For or Against the war?

[kal-el]

try to stay focused on what we are debating
the number dead is what is used by the left to cut and run
where as my post you quoted shows the number dead in Iraq is miniscual
when compared to history
how many or how few soldiers have died in Iraq has NOTHING to do with why we went in:roll:

"Cut and run" is that what you warmongers like to call conserving lives? I realize if we left Iraq overnight, it would fall into utter chaos, and into control into the hands of Zarkawi. That's why we need to temporarily stay and help train the Iraqi forces till they can deal. This shouldn't take any longer than 6 months. They need to learn not to depend on us so much. We need to help them get stability. It's the least we can do, after all, we caused this mess, it would be irresponsible if we left it in shambles.

unless you are willing to use nukes than you are fooling only yourself
and i doubt you have the balls to use them
and this statement alone shows how deluded you are
typical of libs and socialists
so intellectual, so much better than others
but you would not last a day in the real world without the MILITARY killing enemies, and being killed in the battle
the day of reckoning is coming for elitist idiots who think they can survive in this world without wars
you will be conquered and slaughtered if the military is not around to defend your right to be as stupid as you want to be

Wrong. No ones talking about nukes nimrod. We now have the technology to crush our enemies without the need of so much as one of our soliders engaged in ground conflict. Our enemies probably can't even touch our stealth planes which can get away from their tracking systems. We have missiles which are indeed guided to their targets with precision.

you have no clue what you are talking about
if a dem was in power we would be in a recession, if not a depression
because all dems know how to do is raise taxes, which kills an economy
Bush cut taxes and stimulated the economy
Because of Bush we have a strong vibrant growing economy, despite the stock market crash
despite the 9/11 attacks
despite the hurricanes

O yea I forgot, "economic stimulus" yea sure, buddy, that's why there is a growing poverty rate, a decline in the middle class, an increasing gap in the rich and the poor, a health insurance crisis, more bankruptsies, and a low stock market. O yea, what about those 3 million jobs Bush lost while he was asleep at the wheel? And I wasn't aware that it is protocal to lower taxes during wartime. O yea, future generations can pay for this war, I see the logic there.

 

[DeeJayH]

"Cut and run" is that what you warmongers like to call conserving lives?

but that is all your leadership calls for
no solutions, just get out

I realize if we left Iraq overnight, it would fall into utter chaos, and into control into the hands of Zarkawi. That's why we need to temporarily stay and help train the Iraqi forces till they can deal. This shouldn't take any longer than 6 months. They need to learn not to depend on us so much. We need to help them get stability. It's the least we can do, after all, we caused this mess, it would be irresponsible if we left it in shambles.

good now you know Bush's plan
and just so youknow, it takes about 20 years to develop a functional division. so 3 years would be a miracle

Wrong. No ones talking about nukes nimrod. We now have the technology to crush our enemies without the need of so much as one of our soliders engaged in ground conflict. Our enemies probably can't even touch our stealth planes which can get away from their tracking systems. We have missiles which are indeed guided to their targets with precision.

so you are a big fan of Clintons policy of lobbing multi million dollar missiles at empty tents
you have no problem with Iraqi collateral damage
we could have taken care of the problem in Iraq if we carpet bombed the whole country
but we are going hand to hand to spare innocent Iraqis, and Bush still gets blasted
dont be too aggressive with WMDs
but we will also blast you because american GIs are dying
you guys are a joke
Your mentality is the downfall of every nation
Cowards, losers, and disillusioned numbskulls with no clue

O yea I forgot, "economic stimulus" yea sure, buddy

thats why there is more revenues coming into the treasury than ever before
Obviously it is an economic stimulus. REALITY CHECK rubber

that's why there is a growing poverty rate, a decline in the middle class, an increasing gap in the rich and the poor, a health insurance crisis, more bankruptsies, and a low stock market. O yea, what about those 3 million jobs Bush lost while he was asleep at the wheel? And I wasn't aware that it is protocal to lower taxes during wartime. O yea, future generations can pay for this war, I see the logic there.

yeah impeach bush because every single person in the US is not leading abetter life
its all the presidents fault
I make a concious effort not to be a conservative ideologue
but it is idiots spewing your garbage, that makes me say a bogus rep/con is better than any dem/lib
and Bush is spending MORE MONEY on entitlement programs than any other president before.
there will always be poor
and any poor person that wants to get out, can
the rest can screw themselves
Home ownership is at record levels
minority home ownership is at record levels
as far as unemployment, it is a hell of alot better than if a dem was in power and if they were when we suffered the calamities in Bush's early years, you would have raised taxes, killed the economy, and caused more problems
And just like any other deficit, the growing economy will pay off the deficit long before my kid will have to pay for it in raised taxes
that is so long as dems are kept out of power
Bush Cut taxes and stimulated the economy
Bush is spending like a drunken sailor, which i oppose, but it is stimulating the economy
as a result the Deficit will be paid off toot sweet

cutting taxes is not a protocal in war rubber
it is a proven effective way to stimulate an economy IN ANY TIME PERIOD

you play superman and save a person at a time
let bush be president and save everyone
you dems/libs will have plenty of time in the future to screw the country up

put that in your smallville

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

"Cut and run" is that what you warmongers like to call conserving lives?

