Weren't the troops supposed to be coming home?

116 replies
  • OFF TOPIC
  • |
This makes it look like they are just being relocated...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/30/wo...gulf.html?_r=2
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    Wow, DON'T things sound PEACHY? ICSM! I wonder if the phrase "Don't change horses in midstream" will come up in the next year!

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4966465].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
      Sounds pretty logical to me. Of course they were going to be relocated. They won't be in a war zone however.
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4966574].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Ragz
        Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

        Sounds pretty logical to me. Of course they were going to be relocated. They won't be in a war zone however.

        I thought Obama's words were "home with their families"...
        Ok, maybe not.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4967699].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
          Many will be home for the holidays. That doesn't mean they will lose their jobs all of a sudden.
          Originally Posted by Ragz View Post

          I thought Obama's words were "home with their families"...
          Ok, maybe not.
          Signature
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4967782].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
        Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

        Sounds pretty logical to me. Of course they were going to be relocated. They won't be in a war zone however.
        I don't know.... There HAVE been acts of war there before, and are reasons for it NOW! The reasons will increase if Americans show up.

        Steve
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4967718].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author garyv
    With U.S. forces leaving, then civil war is certain. It was basically a civil war anyway, but now with the U.S. forces leaving, it will create a giant vacuum there that will erupt into civil chaos.

    And if you think that moving to Kuwait is "moving out of the warzone" then you're very much mistaken. Geographically they'll be moving to a very dangerous area. Not only is Kuwait surrounded by Iraq and Saudi-Arabia, but it's one of the main access ports for Iran to get to Iraq.

    Moving out of Iraq and going to Kuwait so quickly will be the equivalent of whacking a hornets nest and closing your eyes in hopes of not being seen. I hope I'm wrong - but I'm predicting some of our highest casualty counts coming soon.

    ps - Look up "Kuwait Highway of Death" - remember that? They don't have the capabilities to do that to us... but there is an ironic reversal of roles here.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4971584].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
      Quickly? We've been there for eight years. The withdrawal started a couple years ago. I'm sure there will be continued fighting after we leave but the Iraqi government and people want us out. After a trillion dollars, over 4,000 US deaths and tens of thousands of casualties they still don't like us much.

      By the way, Kuwait is not at war and just being near Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia doesn't make it a war zone. This withdrawal date was set by the previous US admin anyways.

      Originally Posted by garyv View Post

      Moving out of Iraq and going to Kuwait so quickly...
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4972012].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author garyv
        Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

        Quickly? We've been there for eight years. The withdrawal started a couple years ago. I'm sure there will be continued fighting after we leave but the Iraqi government and people want us out. After a trillion dollars, over 4,000 US deaths and tens of thousands of casualties they still don't like us much.

        By the way, Kuwait is not at war and just being near Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia doesn't make it a war zone. This withdrawal date was set by the previous US admin anyways.

        When I say quickly - I'm talking about the withdrawal of the last 43,000 troops in a matter of less than 2 months. - Plus "quickly" is a matter of perspective. Did you know that the U.S. still has troops in Korea? The war there has been over for a very long time.

        National security sometimes requires us to be pro-active, and not just re-active. Some people naively call it "policing the world". But don't realize the symbiotic relationships we have. What some would call "policing the world" would better be defined as pro-active national security.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4972247].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
          I don't know why you are so worried about us leaving Gary. They aren't going to be shooting at us while we are leaving. They are more likely to now throw flowers at our feet like was supposed to happen when we started the war. They want us to leave.

          Of course I know we still have troops in South Korea. We have troops deployed in over 150 countries. That isn't being pro-active. It ridiculous.

          Originally Posted by garyv View Post

          When I say quickly - I'm talking about the withdrawal of the last 43,000 troops in a matter of less than 2 months. - Plus "quickly" is a matter of perspective. Did you know that the U.S. still has troops in Korea? The war there has been over for a very long time.

          National security sometimes requires us to be pro-active, and not just re-active. Some people naively call it "policing the world". But don't realize the symbiotic relationships we have. What some would call "policing the world" would better be defined as pro-active national security.
          Signature
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4972379].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author ThomM
          Originally Posted by garyv View Post

          When I say quickly - I'm talking about the withdrawal of the last 43,000 troops in a matter of less than 2 months. - Plus "quickly" is a matter of perspective. Did you know that the U.S. still has troops in Korea? The war there has been over for a very long time.

          National security sometimes requires us to be pro-active, and not just re-active. Some people naively call it "policing the world". But don't realize the symbiotic relationships we have. What some would call "policing the world" would better be defined as pro-active national security.
          Did you know we still have troops in Japan and Germany?
          Plus around 140 other countries.
          Our pro active national security as you call it is the major reason we're having the problems we have with other countries.
          Why don't we allow other countries to station troops here for their 'national security'?
          Signature

          Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
          Getting old ain't for sissy's
          As you are I was, as I am you will be
          You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4972410].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author garyv
            Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

            Did you know we still have troops in Japan and Germany?
            Plus around 140 other countries.
            Our pro active national security as you call it is the major reason we're having the problems we have with other countries.
            Why don't we allow other countries to station troops here for their 'national security'?
            Many of those countries have agreements with us AND other countries (eg- NATO) for mutual protection. It's not just the United States going where-ever they please. There's a history behind the expansion of our troops into these areas, and a majority of the time it has to do with mutual protection.

            Many people would prefer that we withdraw everywhere - come home - and stick our heads in the sand, as if history never happened. And we all (well most of us) know what happens when we ignore history.

            There are several countries that would no longer be on the map if not for our troops being near by.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4972809].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
              Originally Posted by garyv View Post

              Many of those countries have agreements with us AND other countries (eg- NATO) for mutual protection. It's not just the United States going where-ever they please. There's a history behind the expansion of our troops into these areas, and a majority of the time it has to do with mutual protection.

              Many people would prefer that we withdraw everywhere - come home - and stick our heads in the sand, as if history never happened. And we all (well most of us) know what happens when we ignore history.

