am waiting anxiously for someone to fix the multitudinious mistakes of Juniorbush and Dickless Cheney.
Title: Re: When?
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on April 04, 2008, 01:14:16 PM
I'd like to see the factory that makes something without labor.
====================================================
There are many factories which do nearly all the labor with robots. Lightbulb factories mostly use labor only to pack the boxes of bulbs in larger boxes.

Petrochemicals require very few humans doing physical labor.
 
Title: Re: When?
Post by: _JS on April 04, 2008, 01:19:42 PM
>>Cheney has a deferred compensation account with Halliburton arranged in 1998 of which he is still legally entitled to own.<<

This is interesting. He is still legally entitled to own? Of course he doesn't, and hasn't since 2000.

Or figures seem to differ, but that doesn't change the fact that regardless of what he EARNED while at Haliburton, he hasn't recieved anything additional from it since 2000.

As for hating America, you always revel in reminding us of America's past mistakes. What makes America great is that we've been great enough to fix our mistakes, and we do so unlike most countries on the planet.

Yes, he does. Cheney (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/26/politics/main575356.shtml)

Quote
Cheney receives deferred compensation from Halliburton under an arrangement he made in 1998, and also retains stock options.

And yes he has, though he claims that his family has given the additional proceeds earned while he is in office to charity.

How do you know that I "revel?" Where did you get that?

Can you give some examples of fixing our mistakes? How did we "fix" the mistakes we made in Latin America or Selma?
Title: Re: When?
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on April 04, 2008, 01:32:47 PM
There are three components of manufacturing: raw materials, labor and capital.
Capital is used to purchase the factory and the equipment used in manufacturing. Raw materials are the substance from which the product is made, and labor adds what is called additional value to the product.

In a capitalist society, the capitalist decides at what price the product will be sold. This is not decided on the basis of for whom the product might do the greatest good, as one might logically do if the product is something needed crucially, such as a vaccine, or what it might cost to make the product.

Depending on competition, the capitalist might have to reduce the price of his product to compete with other producers.

In a socialist society, the factory is built by and belongs to the government or perhaps the workers in the factory. In this case, the selling price does not depend on a maximum profit, nor is there any severe competition to worry about. The price of bread, for example, will be determined by the cost of raw materials such as flour, oil, yeast and such as well as the utility of the product to the consumer.

Marx is worth reading because his analysis of what the problems of capitalism are are largely correct. He was, however, incorrect in that he did not forsee that the human nature of those running a socialist state could cause a variety of problems with regard to favoritism, over and underproduction, the arising of black and gray markets, and the tendency of those running the factories being almost as oppressive as the capitialists who once ran them.

Pretty much everyone agrees that the slogan "From whom according to his abilities, to whom according to his needs" is far too utopian for humans as they are today or ever will become. Some people can do many things, and they end up doing most ofthe work, while others never learn to even try to learn to do much more than drudgery.

Communism has worked better in China than nearly anywhere else, dur to the fact that Chinese society is more regimented than that of most other places.

The East Germans had a far more egalitarian and prosperous society after 45 years than the Russians managed to attain in 75 years. There was no hunger, unemployment or widespread disease in the GDR by 1991. The main reason for the collapse was that the Westies had attained a far greater degree of prosperity.

Title: Re: When?
Post by: Cynthia on April 04, 2008, 01:37:24 PM
Ami,
I have been researching some things about our NM school system in NM.  NMPED
Which is something I don't usually have time to do, and I have to admit, I need to take time to learn more. This is fascinating. Thanks for the push to find out more details.. . but..there is still a but.... there is more to statistical evidence. The REAL STORY behind the scenes, sometimes.

Ok...anyway I know...This doesn't answer that 18% question, as I am waiting for a phone call, as I type. ha.
But, in the meantime, I thought I would post some stats here.

I found this 2007 annual report very interesting, indeed.