No. "Cut and Run" is a Surrender Monkey policy to create a situation overseas that can be exploited by cheap politicians with no real ideas to win elections here.

Specifically:

An arbitrary unilateral US withdrawal from Iraq today will result in a guaranteed civil war in Iraq tomorrow.

The civil war will kill hundreds of thousands, displace millions, and reduce the rubble to gravel.

That figure of "hundreds of thousands" does not include those Iraqis who openly assisted the United States to form a better Iraq. Those people will be murdered automatically.

If you think the Middle isn't stable now, what words do you have to describe what it will be when we leave?

What impact will running away have on US foreign relations with all other countries on the globe? I can name the number of countries that will increase their respect for us as a result. Zero. The net result will be the same if we re-elected Jimmy Carter. A total disaster.

The Surrender Monkeys either haven't thought the issue through, or they don't care about consequences. Mostly it's the first.

I realize if we left Iraq overnight, it would fall into utter chaos, and into control into the hands of Zarkawi. That's why we need to temporarily stay and help train the Iraqi forces till they can deal. This shouldn't take any longer than 6 months. They need to learn not to depend on us so much. We need to help them get stability. It's the least we can do, after all, we caused this mess, it would be irresponsible if we left it in shambles.

We didn't cause the mess. Saddam Hussein was the catalyst. There's absolutely no reason, outside of the islamic religion itself, that Iraq couldn't have been a leader for freedom and peace in the Middle East. They let a tin-horn take over, and things went down hill from there.

As for the training and assistance of local forces issue, what do you think they're doing? Forget the time table. It took 15 years for the United States to end the occupations of Japan and Germany. And those countries didn't have neighbors trying to kill them.

Once we went in, we were going to be there for a long long time. That's one of the main reasons I opposed the invasion, and one of the main reasons we should have obeyed the Constitution and issued a formal declaration of war. Now all the Democrats that signed Bush's blank check are pretending they didn't know what happened was going to. If they're that stupid, they shouldn't be in Congress.

O yea I forgot, "economic stimulus" yea sure, buddy, that's why there is a growing poverty rate, a decline in the middle class, an increasing gap in the rich and the poor, a health insurance crisis, more bankruptsies, and a low stock market. O yea, what about those 3 million jobs Bush lost while he was asleep at the wheel? And I wasn't aware that it is protocal to lower taxes during wartime. O yea, future generations can pay for this war, I see the logic there.

I, for one, am totally happy that there's a growing gap between rich and poor. The bottom percentiles always have the same amount. Almost nothing. If the upper percentiles wealth keeps increasing, then the groups in the middle also benefit. That gap is a good sign. When the top starts getting closer to the bottom, you'd better bend over and kiss it good-bye, because all hell's about to break out.

 

[kal-el]

good now you know Bush's plan
and just so youknow, it takes about 20 years to develop a functional division. so 3 years would be a miracle

3 years? That is totally unacceptable. Not to mention ridiculous. We shouldn't be there in the first place. Bush says we must stay the course. I say bring Americans back slowly, after training Iraqis. it shouldn't be that hard.

so you are a big fan of Clintons policy of lobbing multi million dollar missiles at empty tents
you have no problem with Iraqi collateral damage
we could have taken care of the problem in Iraq if we carpet bombed the whole country
but we are going hand to hand to spare innocent Iraqis, and Bush still gets blasted
dont be too aggressive with WMDs
but we will also blast you because american GIs are dying
you guys are a joke
Your mentality is the downfall of every nation
Cowards, losers, and disillusioned numbskulls with no clue

Dude, if you are done with your obscene verbal chirade, I will explain. What the **** does Clinton have to do with our present occupation? I'm a big fan of collateral damage? I think you have that backwards buddy, "collateral damage" is the worst possible abomination for this. Bush tells us that we must accept some loss of civilian life.Pro-neocons just use that term to attempt to cover up their collective guilt for their crimes in Iraq.

thats why there is more revenues coming into the treasury than ever before
Obviously it is an economic stimulus. REALITY CHECK rubber

:rofl , where in the hell did you pull this from? I see you been listening to Rush.