              There are several countries that would no longer be on the map if not for our troops being near by.

              Like who?

              Just the threat of us coming back over there ( where-ever ) would prohibit anyone from aggressing someone else - where we've already been.

              No one's talking about sticking our heads in the sand but 170+ countries is silly cold war mentality and very wasteful at this time in our nation's history.


              TL
              Signature

              "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4972843].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Kurt
              Originally Posted by garyv View Post

              Many of those countries have agreements with us AND other countries (eg- NATO) for mutual protection. It's not just the United States going where-ever they please. There's a history behind the expansion of our troops into these areas, and a majority of the time it has to do with mutual protection.

              Many people would prefer that we withdraw everywhere - come home - and stick our heads in the sand, as if history never happened. And we all (well most of us) know what happens when we ignore history.

              There are several countries that would no longer be on the map if not for our troops being near by.

              Each situation is different. Like I said above, I'd keep troops in S. Korea. However, I'd take them out of Japan. We may have a treaty with them, but they don't want us there and it's a major political debate there, so we could easily leave if we wanted to.

              As far as remembering history...What do the USSR, The Great Wall of China and William the Conqueror have in common?

              In each case, so much was spent on the military that it bankrupted the Gov to the point where they couldn't effectively defend themselves any more.

              The Great Wall cost so much, the Emperor couldn't field a decent army within a generation and was invaded by the Mongols.

              William the Conqueror defeated the Brits at Hastings, but went on a castle building spree for "defense", and his control ended shortly after due to lack of funds.

              And we know we simply spent the USSR into oblivion.

              National defense isn't always as simple as spending money. History has shown us that spending too much money on national defense can also be very counter-productive.

              IMO, the question is, why do we have to spend 10X as much as the next closest government in order for us to be safe? Can't we simply spend only 5x as much and still have military superiority, and if not, why not?
              Signature
              Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
              Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4972853].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author M_Jones
                Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

                IMO, the question is, why do we have to spend 10X as much as the next closest government in order for us to be safe? Can't we simply spend only 5x as much and still have military superiority, and if not, why not?
                The reason why is because there is a conspiracy between the the military industrial complex, and the banksters. What this means is, no matter who is fighting who, they still profit off of it - rather its profit from bombs, missiles, bullets, or nation building, loans, etc.

                These banksters and the military industrial complex are in charge of the highest offices of government, for example, the CIA: they knowingly ship and openly run the drug cartels in mexico, shipping drugs to the US. (search: head of Sinaloa says he works for CIA) They also knowingly arm these people (operation fast and furious) and then, the banks knowingly launder all the money (search: wells fargo drug cartels). So they work in concert like this but on all sorts of things - rather it be fake revolutions in the middle east (see video in above post) or rather it be fake carbon taxes..

                This stuff is very hard to describe and articulate, so most people cannot explain it although they have a hunch that something is not right.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4972901].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Kurt
                  Originally Posted by M_Jones View Post

                  The reason why is because there is a conspiracy between the the military industrial complex, and the banksters. What this means is, no matter who is fighting who, they still profit off of it - rather its profit from bombs, missiles, bullets, or nation building, loans, etc.

                  These banksters and the military industrial complex are in charge of the highest offices of government, for example, the CIA: they knowingly ship and openly run the drug cartels in mexico, shipping drugs to the US. (search: head of Sinaloa says he works for CIA) They also knowingly arm these people (operation fast and furious) and then, the banks knowingly launder all the money (search: wells fargo drug cartels). So they work in concert like this but on all sorts of things - rather it be fake revolutions in the middle east (see video in above post) or rather it be fake carbon taxes..

                  This stuff is very hard to describe and articulate, so most people cannot explain it although they have a hunch that something is not right.
                  I agree 100%. The only thing you left out is Big Oil. About half of our military budget is spent protecting Big Oil's interests overseas. If Big Oil had to pay for their own defense, green energy would start looking a whole lot better from an economic point of view.

                  I just think we need to start asking the question why spending 5x the next closest country does on their military isn't enough?

                  We already know the answer, we simply need to start holding people accountable and put them on the spot and let them try and explain why we need to spend so much mor than other countries to be safe.
                  Signature
                  Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
                  Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4972947].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                  Fake revolutions? You think what is happening in Syria now is fake? You think the death of Gaddafi is fake? You think the people throwing out a dictator like Mubarak is fake? This is why I don't listen to Alex Jones, no matter who his guest is. I don't hate him, I just think he is a professional conspiracy theorist who makes a bundle off of his fans.

                  Originally Posted by M_Jones View Post

                  rather it be fake revolutions in the middle east
                  Signature
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4973192].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author Kurt
                    Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                    Fake revolutions? You think what is happening in Syria now is fake? You think the death of Gaddafi is fake? You think the people throwing out a dictator like Mubarak is fake? This is why I don't listen to Alex Jones, no matter who his guest is. I don't hate him, I just think he is a professional conspiracy theorist who makes a bundle off of his fans.
                    Above, I said I agree with M_Jones 100%...I missed the comment Tim quoted of M_Jones and agree with Tim's point...But do agree with the rest of M_'s points.

                    Originally Posted by M_Jones
                    rather it be fake revolutions in the middle east
                    Signature
                    Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
                    Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4973395].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author M_Jones
                    Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                    Fake revolutions? You think what is happening in Syria now is fake? You think the death of Gaddafi is fake? You think the people throwing out a dictator like Mubarak is fake? This is why I don't listen to Alex Jones, no matter who his guest is. I don't hate him, I just think he is a professional conspiracy theorist who makes a bundle off of his fans.
                    Allow me to clarify.

                    The CIA has admitted to stirring up and creating opposition parties in each of these countries, in an effort to over through their governments; including Libya, Sudan/South Sudan, Tunisia, Syria, Yemen, Egypt, Iran, Ethiopia, Somalia, Bahrain, Pakistan, Iraq, and Afghanistan, and possibly in Malaysia.

                    Mubarak and Gaddafi were no longer useful puppets, just like Saddam was no longer useful.