Whoohooo...we rank 1 when it comers to KIDS GETTING A FREE MEAL.
 ::) but, I suppose there'e more to that story too. ha.

New Mexico ranks 1st in the nation for the highest number of lowincome
students eating free and reduced-price breakfast.
Food and Research Action Center 2007
New Mexico ranks 1st for growth in Oral Reading fluency in Reading First
Western States. Federal Reading First Office 2007
New Mexico ranks 4th nationally for standards, assessments, and
Accountability. ?Quality Counts 2007: From Cradle to Career, Connecting
American Education From Birth to Adulthood,? Education Week 2007
New Mexico is recognized for having high academic standards aligned to
the National Assessment for Educational Progress (NAEP).
US Department of Education 2007
? 8th nationally in 4th grade reading
? 9th nationally in 4th grade math
? 7th nationally in 8th grade math
? 11th nationally in 8th grade reading
New Mexico is recognized for significant increases in academic performance
on the NAEP. US Department of Education 2007
? NM is one of only 4 states to show significant increases in math and reading
for 4th grade Hispanic students.
? NM is one of only 14 states to show significant increases in both 4th
grade math and reading for all students.
? NM is recognized for significant increases in 4th and 8th grade, math and
reading for Hispanic students.
? NM is recognized for significant increases in math and reading for 4th
grade students eligible for free/reduced lunch.
16 New Mexico High Schools rank among the nation?s top high schools
for ensuring quality education and college readiness for all
Students. ?America?s Best High Schools? US News and World Report
2007
Excellent Standards, Accountability, &
Assessments
In 2007, according to Education Week?s Quality
Counts Report, New Mexico ranks 4th in the nation
for aggressive state policies ensuring
high standards, aligned assessments, and
strong school accountability.



I found the last line in this letter to be very interesting. .."a more rigorous high school graduation requirement".
I wonder if, given time for so many of these changes in the PS' to "kick in", that the drop out rate will improve. Hmm, just a thought. The 'time element' for any new change needs to also be considered. Over time, perhaps that is when we can measure these changes with more clarity. I know for sure that the new programs we have implemented require at least 5-6 years to see better results in terms of assessments.

(This comes from the opening page in the report.)
 



A robust education system demands a comprehensive approach to academic success. In 2007, New
Mexico earned national recognition for education reform initiatives, our outstanding schools, and for the
progress our students are making academically. Increased public PreK enrollment, parent and community
involvement initiatives, more highly qualified teachers than ever before, increased professional development
opportunities, increased educator salaries, increased access to technology, achievement gap
initiatives, higher academic performance standards, and more rigorous high school graduation requirements
all contributed to moving New Mexico forward in 2007.
Title: Re: When?
Post by: Amianthus on April 04, 2008, 02:24:12 PM
There are many factories which do nearly all the labor with robots. Lightbulb factories mostly use labor only to pack the boxes of bulbs in larger boxes.

Petrochemicals require very few humans doing physical labor.

And the building of these factories? The maintenance of them? Other robots do repairs, or do humans do them?
Title: Re: When?
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on April 04, 2008, 02:40:28 PM
And the building of these factories? The maintenance of them? Other robots do repairs, or do humans do them?

========================================================
Yada yada yada.
This is missing the point.

Labor is what creates the added value to the raw material.
For example, a bale of cotton would do you little good in staying warm.
Title: Re: When?
Post by: Amianthus on April 04, 2008, 02:44:32 PM
Labor is what creates the added value to the raw material.
For example, a bale of cotton would do you little good in staying warm.