yeah impeach bush because every single person in the US is not leading abetter life
its all the presidents fault
I make a concious effort not to be a conservative ideologue
but it is idiots spewing your garbage, that makes me say a bogus rep/con is better than any dem/lib
and Bush is spending MORE MONEY on entitlement programs than any other president before.
there will always be poor
and any poor person that wants to get out, can
the rest can screw themselves
Home ownership is at record levels
minority home ownership is at record levels
as far as unemployment, it is a hell of alot better than if a dem was in power and if they were when we suffered the calamities in Bush's early years, you would have raised taxes, killed the economy, and caused more problems
And just like any other deficit, the growing economy will pay off the deficit long before my kid will have to pay for it in raised taxes
that is so long as dems are kept out of power
Bush Cut taxes and stimulated the economy
Bush is spending like a drunken sailor, which i oppose, but it is stimulating the economy
as a result the Deficit will be paid off toot sweet

cutting taxes is not a protocal in war rubber
it is a proven effective way to stimulate an economy IN ANY TIME PERIOD

you play superman and save a person at a time
let bush be president and save everyone
you dems/libs will have plenty of time in the future to screw the country up

put that in your smallville

One, leave Smallville out of this, 2, I know cutting taxes isn't protocal, but I guess it's ok if future generations pay for this ficticious war. What about the deficit? Dude, do you need a lesson in proper grammer or what? That's another thing, how come when Clinton left office, there was a $3 trillion surplus, you're buddy was obviously asleep at the wheel, as he flipped it around, into the minus. And yes, unfortunatly there will always be poor people, but Bush's reverse-robin hood fiscal policy dosen't fix matters, does it? Growing economy? Dude, you need a reality check. We're headed for a recession.

 

[Caine]

3 years? That is totally unacceptable. Not to mention ridiculous. We shouldn't be there in the first place. Bush says we must stay the course. I say bring Americans back slowly, after training Iraqis. it shouldn't be that hard.
Growing economy? Dude, you need a reality check. We're headed for a recession.

Shouldn't be that hard huh? Have you met an Iraqi? Those people are as dumb as a rock. And the ones who aren't dumb are doing something useful with thier lives, be it interpreting for us, part of the government, or starting thier own little Iraqi Businesses.

Growing Economy...lol... what idiot said that? The only thing growing in our economy is the War Industry, Halliburton and Kellogg, Brown, and Root.

 

[kal-el]

No. "Cut and Run" is a Surrender Monkey policy to create a situation overseas that can be exploited by cheap politicians with no real ideas to win elections here.

Well, our commander-in-chief has no viable plan, I keep hearing "We must stay the course"

Specifically:

An arbitrary unilateral US withdrawal from Iraq today will result in a guaranteed civil war in Iraq tomorrow.

Agreed. IMO it would be reprehensible and irresponsible to leave Iraq right now.

The civil war will kill hundreds of thousands, displace millions, and reduce the rubble to gravel.

Agreed.

That figure of "hundreds of thousands" does not include those Iraqis who openly assisted the United States to form a better Iraq. Those people will be murdered automatically.

Agreed again.

If you think the Middle isn't stable now, what words do you have to describe what it will be when we leave?

That all depends when we leave. If it's right this minute, I'd have to say chaos, ruins.

What impact will running away have on US foreign relations with all other countries on the globe? I can name the number of countries that will increase their respect for us as a result. Zero. The net result will be the same if we re-elected Jimmy Carter. A total disaster.

Actually, US foreign relations suffer now, hence we are the laughing stock of much of the world because of this needless war. Sure, if we leave to soon foreign relations will go down the drain, but again, I'm not saying pull them all out now.

The Surrender Monkeys either haven't thought the issue through, or they don't care about consequences. Mostly it's the first.

Surrender monkeys? Does that coinside with the chickenhawks or warmongers?

We didn't cause the mess. Saddam Hussein was the catalyst. There's absolutely no reason, outside of the islamic religion itself, that Iraq couldn't have been a leader for freedom and peace in the Middle East. They let a tin-horn take over, and things went down hill from there.

Dude, you're sipping that kool-aid again. Saddam's Iraq had the least terrorist activity of any Middle Eastern nation. If anything, IMO we should have invaded Saudi Arabia, not Iraq.

As for the training and assistance of local forces issue, what do you think they're doing? Forget the time table. It took 15 years for the United States to end the occupations of Japan and Germany. And those countries didn't have neighbors trying to kill them.

Training them? To do what exactly? Kill US troops, or get killed themselves? That's what it seems like.

Once we went in, we were going to be there for a long long time. That's one of the main reasons I opposed the invasion, and one of the main reasons we should have obeyed the Constitution and issued a formal declaration of war. Now all the Democrats that signed Bush's blank check are pretending they didn't know what happened was going to. If they're that stupid, they shouldn't be in Congress.

A long time? Bush assured us it would be quick and efficient. But he failed to calculate how many troops it would take to stabilize a post-Saddam Iraq.