                    I'm not saying Gaddafi is still alive, I'm saying that these people have a plan for a one world government - and 1 small part happens to be under the color of revolution. The same dangerous thing may happen in the US, if we are not careful - the recent Occupy protests are being funded by globalists with this same goal. It's almost like bait. The people attending do not even realize this - everybody is upset and not happy about things, but nobody (as I mentioned previously) is able to articulate exactly what it is they are upset at or upset about. The reason why, is because every one of these 'conspiracies' is interconnected, so its quiet a leap to go from 'fluoride in the water' to 'bail out the euro' without sounding ludicrous.
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4973622].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                      Ridiculous. Please stop listening to Alex Jones. It's like watching Fox News.

                      Originally Posted by M_Jones View Post

                      Allow me to clarify.

                      The CIA has admitted to stirring up and creating opposition parties in each of these countries, in an effort to over through their governments; including Libya, Sudan/South Sudan, Tunisia, Syria, Yemen, Egypt, Iran, Ethiopia, Somalia, Bahrain, Pakistan, Iraq, and Afghanistan, and possibly in Malaysia.

                      Mubarak and Gaddafi were no longer useful puppets, just like Saddam was no longer useful.

                      I'm not saying Gaddafi is still alive, I'm saying that these people have a plan for a one world government - and 1 small part happens to be under the color of revolution. The same dangerous thing may happen in the US, if we are not careful - the recent Occupy protests are being funded by globalists with this same goal. It's almost like bait. The people attending do not even realize this - everybody is upset and not happy about things, but nobody (as I mentioned previously) is able to articulate exactly what it is they are upset at or upset about. The reason why, is because every one of these 'conspiracies' is interconnected, so its quiet a leap to go from 'fluoride in the water' to 'bail out the euro' without sounding ludicrous.
                      Signature
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4976875].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author M_Jones
                        Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                        Ridiculous. Please stop listening to Alex Jones. It's like watching Fox News.
                        I don't think fox news would ever touch any of the things I'm talking about.

                        Besides, the Messenger doesn't change the facts of the matter :rolleyes:
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4980493].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author ThomM
              Originally Posted by garyv View Post

              Many of those countries have agreements with us AND other countries (eg- NATO) for mutual protection. It's not just the United States going where-ever they please. There's a history behind the expansion of our troops into these areas, and a majority of the time it has to do with mutual protection.

              Many people would prefer that we withdraw everywhere - come home - and stick our heads in the sand, as if history never happened. And we all (well most of us) know what happens when we ignore history.

              There are several countries that would no longer be on the map if not for our troops being near by.
              Nobody said anything about sticking our head in the sand.
              I agree with Kurt. Maybe keep troops in South Korea. I think our presence there is the only thing keeping North Korea in check.
              Everywhere else? Bring them home, they are doing nothing but draining the countries budget.
              Now answer this. How would you feel if Japan or Germany or Pakistan had troops stationed in the U.S.?
              Now how do you think those people feel about our troops stationed there?
              Signature

              Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
              Getting old ain't for sissy's
              As you are I was, as I am you will be
              You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4972974].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author zumamoney
      I agree with you, thanks for your thought.
      Signature

      [B][B]New To Internet Marketing And Still Paying For Information? Get It 100% FREE At Zuma Products

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4980840].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Kurt
    Bring them home and put them on the Mexico border.

    It will cost us less to have them home, add security to the border war and create jobs in the US to help support the troops, like local bars, pizza joints, car dealers, laundry services, etc.
    Signature
    Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
    Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4971671].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author garyv
      Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

      Bring them home and put them on the Mexico border.

      It will cost us less to have them home, add security to the border war and create jobs in the US to help support the troops, like local bars, pizza joints, car dealers, laundry services, etc.
      I like that idea.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4971737].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Kay King
        There's another problem that makes ending this war a crisis for the US.

        Unemployment.

        Many of the troops in the wars are not regular military but national guard and reserves. These are folks who would go back to their lives if we leave Iraq - but where have their lives gone in the meantime?

        Some could go back to their old jobs - but many of the jobs and companies they worked for may be gone. The length of time they have served may mean the jobs have moved on without them.

        There have been programs to prevent foreclosure of homes while servicemen and women were deployed - those programs expire when they return. It's a big mess.

        What do we do - bring home tens of thousands of troops and just dump them with a "good luck" in this economy? Yes, the words "home for Christmas" have been broadcast several times...but looks like the meaning is "and then back out for New Years".

        I don't know the details of reintegrating those who dropped their lives and their one-weekend-a-month military duty and became full time warriors...but the potential is disturbing.

        kay
        Signature
        Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world will change forever for that one dog.

        I'm going to work on being less condescending
        (Condescending means to talk down to people)
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4971880].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    Kay,

    Another great reason for some folks to stop playing games and do the things that will get this society back to at least the way it was in 1999.


    TL
    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4972001].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Rick B
    The article actually says that the reassignment of troops from Iraq to other places in the Middle East is a PENTAGON proposal, not an OBAMA proposal so there's absolutely no conflict with the President's statement that the troops are coming home.

    Even if a percentage of the number being pulled from Iraq is increased elsewhere, it doesn't mean that the same troops will be transferred from Iraq to Kuwait for example.

    Plus, I'm sure that some of the troops in Iraq will actually request a transfer to another assignment within the Middle East.

    In any case, the war that never should have been is ending. Thousands of young Americans dead. Estimates of Iraqi deaths as a result of the war vary from a low of 150,000 to a high of over a million. Over $700 billion dollars gone. Zero weapons of mass destruction found.

    So if Obama slipped up by saying that absolutely every one of the troops in Iraq would be home by the end of the year it pales in comparison to the prior President's slip ups.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4972418].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kurt
      Originally Posted by garyv View Post

      When I say quickly - I'm talking about the withdrawal of the last 43,000 troops in a matter of less than 2 months. - Plus "quickly" is a matter of perspective. Did you know that the U.S. still has troops in Korea? The war there has been over for a very long time.