Duh.
Title: Re: When?
Post by: Rich on April 04, 2008, 03:11:19 PM
>>Yes, he does.<<

Here's the truth about Vice President Cheney and Halliburton:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134761,00.html (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134761,00.html)

and ...

http://www.factcheck.org/kerry_ad_falsely_accuses_cheney_on_halliburton.html (http://www.factcheck.org/kerry_ad_falsely_accuses_cheney_on_halliburton.html)
Title: Re: When?
Post by: Rich on April 04, 2008, 03:14:51 PM
>>I think one can say that the Germans, Italians and Japanese did a better job by far of "fixing" the errors caused by Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo that the US ever has at "fixing" the errors caused by slavery.<<

Can you explain how they did a better job? Is there no more hatred of Jews in Germany? Are there no racists in Germany? Are Germans welcoming people from every nation with open arms?

<chuckle>
Title: Re: When?
Post by: Cynthia on April 04, 2008, 04:02:12 PM
http://kob.com/article/stories/S398790.shtml?cat=516

Well, I found an online slice of the segment that was aired recently. But I am still waiting back for the demographics coordinator to return my phone call.




Message boards..Interesting, message boards are a dime a dozen ....it seems.
http://www.topix.com/forum/source/kob-new-mexico/TI3EEM5HKPBRRH5NV



http://www.findinternettv.com/Video,item,506099759.aspx

The actual news loop.
Title: Re: When?
Post by: Cynthia on April 04, 2008, 04:17:29 PM
Ok, my work here is done.  ;D

I still maintain that there is always more to a published article, or statistics that carry weight in terms of money allocated or not allocated. There is always more to any story when it comes to "news" and stats. That was what I was simply trying to argue,Ami.

But, I do have to agree, that finding such details is quite exciting. I don't see everyone on this board doing that, but hey, I will always try to step up to the plate when I can.

Cynthia



Title: Re: When?
Post by: Amianthus on April 04, 2008, 04:25:16 PM
Ok, my work here is done.  ;D

I still maintain that there is always more to a published article, or statistics that carry weight in terms of money allocated or not allocated. There is always more to any story when it comes to "news" and stats. That was what I was simply trying to argue,Ami.

I wouldn't agree. If you had read the report that BT posted, they rolled up the totals into larger and larger areas, including more school system. If students had transferred to another school system, as implied in the article you presented, they would be included in the statistics.

The problem is that individual school systems are essentially "double counting" students that graduated elsewhere. They reduce the number of students, but still count it as a graduation, which artificially inflates their graduation percentage.
Title: Re: When?
Post by: _JS on April 04, 2008, 04:32:33 PM
>>I think one can say that the Germans, Italians and Japanese did a better job by far of "fixing" the errors caused by Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo that the US ever has at "fixing" the errors caused by slavery.<<

Can you explain how they did a better job? Is there no more hatred of Jews in Germany? Are there no racists in Germany? Are Germans welcoming people from every nation with open arms?

<chuckle>

So to "fix" a problem, a nation has to eradicate the cause?

I suppose there is no more racism in the United States? African-Americans are as prosperous as whites? Welcome everywhere they go? Mixed marriages are accepted and welcomed by all of white America?

 ::)
Title: Re: When?
Post by: Rich on April 04, 2008, 04:36:16 PM
X claimed Germany had done a better job than the United States.

You're comments aren't relevant to the discussion.
Title: Re: When?
Post by: _JS on April 04, 2008, 04:41:53 PM
X claimed Germany had done a better job than the United States.

You're comments aren't relevant to the discussion.

And you claimed that the United States had done a better job than all of the other countries. So, yes my comments are relevant. You've yet to prove your point.
Title: Re: When?
Post by: Rich on April 04, 2008, 04:45:47 PM
Once again, you're not telling the truth.

I didn't say all. I said most.
Title: Re: When?
Post by: _JS on April 04, 2008, 05:06:25 PM
Once again, you're not telling the truth.

I didn't say all. I said most.

And?

Prove it.
Title: Re: When?
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on April 04, 2008, 05:28:22 PM
Can you explain how they did a better job? Is there no more hatred of Jews in Germany?

Actually, not really. They built a HUGE Holocaust Memorial on some seriously expensive real estate in downtown Berlin-bigger than anything of this sort built in New York or DC.