I, for one, am totally happy that there's a growing gap between rich and poor. The bottom percentiles always have the same amount. Almost nothing. If the upper percentiles wealth keeps increasing, then the groups in the middle also benefit. That gap is a good sign. When the top starts getting closer to the bottom, you'd better bend over and kiss it good-bye, because all hell's about to break out.

Let me get this right, it's a good thing middle class is decling?

 

[DeeJayH]

:rofl , where in the hell did you pull this from? I see you been listening to Rush..

pick up a newspaper and read about the economy
as a result of the bush tax cuts, more money than ever is flowing into the treasury
you see when taxes are cut, the public has money to spend
that money spent is taxed
that money spent creats jobs and business' etc......
only an imbicile, i mean a democrat would race taxes to 'save the economy'

Bush is also spending record dollars on the poor
Your entire life is a delusion, spawned by hate mongers

 

[kal-el]

pick up a newspaper and read about the economy
as a result of the bush tax cuts, more money than ever is flowing into the treasury
you see when taxes are cut, the public has money to spend
that money spent is taxed
that money spent creats jobs and business' etc......
only an imbicile, i mean a democrat would race taxes to 'save the economy'

Bush is also spending record dollars on the poor
Your entire life is a delusion, spawned by hate mongers

Blablabla, more right-wing half-truths. Opposed to Bush spending money like a drunken sailor, I don't buy any of this nonsense. Especially the "economic stimulus" BS. Haha, it's laughable:lol:

 

[DeeJayH]

Blablabla, more right-wing half-truths. Opposed to Bush spending money like a drunken sailor, I don't buy any of this nonsense. Especially the "economic stimulus" BS. Haha, it's laughable:lol:

than dont bother posting until you atleast take Economics 101
you have no clue what you are talking about

 

[kal-el]

than dont bother posting until you atleast take Economics 101
you have no clue what you are talking about

Says the grammer strangling, right-wing nutjob.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Well, our commander-in-chief has no viable plan, I keep hearing "We must stay the course"

What do you think remaining and training the Iraqis and preventing them from civil war is, if not staying the course? Which isn't to say they didn't make serious mistakes in the beginning we're paying for now.

We didn't stop the looting at the government offices. Forget the stupid museums and shops, the files in the government buildings were records of who the informers were and who in Syria, Saudi Arabia, France, Germany, Russia, etc were Saddam's best pals.

We should have proclaiming that a mosque is a place of worship, and a fort is a place used to protect weapons and people, and if its used as a fort, it ain't a mosque. Forts get blown up, regardless of how many people or who they are that get killed inside.

Bush has been kissing Islam's ass from the beginning, and that's costing a lot.

Agreed. IMO it would be reprehensible and irresponsible to leave Iraq right now.

Then you're for staying the course. Which doesn't mean the steering couldn't be improved.

Actually, US foreign relations suffer now, hence we are the laughing stock of much of the world because of this needless war. Sure, if we leave to soon foreign relations will go down the drain, but again, I'm not saying pull them all out now.

No. The towelheads decided they were safe to attack the US because we were weak.

They kicked us out of Tehran, and we did nothing.
They blew up 241 Marines in Beirut, and we ran away.
They bravely killed crippled Americans in wheel chairs, and we did nothing.
They blew up PanAm Flight 103, , and we did nothing.
They attacked a US Army helicopter in Somalia, and we ran away.
They attacked the WTC in 1993, and we did nothing.
They attacked our embassies in Nigeria and Kenya, and we did nothing.
They put a hole in a Navy destroy, and we did nothing.

If we run away from Iraq with inconclusive results, the only thing they'll take from it is that a stern resistance from them will make us run away.

The heirs of the victors of Iwo Jima and Normandie reject the concept of surrender. Defeat is a word for our enemy, not for us. That's the lesson they need to learn. That's not a lesson taught by running away.

Surrender monkeys? Does that coinside with the chickenhawks or warmongers?/quote]

No. Chickenhawks are old farts that ran away when they had an opportunity to serve in the military, warmongers are commies, and Surrender Monkey are always airing their armpits out.

Surrender Monkeys are those that think the only wars that should be fought are "just wars", and that no war can ever be a just war, especially not if America is involved. Screw'em, their only useful function is self-propelled radiation shielding.

Dude, you're sipping that kool-aid again. Saddam's Iraq had the least terrorist activity of any Middle Eastern nation. If anything, IMO we should have invaded Saudi Arabia, not Iraq.

Don't care who's Iraq it was. Iraq was attacked because its the strategic key to the entire middle east. Location location location.

A long time? Bush assured us it would be quick and efficient. But he failed to calculate how many troops it would take to stabilize a post-Saddam Iraq.