      National security sometimes requires us to be pro-active, and not just re-active. Some people naively call it "policing the world". But don't realize the symbiotic relationships we have. What some would call "policing the world" would better be defined as pro-active national security.
      Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

      I don't know why you are so worried about us leaving Gary. They aren't going to be shooting at us while we are leaving. They are more likely to now throw flowers at our feet like was supposed to happen when we started the war. They want us to leave.

      Of course I know we still have troops in South Korea. We have troops deployed in over 150 countries. That isn't being pro-active. It ridiculous.
      Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

      Did you know we still have troops in Japan and Germany?
      Plus around 140 other countries.
      Our pro active national security as you call it is the major reason we're having the problems we have with other countries.
      Why don't we allow other countries to station troops here for their 'national security'?
      I support us having troops in South Korea. They have a legit nutcase in N. Korea who has nukes.

      However, we need to withdraw from virtually every where else...We still using Cold War tactics when the Cold War ended 20 years ago.

      We simply do not have any enemies with the capability of destroying or conquering the USA. Sure, groups like Al Quada can do some damage, but they aren't a threat to take over the US.

      We now resemble Rome in many ways toward the end of Rome's Western civilization...Our military is spread all over and supporting it is costing us our ability to build and grow back home.

      ...And the Mexican drug lords now are the biggest threats to America and Americans.
      Signature
      Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
      Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4972759].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author M_Jones
    Originally Posted by JordanBanks View Post

    Weren't the troops supposed to be coming home?
    ha ha ha... you fell for that?

    Didn't you know:

    War is Peace ?



    They already have the plan to dethrone all the arab kingdoms, to double cross the saudi's, and more.

    Never mind the messengers, (cuz I know everybody hates Alex) just listen to the message: This video lays out what is going to happen in the next 2 to 5 years. These people have been right on for the past 20+ years on everything. :-/
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4972859].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Patrician
    Make Love Not WarP
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4973312].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author garyv
    Actually the troops deployed for the purposes of the Cold-War have been steadily decreasing since the end of the Cold-War. Germany had a quarter of a million of our troops at the height of the Cold-War. - And then more recently the decreasing numbers paused, because many of these bases (Including those in Germany) became part of a worldwide force realignment to respond more effectively to emerging threats (war on terror). The bases in Germany became staging grounds for the war in Iraq.

    I think there's a faulty assumption that the war on terror is over. And there's also a faulty assumption that the Countries formerly known as the USSR are more stable now that the Cold War is over. When actually the opposite is true. At least during the cold war - their nukes could more easily be accounted for. Now, not only are there more loose nukes, but there are a greater number of people that would use them on us if given a chance.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4973699].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kurt
      Originally Posted by garyv View Post

      Actually the troops deployed for the purposes of the Cold-War have been steadily decreasing since the end of the Cold-War. Germany had a quarter of a million of our troops at the height of the Cold-War. - And then more recently the decreasing numbers paused, because many of these bases (Including those in Germany) became part of a worldwide force realignment to respond more effectively to emerging threats (war on terror). The bases in Germany became staging grounds for the war in Iraq.
      I disagree. A bipartisan committee made up of ex senators, both D and R say that half of our military budget is spent on navy ships floating around in the Gulf using Cold War principles. And the major reason for this our dependency on OIL.


      I think there's a faulty assumption that the war on terror is over. And there's also a faulty assumption that the Countries formerly known as the USSR are more stable now that the Cold War is over. When actually the opposite is true. At least during the cold war - their nukes could more easily be accounted for. Now, not only are there more loose nukes, but there are a greater number of people that would use them on us if given a chance.
      And what is the cause of terrorism? A good part of it has to do with our military being in the Middle East.

      It also depends on defining "stable". We probably are more likely for a lone nuke to go off now, but far less likely to have our entire Country or World blown to Bolivia (as Mike Tyson would say).

      IMO, covert/police operations are much better in fighting terrorism than military ones.

      And for the price of the Iran war, we could have fed every poor person in the World. I bet giving a kid something to eat with the US flag on it will do more to end terrorism than killing the kid's uncle.
      Signature
      Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
      Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4973766].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author ThomM
        I think there's a faulty assumption that the war on terror is over.
        There will always be terror.
        Declaring and fighting a war on terror is as stupid as declaring and fighting a war on drugs.
        Terror is a concept.
        We didn't fight terror in Iraq, we fought Iraqi's. We're not fighting terror in Pakistan, we're fighting the Taliban.
        Do you really think going into someones country and killing them will stop the rest of them from hating us and wanting to do us harm?
        The war on terror is just a catch phrase the govt. came up with so they could continue pumping money into the military.
        I wouldn't be surprised if an oil exec. came up with it:rolleyes:
        Signature

        Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
        Getting old ain't for sissy's
        As you are I was, as I am you will be
        You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4973947].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Thomas
          Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

          There will always be terror.
          The U.S. itself was founded by people who were considered terrorists by the government of the day. And many modern-day Americans who are advocates of the "war on terror" were themselves previously involved in funding terrorism elsewhere prior to 9/11.

          Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

          Do you really think going into someones country and killing them will stop the rest of them from hating us and wanting to do us harm?
          Indeed.

          In fact, there's plently of historical precedent to suggest that pretty much the exact the opposite is the case: I can think of a particular notorious incident (unrelated to the US) where overt military action that resulted in multiple deaths and injuries to civilians (who, incidentally, were immediately classed as terrorists, though that cover-up was subsequently exposed) was followed by a massive increase in the number of recruits to a particular terrorist organisation; the group involved basically doubled in size in just a few months, and the number of people subsequently killed in conflict with it tripled compared to the year prior, and didn't begin to decline for more than SIX years. That same incident delayed a peace deal by at least a decade, at the cost of several thousand more lives.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4975267].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
            Originally Posted by Thomas View Post

            The U.S. itself was founded by people who were considered terrorists by the government of the day. And many modern-day Americans who are advocates of the "war on terror" were themselves previously involved in funding terrorism elsewhere prior to 9/11.