Are there no racists in Germany? Are Germans welcoming people from every nation with open arms?

We here in the US are not welcoming people with open arms. We are especially unwelcoming of Black Haitians (Haitian immigrants do not come in other colors), as we have four or five Coast Guard cutters in the Florida Straits intercepting them and returning them to Haiti.

I am not saying we should welcome people with open arms, but we are just as unwelcoming, or more so than the Germans. People from any of the other 29 or so EU nations can come to Germany and leave as they please. Here in the US even Canadians and Mexicans have to undergo a lot of paperwork and expense to come here.

I said the Germans have done a better job to make up for their Nazi past than the US has done to make up for slavery, and this is true.

It is also true that after WWI, manipulations of Germany's currency by bankers, a lot of whom were Jewish, caused the utter collapse of the currency, and many Germans lost every cent they had saved as a result. It certainly is not true that every Jew in Germany was an entirely innocent patriot. There was a reason why Hitler and antisemitism appealed to enough Germans to make Hitler popular.

Black slaves did practically nothing to incite hatred of themselves by Whites in the US, other than a few slave rebelliions such as Nat Turner's and Denmark Vesey's rebellions.

The Japanese have entirely abolished their army and navy, other than a few defense forces. Japan retreated from every nation that it occupied and no Japanese even suggests that Japan should return to being an imperial power.

Italian trains and airplanes do run mostly on time now, but that is about the only thing Modern Italy retained from Mussolini.
 


There are lots of Turks in Germany, many were invited there by the German government when Spaniards and Portuguese became in short supply.



Title: Re: When?
Post by: Cynthia on April 04, 2008, 05:30:13 PM
Ok, my work here is done.  ;D

I still maintain that there is always more to a published article, or statistics that carry weight in terms of money allocated or not allocated. There is always more to any story when it comes to "news" and stats. That was what I was simply trying to argue,Ami.

I wouldn't agree. If you had read the report that BT posted, they rolled up the totals into larger and larger areas, including more school system. If students had transferred to another school system, as implied in the article you presented, they would be included in the statistics.

The problem is that individual school systems are essentially "double counting" students that graduated elsewhere. They reduce the number of students, but still count it as a graduation, which artificially inflates their graduation percentage.

Well, I knew you wouldn't agree....Could have won big on that one, in Vegas.     8)ha.

Ok, well, that might be true. I really don't know. You're the smart one here. I trust your knowledge.

I wanted to suggest that there might be other factors in any given situation, be it the education, military, political genre.

Again, this has been fun. I will continue to research and learn more.

Thanks, Ami
Cynthia
Title: Re: When?
Post by: Cynthia on April 04, 2008, 05:40:01 PM
Ok, my work here is done.  ;D

I still maintain that there is always more to a published article, or statistics that carry weight in terms of money allocated or not allocated. There is always more to any story when it comes to "news" and stats. That was what I was simply trying to argue,Ami.

I wouldn't agree. If you had read the report that BT posted, they rolled up the totals into larger and larger areas, including more school system. If students had transferred to another school system, as implied in the article you presented, they would be included in the statistics.

The problem is that individual school systems are essentially "double counting" students that graduated elsewhere. They reduce the number of students, but still count it as a graduation, which artificially inflates their graduation percentage.

Oh, and actually, I didn't read the report, and now that you bring up a very good point, neither did the assistant superintendent Linda Sink. She's the one who was quoted. ;)
I was quoting the news broadcast of about 60%. My point wasn't that the rate was incorrect, but that there was more to the story. Apparently, their "More" isn't accurate.

I suppose the good news in all of this is that we are above the national average. I have a good feeling that through the next few years, the rate will drop even more. Change takes time.

I am still waiting on the email from the RDA rep. btw, I'll get back to you.
Title: Re: When?
Post by: Rich on April 04, 2008, 06:35:08 PM
That's it? Prove it?

 :D

Once again, you're irrelevant.