Like I said, it was poorly thought out. I've got to pull a chicken out of the oven, maybe I'll get back to this later. I don't want to disrespect you by blowing off a quick ill-thought response.

Let me get this right, it's a good thing middle class is decling?

I didn't address that part. I doubt if it's true. Haven't seen the stats, myself. I was commenting on the need for wealth to continue grow or we're all in deep trouble.

 

[Caine]

We didn't stop the looting at the government offices. Forget the stupid museums and shops, the files in the government buildings were records of who the informers were and who in Syria, Saudi Arabia, France, Germany, Russia, etc were Saddam's best pals.

You have a link that supports that statement? I might not have been around when it was on the news (Looting the Government Buildings in the Army and all)

Bush has been kissing Islam's ass from the beginning, and that's costing a lot.

So now your suggesting we start a war against an entire Religion? Thats ****ing stupid. Shutup.

Don't care who's Iraq it was. Iraq was attacked because its the strategic key to the entire middle east. Location location location.

Hrm... So all the reasons Mr. Dubya gave us for attacking were ALL lies? Wouldn't this be considered an aggressive war with no just reason?

 

[Caine]

pick up a newspaper and read about the economy
as a result of the bush tax cuts, more money than ever is flowing into the treasury
you see when taxes are cut, the public has money to spend
that money spent is taxed
that money spent creats jobs and business' etc......
only an imbicile, i mean a democrat would race taxes to 'save the economy'

Bush is also spending record dollars on the poor
Your entire life is a delusion, spawned by hate mongers

Hrmm... Money spent is only taxed by the FEDS for certain things, not everything. Most items have a STATE sales tax. Which would cause money to flow into STATE treasuries.

The money cut to the rich (which is most) is spent by Corporate owners to open up places in other countries to outsource thier jobs. Who cares if they do manage to get a tax penalty for such a thing, they are avoiding most of thier taxes anyways.

Giving tax cuts when you are already trillions in debt is just plain stupid.
Its like giving my kids a 50 dollar allowance that I had to charge to my credit card which already has hit its limit.

 

[kal-el]

What do you think remaining and training the Iraqis and preventing them from civil war is, if not staying the course? Which isn't to say they didn't make serious mistakes in the beginning we're paying for now.

I don't agree with Bush's train of thought of "staying the course". I want our troops home as soon as Iraq is secure. No later.

Bush has been kissing Islam's ass from the beginning, and that's costing a lot.

From the beginning? And you call bombing the hell out of Iraq, in the process hitting civilain targets, kissing ass? I wonder what you would consider beligerency?

Then you're for staying the course. Which doesn't mean the steering couldn't be improved.

Uh, no, not exactly. Just until Iraqi security forces are adeqeately trained. And then we should be outie.

No. The towelheads decided they were safe to attack the US because we were weak.

They kicked us out of Tehran, and we did nothing.
They blew up 241 Marines in Beirut, and we ran away.
They bravely killed crippled Americans in wheel chairs, and we did nothing.
They blew up PanAm Flight 103, , and we did nothing.
They attacked a US Army helicopter in Somalia, and we ran away.
They attacked the WTC in 1993, and we did nothing.
They attacked our embassies in Nigeria and Kenya, and we did nothing.
They put a hole in a Navy destroy, and we did nothing.

Ok, tell me, what does all this have to do with Iraq?

If we run away from Iraq with inconclusive results, the only thing they'll take from it is that a stern resistance from them will make us run away.

You could be right.

The heirs of the victors of Iwo Jima and Normandie reject the concept of surrender. Defeat is a word for our enemy, not for us. That's the lesson they need to learn. That's not a lesson taught by running away.

Dude, you're preaching to the choir, here.I'm not for running away, as you so aptly put it, but bringing the troops home, as soon as the Iraqi's can secure Iraq without depending on us, i.e. we should slowly reduce troop levels, not withdraw all at once.

Don't care who's Iraq it was. Iraq was attacked because its the strategic key to the entire middle east. Location location location.

O really? How come Bush didn't so blantanly say this? Instead alls I heard were WMDs, WMDs, WMDs, which we haven't found.

Like I said, it was poorly thought out. I've got to pull a chicken out of the oven, maybe I'll get back to this later. I don't want to disrespect you by blowing off a quick ill-thought response.

That's cool, my computer's running slow as **** anyways.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

You have a link that supports that statement? I might not have been around when it was on the news (Looting the Government Buildings in the Army and all)

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE140852003?open&of=ENG-IRQ
'As US and UK tanks have swept into the centre of major Iraqi cities in recent days, numerous observers on the ground have reported on the chaos and lawlessness that have filled the political vacuum created. Beginning in Basra on 7 April, followed by Baghdad on 9 April and Kirkuk the following day, crowds of desperate people have taken to the streets, looting, burning and destroying government offices and, more ominously, institutions vital to their future, including schools, universities and hospitals. In most cases, the occupying forces have stood by, apparently unwilling or unprepared to take on policing functions.'