            Indeed.

            In fact, there's plently of historical precedent to suggest that pretty much the exact the opposite is the case: I can think of a particular notorious incident (unrelated to the US) where overt military action that resulted in multiple deaths and injuries to civilians (who, incidentally, were immediately classed as terrorists, though that cover-up was subsequently exposed) was followed by a massive increase in the number of recruits to a particular terrorist organisation; the group involved basically doubled in size in just a few months, and the number of people subsequently killed in conflict with it tripled compared to the year prior, and didn't begin to decline for more than SIX years. That same incident delayed a peace deal by at least a decade, at the cost of several thousand more lives.

            The U.S. itself was founded by people who were considered terrorists by the government of the day. And many modern-day Americans who are advocates of the "war on terror" were themselves previously involved in funding terrorism elsewhere prior to 9/11.
            They were considered rebels and traitors, not terrorists.

            Like who?

            Peter King by any chance?

            TL
            Signature

            "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4975453].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author garyv
        Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

        I disagree. A bipartisan committee made up of ex senators, both D and R say that half of our military budget is spent on navy ships floating around in the Gulf using Cold War principles. And the major reason for this our dependency on OIL.


        And what is the cause of terrorism? A good part of it has to do with our military being in the Middle East.

        It also depends on defining "stable". We probably are more likely for a lone nuke to go off now, but far less likely to have our entire Country or World blown to Bolivia (as Mike Tyson would say).

        IMO, covert/police operations are much better in fighting terrorism than military ones.

        And for the price of the Iran war, we could have fed every poor person in the World. I bet giving a kid something to eat with the US flag on it will do more to end terrorism than killing the kid's uncle.
        I'm not a senator, but I've been in the Navy long enough to know that those senators are full of it. The Navy is an integral part of everything that goes on over there.

        And those of you that think that a "small covert operation" is much better - probably don't realize that it takes an entire fleet to make that "small covert operation" happen. I agree that many times it is better. But it takes a lot more people than most realize to make that happen. And in order to get the intel you need to make such an operation work - often times takes boots on the ground first.

        And the direct cause of a vast majority of modern day terrorism (Or what we as the U.S. defines as terrorism) is our alliance with Israel, and the fact that we are not Islamic (hence the "American Infidel" phrase). Radical Islam believes that anyone without faith should be killed. And that has nothing to do with where we are in the world - but what we believe (or not believe). We can withdraw all of our troops and come home - but unless we all convert to Islam, there will always be people in the world that will want to kill us. It is not a culture of live and let live like most of us have here in the U.S. And it IS something that you have to be proactive against to protect yourself. That's just a cultural/religious fact - and it's naive to think that just being nice is the cure to this problem. It's not - especially when their only goal is to kill you or convert you.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4975498].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Kurt
          Originally Posted by garyv View Post

          I'm not a senator, but I've been in the Navy long enough to know that those senators are full of it. The Navy is an integral part of everything that goes on over there.

          And those of you that think that a "small covert operation" is much better - probably don't realize that it takes an entire fleet to make that "small covert operation" happen. I agree that many times it is better. But it takes a lot more people than most realize to make that happen. And in order to get the intel you need to make such an operation work - often times takes boots on the ground first.

          And the direct cause of a vast majority of modern day terrorism (Or what we as the U.S. defines as terrorism) is our alliance with Israel, and the fact that we are not Islamic (hence the "American Infidel" phrase). Radical Islam believes that anyone without faith should be killed. And that has nothing to do with where we are in the world - but what we believe (or not believe). We can withdraw all of our troops and come home - but unless we all convert to Islam, there will always be people in the world that will want to kill us. It is not a culture of live and let live like most of us have here in the U.S. And it IS something that you have to be proactive against to protect yourself. That's just a cultural/religious fact - and it's naive to think that just being nice is the cure to this problem. It's not - especially when their only goal is to kill you or convert you.
          You make a good point about intel, but you don't get intel from a fleet of ships in the Gulf. And it doesn't have to come from "boots". It will often come from people like the CIA. Sure, you need support from the military, but not to the point of BANKRUPTING AMERICA.

          If it's really a "fact" that we are a target of terrorism simply because we're not Muslim, it brings up a few questions:

          1. Why aren't countries such as China, Switzerland, or Brazil targets of terrorism? After all, they aren't Muslim countries either. So if we believe the idea that radical Muslims want to kill all infidels, why are their efforts focused on the US and W. Europe?

          I have a feeling it has more to do with Western societies propping up regimes that take from the people, while selling the West oil. Otherwise, we'd see more attacks on every non-Muslim country.

          2. Was Timothy McVae a terrorist? Was he Muslim? Why was the plot using a dirty bomb against the US that came the closest to succeeding by a right-wing American Christian?

          3. What about "blowback"? We were "friends" with Iraq and gave Sadam arms in their war against Iran. We backed Afghanastan (and Bin Laden) in their war against the USSR. Seems to me, if the military wants credit for protecting us, they also need to be held accountable for their mistakes.

          4. And those problems you mentioned, you still haven't explained why the US has to spend 10X as much to defend ourselves as the next closest country? Why doesn't Russia or China (or any other non-Muslim country) spend about $350 billion a year on a navy in the Gulf to protect themselves from radical Muslims? And are they in more or less danger than us from terrorism? Why?
          Signature
          Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
          Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4976710].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author garyv
            Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

            You make a good point about intel, but you don't get intel from a fleet of ships in the Gulf. And it doesn't have to come from "boots". It will often come from people like the CIA. Sure, you need support from the military, but not to the point of BANKRUPTING AMERICA.

            If it's really a "fact" that we are a target of terrorism simply because we're not Muslim, it brings up a few questions:

            1. Why aren't countries such as China, Switzerland, or Brazil targets of terrorism? After all, they aren't Muslim countries either. So if we believe the idea that radical Muslims want to kill all infidels, why are their efforts focused on the US and W. Europe?
            Actually they are... The only reason you don't see as many stories in a place like china, is because they execute radical Muslims. search - uighur radical muslim. These are muslims in China - and actually, I think we had some of them in Guantanamo, straight from Afghanistan. And they do stir up trouble in China - but those that do are executed. - Plus, our U.S. Media doesn't cover it.