So now your suggesting we start a war against an entire Religion? Thats ****ing stupid. Shutup.

It's very difficult to engage in war against a religion. A religion is a set of irrational beliefs. Just how does one shoot an irrational belief?

Oh. One doesn't. One declares war on people, and shoots them.

Hint: Learn what words learn, it will do you tremendous good when reading what I say.

Hrm... So all the reasons Mr. Dubya gave us for attacking were ALL lies? Wouldn't this be considered an aggressive war with no just reason?

Name one that was proved correct, and you case will be proven.

That's all you got to do.

Show us a significant chemical weapon, a mean germ, effective radiological weapons, or a nuke, and Bush's claim of WMD's will be that much closer to validation.

Show us the link to al Queda.

Show us the links to other terrorists, even.

And please! Learn how to read. I never said there was no just reason. I've never said that to anyone. What did I say?

Don't care who's Iraq it was. Iraq was attacked because its the strategic key to the entire middle east. Location location location.

The reason was the map. Do you think I"m pretending that Saddam was a saint? It's not like when the Kaiser, then Hitler, rode through harmless neutral Belgium, Saddam was a threat that should have been removed in 1992 when we were there before. Saddam needed removal on general principles, and that in itself is no big deal.

Tell me. Do you think Bush would have been able to say the media, "Hey, guys, we're going to take control of Iraq and make it a democratic republic because it's in a geographically ideal position to influence the entire Middle East. Once we establish a stable and friendly regime there, Syria, Jordan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates will all be thoroughly aware of a major American force on the other side of their border with Iraq. Their national policies will be modified accordingly. Besides which, Saddam Hussein is one of the three worst dictators on the planet and it's time we did something about that."

No, that wouldn't fly at all.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Hrmm... Money spent is only taxed by the FEDS for certain things, not everything. Most items have a STATE sales tax. Which would cause money to flow into STATE treasuries.

The money cut to the rich (which is most) is spent by Corporate owners to open up places in other countries to outsource thier jobs. Who cares if they do manage to get a tax penalty for such a thing, they are avoiding most of thier taxes anyways.

Giving tax cuts when you are already trillions in debt is just plain stupid.
Its like giving my kids a 50 dollar allowance that I had to charge to my credit card which already has hit its limit.

This is way off thread, but...

The federal government shouldn't be spending money on issues the states are addressing. That's basic civics and the whole principle behind the American theory of federalism. Centralization is for those fine solid economies like the old Soviet Union (I still love strining those words together), Germany, France, and N. Korea, all of which are basket cases or weaving one right now.

Tax cuts aren't what's stupid. We're on the far end of the Laffer Curve, which means we can cut taxes quite a bit and still see increased revenue. Which is what's happened. What's more important, keeping high tax rates to punish those making more money than you approve of, or raising revenues to the treasury?

What's really stupid is increased non-defense spending in war time. I can't name a single budget item the Republicans cut out, can you? The Democrats have had their noses in the hog trough, too. And I can't seem to recall a single bill GW Bush has vetoed. Not a one. Must be something wrong with my memory.

 

[Caine]

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE140852003?open&of=ENG-IRQ

This has nothing to do with your claim of Saddam's buddies being in France, Russia, etc. I am well aware there was looting, I was there during the initial invasion of Iraq with the infantry.

It's very difficult to engage in war against a religion. A religion is a set of irrational beliefs. Just how does one shoot an irrational belief?
Oh. One doesn't. One declares war on people, and shoots them.
Hint: Learn what words learn, it will do you tremendous good when reading what I say.

I wasn't speaking on the religion, but on all people are of of that religion....Maybe you should learn how to read and think before ASSuming.

Name one that was proved correct, and you case will be proven.
That's all you got to do.
Show us a significant chemical weapon, a mean germ, effective radiological weapons, or a nuke, and Bush's claim of WMD's will be that much closer to validation.
Show us the link to al Queda.
Show us the links to other terrorists, even.
And please! Learn how to read. I never said there was no just reason. I've never said that to anyone. What did I say?
The reason was the map. Do you think I"m pretending that Saddam was a saint? It's not like when the Kaiser, then Hitler, rode through harmless neutral Belgium, Saddam was a threat that should have been removed in 1992 when we were there before. Saddam needed removal on general principles, and that in itself is no big deal.

No, that wouldn't fly at all.

Now you REALLY need to learn to read.
I never said one of Bush's reasons for invading Iraq were real, I was being sarcastic, moron.

And, the just reason part, launching an aggressive war to aquire a nation to start a democratic re-structuring of the middle east is NOT a just reason for invading a region, reguardless of the dictator you take down while doing it.

Learn to read. http://www.hookedonphonics.com

 

[Caine]

This is way off thread, but...

The federal government shouldn't be spending money on issues the states are addressing. That's basic civics and the whole principle behind the American theory of federalism. Centralization is for those fine solid economies like the old Soviet Union (I still love strining those words together), Germany, France, and N. Korea, all of which are basket cases or weaving one right now.

Tax cuts aren't what's stupid. We're on the far end of the Laffer Curve, which means we can cut taxes quite a bit and still see increased revenue. Which is what's happened. What's more important, keeping high tax rates to punish those making more money than you approve of, or raising revenues to the treasury?

What's really stupid is increased non-defense spending in war time. I can't name a single budget item the Republicans cut out, can you? The Democrats have had their noses in the hog trough, too. And I can't seem to recall a single bill GW Bush has vetoed. Not a one. Must be something wrong with my memory.

Was this post to attempt to impress people?
Because you sure didn't address hardly ANYTHING I said.
Again... learn to read and COMPREHEND and don't start yapping about something that doesn't address what you responded to.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

This has nothing to do with your claim of Saddam's buddies being in France, Russia, etc. I am well aware there was looting, I was there during the initial invasion of Iraq with the infantry.

You claim to have been there, but ask for a link to prove my claim there was looting. And now you're claiming that's not what you asked for, but something else.

Your exact words were:

You have a link that supports that statement? I might not have been around when it was on the news (Looting the Government Buildings in the Army and all)

So now you want links that support the rest. If you insist.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/...1001.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2004/10/10/ixop.html

Thanks to the efforts of the ISG team, we now know that there was another, even less palatable, explanation for their duplicity. Far from seeking to protect their lucrative trade ties, the real explanation for the opposition of France and Russia to the war was that both countries' political establishments were deeply implicated in a lucrative scam to divert the profits of the UN's oil-for-food programme into their own private coffers.

From the moment the oil-for-food programme was introduced in 1996, Saddam concentrated all his energies on attempting to subvert it. The complex oil-for-food programme was introduced so that the profits from UN-supervised Iraqi oil sales would pay for essential healthcare supplies. The programme was conceived, it should be remembered, to counter the mounting effectiveness of the propaganda campaign of hard-Left activists such as George Galloway, the former Labour MP, who argued that the wide-ranging UN sanctions introduced following the Gulf war were responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent Iraqi children.

But as the ISG report clearly demonstrates, Saddam skilfully worked the system so that the profits were diverted to fund his regime rather than feed his people. An important element of this fraud was that a significant percentage of the funds was diverted to set up a voucher system that could be used to bribe a wide network of international politicians who could be counted upon to do Saddam's bidding.

Between them, France and Russia received 45 per cent of the vouchers, with China coming third. In late 2002 and early 2003, France, Russia and China led the anti-war movement at the UN. In France, the vouchers were given to a number of politicians with close links to Mr Chirac, while in Russia they were paid directly to Mr Putin's private office, providing him with his own ready-made slush fund.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/articles/040426/26edit.htm

Coincidence. If you wondered why the French were so hostile to America's approach to Iraq and even opposed to ending the sanctions after the 1991 Gulf War, here's one possible explanation: French oil traders got 165 million barrels of Iraqi crude at cut-rate prices. The CEO of one French company, SOCO International, got vouchers for 36 million barrels of Iraqi oil. Was it just a coincidence that the man is a close political and financial supporter of President Jacques Chirac? Or that a former minister of the interior, Charles Pasqua, allegedly received 12 million barrels from Baghdad? Or that a former French ambassador to the U.N., Jean-Bernard Merimee, received an allocation of 11 million barrels? Perhaps it was just happenstance, too, that a French bank with close ties to then French President François Mitterrand and one of the bank's big shareholders who is close to Saddam became the main conduit for the bulk of the $67 billion in proceeds from the oil-for-food program. All told, 42 French companies and individuals got a piece of this lucrative trade. No matter how cynical you may be, it's sometimes just plain hard to keep up with the French.

But they're not alone. Russians received more than 2.5 billion barrels of the cut-rate crude. Some 1.4 billion barrels went to the Russian state. Not to be left out of the feeding frenzy, even the U.N. got in on the action. It received administrative fees of about $2 billion for the program, which may be fair, but the senior U.N. official in charge of the program, Benon Sevan, is reported to have received 11.5 million barrels himself. Cotecna, a Swiss-based firm hired by the U.N. to monitor the import of the food and medicine to Iraq, hired Kojo Annan, the son of U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, as a consultant during the period when the company was assembling and submitting bids for the oil-for-food program. All of these coincidences were reported by Claudia Rosett in the National Review. None, surprisingly, were disclosed by the U.N., Cotecna, or the senior or junior Annan. The imposition of so-called smart sanctions on Iraq, several years after the end of the 1991 Gulf War, allowed Saddam to purchase items besides food and medicine. But some of the things approved by Kofi Annan seem pretty far afield. There was the $20 million he authorized for an Olympic sports city for Uday Hussein, Saddam's reprehensible (and now deceased) oldest son. And then there was the $50 million for TV and radio equipment for Saddam's ham-handed propaganda machine. This is food? Gives new meaning to Kofi Annan's statement, in 1998, that Saddam was a man "I can do business with." And how.