            We are more of a target than most because we are Israel sympathizers.


            And it's not the military that's causing us to go broke. It's the other giant social programs that we're funding. - in reality, a properly funded and maintained military creates revenue. Military bases that are maintained create a huge economy all around them. Many large cities in our Country came into existence simply because they were built around a military base.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4979343].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
              So, you are a socialist at heart. Good for you. By the way, you can say the same thing about the huge social programs. They create jobs also. I suppose you are mostly referring to Medicare and Social Security which by the way are not the cause of any of our debt in reality. To say that military spending isn't causing us to go broke, or at least a big part of it, is simply being in denial. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars were never paid for. In fact we lowered taxes during these wars. The first time in history this weird way of thinking has occurred.

              Originally Posted by garyv View Post

              ... in reality, a properly funded and maintained military creates revenue. Military bases that are maintained create a huge economy all around them. Many large cities in our Country came into existence simply because they were built around a military base.
              Signature
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4979527].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Kurt
                Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                So, you are a socialist at heart. Good for you. By the way, you can say the same thing about the huge social programs. They create jobs also. I suppose you are mostly referring to Medicare and Social Security which by the way are not the cause of any of our debt in reality. To say that military spending isn't causing us to go broke, or at least a big part of it, is simply being in denial. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars were never paid for. In fact we lowered taxes during these wars. The first time in history this weird way of thinking has occurred.
                C'mon Tim...You know that the US gov putting people to work building bridges and roads in the USA is socialism that hurts the economy and doesn't create jobs.

                The only way the Gov creates jobs is to hire a soldier to blow up bridges and roads in other countries. :rolleyes:

                And as I've posted before...We always hear the cliche "Don't raise taxes in a recession", but we ignore the same advice that told us to "never cut taxes during war time."
                Signature
                Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
                Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4979657].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author garyv
                Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                So, you are a socialist at heart. Good for you. By the way, you can say the same thing about the huge social programs. They create jobs also. I suppose you are mostly referring to Medicare and Social Security which by the way are not the cause of any of our debt in reality. To say that military spending isn't causing us to go broke, or at least a big part of it, is simply being in denial. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars were never paid for. In fact we lowered taxes during these wars. The first time in history this weird way of thinking has occurred.
                Sorry, but having a military has nothing to do w/ socialism. All types of Governments have a military. Plus Socialists believe that freeing the individual from the necessity of performing alienating work in order to receive goods would allow people to pursue their own interests and develop their own talents without being coerced into performing labour for others. - Anyone that's been in the military knows that that's just about the opposite of what the military is lol.

                And actual Tax revenue has increased throughout the war - there was the predictable dip at the beginning of the war (right after 9-11) but then it took a dramatic increase - until the housing crisis happened.

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4979970].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                  It's socialism the way we have it set up and the way you describe the benefits it creates regarding jobs, etc... I'm sure you have heard of the term The Military Industrial Complex which President Eisenhower warned us against over 50 years ago. He was right.

                  Also, there's different kinds of socialism and different definitions. Every country on earth uses some form of socialism to some extent.

                  The debt increased directly because of the cost of the wars, the Bush tax cuts, and the recession.

                  Originally Posted by garyv View Post

                  Sorry, but having a military has nothing to do w/ socialism. All types of Governments have a military. Plus Socialists believe that freeing the individual from the necessity of performing alienating work in order to receive goods would allow people to pursue their own interests and develop their own talents without being coerced into performing labour for others. - Anyone that's been in the military knows that that's just about the opposite of what the military is lol.

                  And actual Tax revenue has increased throughout the war - there was the predictable dip at the beginning of the war (right after 9-11) but then it took a dramatic increase - until the housing crisis happened.

                  Signature
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4980879].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author garyv
                    Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                    It's socialism the way we have it set up and the way you describe the benefits it creates regarding jobs, etc... I'm sure you have heard of the term The Military Industrial Complex which President Eisenhower warned us against over 50 years ago. He was right.
                    So you're against socialism - glad to hear it.
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4982067].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Kurt
                  Originally Posted by garyv View Post

                  Sorry, but having a military has nothing to do w/ socialism. All types of Governments have a military. Plus Socialists believe that freeing the individual from the necessity of performing alienating work in order to receive goods would allow people to pursue their own interests and develop their own talents without being coerced into performing labour for others. - Anyone that's been in the military knows that that's just about the opposite of what the military is lol.

                  And actual Tax revenue has increased throughout the war - there was the predictable dip at the beginning of the war (right after 9-11) but then it took a dramatic increase - until the housing crisis happened.

                  Actually, a military is socialistic...An exception would be something like Blackwater or private mercenaries such as the one Ross Perot hired to rescue his workers.

                  Also, as a vet of our military, I fully support you having socialistic health care and other socialistic benefits provided by the VA. You do realize the health benefits vets get is pure socialized medicine, correct?

                  As far as you chart goes...It's totally irrelevant to the points made earlier. We need charts showing military spending along with the National Debt, not increases in tax revenue.

                  If I remember correctly, our debt was about $500 billion when Regan took office in 1980...But I could be wrong.
                  Signature
                  Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
                  Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4983619].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author Kurt
                    Originally Posted by jimbo13 View Post

                    Unfortunately Americans are on a 'lets blame ourselves' guilt trip.

                    Dan
                    Originally Posted by garyv View Post

                    Yes, I've never really understood that.
                    You can call it a guilt trip, I'll call it holding people and politicians accountable.

                    Let's take the Iraq war. It was a war of choice. Even if every American agreed it should have been fought, we can then disagree on the strategy used to fight the war.

                    What gets me is all the "chicken hawks" not only wanted the war, they dictated the strategy for the war. But the one person in that cabinet that was agaisnt the war, was also the only person with military experience and that was Colin Powell.

                    Not only did Powell oppose the war, once war was inevitable, Powell supported using "over-whelming force" to get the war over as fast as possible. But even this suggestion was ignored.

                    IMO, what happened was we didn't realize we weren't Saddam's biggest threat, at least early on. We forget a few years before Iran and Iraq had a major war, with each side losing over a million people. Saddam's biggest fear was Iran, not us.

                    Next, we obliterate Saddam's military in the first Gulf War, leaving him with no defense. All he had left to do was an old poker trick: Bluff that he had weapons of mass destruction to try to keep Iran at bay.

                    But...The US bought the bluff. And calling Saddam's bluff cost the US a $trillion so far, and will probably be $3 trillion by the time we give all our vets the medical care they will need over the course of their lifetime. Head injuries aren't cheap.
                    Signature
                    Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
                    Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4983660].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author garyv
                      Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

                      You can call it a guilt trip, I'll call it holding people and politicians accountable.

                      Let's take the Iraq war. It was a war of choice. Even if every American agreed it should have been fought, we can then disagree on the strategy used to fight the war.

                      What gets me is all the "chicken hawks" not only wanted the war, they dictated the strategy for the war. But the one person in that cabinet that was agaisnt the war, was also the only person with military experience and that was Colin Powell.

                      Not only did Powell oppose the war, once war was inevitable, Powell supported using "over-whelming force" to get the war over as fast as possible. But even this suggestion was ignored.

                      IMO, what happened was we didn't realize we weren't Saddam's biggest threat, at least early on. We forget a few years before Iran and Iraq had a major war, with each side losing over a million people. Saddam's biggest fear was Iran, not us.

                      Next, we obliterate Saddam's military in the first Gulf War, leaving him with no defense. All he had left to do was an old poker trick: Bluff that he had weapons of mass destruction to try to keep Iran at bay.
                      Monday morning quarterbacking is fun eh? lol - But at the time a majority of Republicans AND DEMOCRATS in the senate voted for the Iraq War Resolution. And for good cause. After 9-11 we decided to go on the offensive against anyone that could possibly pose a threat. And even though we "defeated" Saddam in the Gulf War, he still managed to use chemical weapons against thousands, and possibly hundreds of thousands of his own people.

                      It still boggles my mind how anyone that watched the 2 towers go down, would think that a bluff of having weapons would get you anything but annihilated. And before you say it - of course we ALL know that Saddam had nothing to do with the towers. That has NEVER been the point. The point is we were on the offensive against likely future threats. And in case there's any doubt, Saddam in his own words before being executed, said that if given the chance, he would have definitely continued his weapons program to take out the United States and Israel.
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4984578].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author Kurt
                        Originally Posted by garyv View Post

                        Monday morning quarterbacking is fun eh? lol - But at the time a majority of Republicans AND DEMOCRATS in the senate voted for the Iraq War Resolution. And for good cause. After 9-11 we decided to go on the offensive against anyone that could possibly pose a threat. And even though we "defeated" Saddam in the Gulf War, he still managed to use chemical weapons against thousands, and possibly hundreds of thousands of his own people.

                        It still boggles my mind how anyone that watched the 2 towers go down, would think that a bluff of having weapons would get you anything but annihilated. And before you say it - of course we ALL know that Saddam had nothing to do with the towers. That has NEVER been the point. The point is we were on the offensive against likely future threats. And in case there's any doubt, Saddam in his own words before being executed, said that if given the chance, he would have definitely continued his weapons program to take out the United States and Israel.
                        It would if I changed my mind AFTER the fact. First, I was against the Iran war. Second, if we went, I supported Powell's plan AT THE TIME. I think it's pretty ignorant to take the opinions of two chicken-hawks like Dick and Rummy's over the general that has already defeated Saddam previously on the battle field. That's plain stupid, assuming there weren't ulterior motives.


                        And it boggles my mind how someone can support a "premptive strike". It has ALWAYS been a case of "first blood" in war. If no one strikes first, there is not war. It's a good thing that neither JFK or Khrushchev believed in this tactic, or I doubt many of us would be around today to debate it.

                        If you do go against the wisdom of ages and strike first, you BETTER be correct. We weren't correct. Not to mention the fact that the UN inspectors said he didn't have weapons of mass destruction. They were proven correct...

                        And...Saddam wasn't bluffing us, he was bluffing his biggest enemy IRAN. While the Twin Towers was tragic, so were the million dead Iraqis lost in the Iraq/Iran war.

                        BTW...The bigger case you make for taking out Saddam, the more you build a case for questioning why we supported him in the Iraq/Iran war. Blow back is a bitch.
                        Signature
                        Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
                        Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4984713].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                          Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

                          It would if I changed my mind AFTER the fact. First, I was against the Iran war. Second, if we went, I supported Powell's plan AT THE TIME. I think it's pretty ignorant to take the opinions of two chicken-hawks like Dick and Rummy's over the general that has already defeated Saddam previously on the battle field. That's plain stupid, assuming there weren't ulterior motives.


                          And it boggles my mind how someone can support a "premptive strike". It has ALWAYS been a case of "first blood" in war. If no one strikes first, there is not war. It's a good thing that neither JFK or Khrushchev believed in this tactic, or I doubt many of us would be around today to debate it.

                          If you do go against the wisdom of ages and strike first, you BETTER be correct. We weren't correct. Not to mention the fact that the UN inspectors said he didn't have weapons of mass destruction. They were proven correct...

                          And...Saddam wasn't bluffing us, he was bluffing his biggest enemy IRAN. While the Twin Towers was tragic, so were the million dead Iraqis lost in the Iraq/Iran war.

                          BTW...The bigger case you make for taking out Saddam, the more you build a case for questioning why we supported him in the Iraq/Iran war. Blow back is a bitch.
                          Kurt, I'm going to have to ask you what type of country we'd be living in if Gary had his way??

                          LOL!

                          I'll go first...

                          We'd be a theocracy with no domestic auto industry.