Will two do, or do you require more?

I wasn't speaking on the religion, but on all people are of of that religion....Maybe you should learn how to read and think before ASSuming.

Oh, I'm an advocate of sterilizing all land masses currently controlled by Islam if they don't start behaving. I'm not picky. Their belief systsem is a threat to my family. If they don't change their belief system it won't bother me to apply foot-and-mouth remedies.

I never said one of Bush's reasons for invading Iraq were real, I was being sarcastic, moron.

Okay, you're a sarcastic moron. :2razz:

Enough said. I would like to remind you that if you can't make your thoughts crystal clear you're going to have to deal with these sorts of misunderstandings often.

And, the just reason part, launching an aggressive war to aquire a nation to start a democratic re-structuring of the middle east is NOT a just reason for invading a region, reguardless of the dictator you take down while doing it.

No. That's the real reason, but an effective reason would have simply been the laundry list of cease-fire line items he's violated since 1992 and 17 UN resolutions against him. If those were mentioned at all, it was in transit from WMD's to terrorism.

 

[Caine]

You claim to have been there, but ask for a link to prove my claim there was looting. And now you're claiming that's not what you asked for, but something else.

Your exact words were:


So now you want links that support the rest. If you insist.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/...1001.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2004/10/10/ixop.html


http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/articles/040426/26edit.htm


Will two do, or do you require more?




Oh, I'm an advocate of sterilizing all land masses currently controlled by Islam if they don't start behaving. I'm not picky. Their belief systsem is a threat to my family. If they don't change their belief system it won't bother me to apply foot-and-mouth remedies.




Okay, you're a sarcastic moron. :2razz:

Enough said. I would like to remind you that if you can't make your thoughts crystal clear you're going to have to deal with these sorts of misunderstandings often.



No. That's the real reason, but an effective reason would have simply been the laundry list of cease-fire line items he's violated since 1992 and 17 UN resolutions against him. If those were mentioned at all, it was in transit from WMD's to terrorism.

Okay, Thanks for the links, Like I said, I was over there during the invasion and stuff so I didn't get any news on the issues of France and Russia's involvement with the Iraqi government. I wasn't being critical of your point, I was asking for something to backup your claims because alot of idiots on here make points that sound ficticious (namely people like Navy Pride and Skilmatic) and I can't always trust a conservative's word. Then I typed the text in parentheses, I was being a "sarcastic moron" again, jokingly stating that I was looting government buildings with the Army. I think you misunderstood my sarcasm there. Again, thanks for the Info :smile:

And about the 'REAL REASON', again, I don't consider it a just reason for launching an aggressive assault that put me at danger and took me away from my family for a year, and then 4 more months shortly afterwards. I don't think the US military should be used as Bush's tool to spread Democracy, while gaining support for his attacks by claming links to Al Qaeda (sp?), WMDs, Terrorism, "HES A BAD MAN!".

 

[Duke]

This is way off thread, but...

The federal government shouldn't be spending money on issues the states are addressing. That's basic civics and the whole principle behind the American theory of federalism. Centralization is for those fine solid economies like the old Soviet Union (I still love strining those words together), Germany, France, and N. Korea, all of which are basket cases or weaving one right now.

Most of the developed nations worldwide do not use the state system.


Duke

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Most of the developed nations worldwide do not use the state system.


Duke

And most of the developed nations in the world don't have growing economies, they don't have diverse populations, and they don't have our history.

Next thing you'll be telling us we should have a five dollar a gallon tax on gasoline because France does.

Our system was built specifically to keep as much government power as needed at the lowest, most local level, and only centralize those functions that work best on a national level. We've abandoned that system, and things aren't as good as they should be, as a result.

 

[Duke]

"And most of the developed nations in the world don't have growing economies, they don't have diverse populations, and they don't have our history.

Next thing you'll be telling us we should have a five dollar a gallon tax on gasoline because France does."

That's a quite strech. No logic involved in that computation.


"Our system was built specifically to keep as much government power as needed at the lowest, most local level, and only centralize those functions that work best on a national level. We've abandoned that system, and things aren't as good as they should be, as a result."

That has about nothing to do with what I was talking about.......
How did we get into this conversation anyway?
And what is it about?


Duke