                          All The Best!!

                          TL
                          Signature

                          "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4984742].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author garyv
                            Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                            Kurt, I'm going to have to ask you what type of country we'd be living in if Gary had his way??

                            LOL!

                            I'll go first...

                            We'd be a theocracy with no domestic auto industry.

                            All The Best!!

                            TL
                            And if you had your way - we'd be a socialist country w/ no motivation to move forward. Hey wait a minute - Ironically it sure feels like you're getting your way. I sure hope things change soon
                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4984863].message }}
                            • Profile picture of the author Kurt
                              Originally Posted by garyv View Post

                              And if you had your way - we'd be a socialist country w/ no motivation to move forward. Hey wait a minute - Ironically it sure feels like you're getting your way. I sure hope things change soon
                              But I bet you love your socialized VA medical care...

                              And if this country is so socialistic, how come the rich have gotten richer and the poor have gotten poorer since 2000? This is the opposite of socialism.
                              Signature
                              Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
                              Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4984908].message }}
                              • Profile picture of the author garyv
                                Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

                                But I bet you love your socialized VA medical care...

                                And if this country is so socialistic, how come the rich have gotten richer and the poor have gotten poorer since 2000? This is the opposite of socialism.
                                Actually that's a misnomer - the real numbers show that the poor have gotten richer as well.
                                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4985031].message }}
                                • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                                  Originally Posted by garyv View Post

                                  Actually that's a misnomer - the real numbers show that the poor have gotten richer as well.
                                  Kurt, Gary's been pulling our legs all along.

                                  That must be the case since many of his positions are simply ridiculous - like the one above.

                                  LOL!!

                                  G. you crack me up!

                                  Thanks!

                                  TL
                                  Signature

                                  "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4985095].message }}
                                  • Profile picture of the author garyv
                                    Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                                    Kurt, Gary's been pulling our legs all along.

                                    That must be the case since many of his positions are simply ridiculous - like the one above.

                                    LOL!!

                                    G. you crack me up!

                                    Thanks!

                                    TL

                                    Haa haa.... that's usually a liberal's response when confronted w/ facts and history. But - I better get back to work now. I have a few more hours of feeding deadbeats before I get to keep the money I'm making. - Have fun!
                                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4985172].message }}
                                    • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                                      Originally Posted by garyv View Post

                                      Haa haa.... that's usually a liberal's response when confronted w/ facts and history. But - I better get back to work now. I have a few more hours of feeding deadbeats before I get to keep the money I'm making. - Have fun!
                                      I invite the whole OT forum to look into the question of whether the poor have become richer in this society and weigh in.

                                      I guess you'll say the same for the middle class of this country.

                                      BTW,

                                      The senator from Alabama, Jeff Sessions, recently said the "food stamp" program ( which now has the most users in history ) is getting out of control and must be curtailed.

                                      Thanks for the laughs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                                      All The Best!!

                                      TL
                                      Signature

                                      "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4985203].message }}
                                    • Profile picture of the author Kurt
                                      Originally Posted by garyv View Post

                                      Haa haa.... that's usually a liberal's response when confronted w/ facts and history. But - I better get back to work now. I have a few more hours of feeding deadbeats before I get to keep the money I'm making. - Have fun!
                                      Better get to work then...If it's going to take you a few hours to pay for the deadbeats you support with your tax money, it's going to take you a few months to pay your share of the unneeded Iraq war. See ya next March.
                                      Signature
                                      Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
                                      Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
                                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4985304].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author Kurt
                            Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                            Kurt, I'm going to have to ask you what type of country we'd be living in if Gary had his way??

                            LOL!

                            I'll go first...

                            We'd be a theocracy with no domestic auto industry.

                            All The Best!!

                            TL
                            There would be no World. Either JFK or Khrushchev would have followed Gary's advice for a preemptive strike and we would have been victims of mutual mass destruction.
                            Signature
                            Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
                            Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4984897].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author garyv
                          Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

                          It would if I changed my mind AFTER the fact. First, I was against the Iran war. Second, if we went, I supported Powell's plan AT THE TIME. I think it's pretty ignorant to take the opinions of two chicken-hawks like Dick and Rummy's over the general that has already defeated Saddam previously on the battle field. That's plain stupid, assuming there weren't ulterior motives.


                          And it boggles my mind how someone can support a "premptive strike". It has ALWAYS been a case of "first blood" in war. If no one strikes first, there is not war. It's a good thing that neither JFK or Khrushchev believed in this tactic, or I doubt many of us would be around today to debate it.

                          If you do go against the wisdom of ages and strike first, you BETTER be correct. We weren't correct. Not to mention the fact that the UN inspectors said he didn't have weapons of mass destruction. They were proven correct...

                          And...Saddam wasn't bluffing us, he was bluffing his biggest enemy IRAN. While the Twin Towers was tragic, so were the million dead Iraqis lost in the Iraq/Iran war.

                          BTW...The bigger case you make for taking out Saddam, the more you build a case for questioning why we supported him in the Iraq/Iran war. Blow back is a bitch.
                          I'll definitely admit that the Blow back was big - but in comparison to what could have been - not so much. He had already proven that he would fire missiles indiscriminately at another Country when he started launching Scuds into Israel. And before being executed he said that if given the chance he would have continued a weapons program to take out the United States and Israel. Even though we did not find massive weapons, we did have proof that he was seeking Intercontinental Ballistic Missile technology.

                          - So we'll never know what he may have accomplished if given the chance. And I for one am eternally grateful for that. And I would not for a second diminish the service of those that had the BIGGER picture in mind when they volunteered to sacrifice their life for ours, by second guessing the purpose of that service. - An evil genocidal maniac that admitted he wanted to take us out is now gone. Was it worth the sacrifice?

                          And by the way your "wisdom of the ages" (lol) doesn't take into account the many nations throughout history that no longer exist because of invasion. You may consider it "wisdom", but that's only because the failures are no longer around to write their history.
                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4984843].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author Kurt
                            Originally Posted by garyv View Post

                            I'll definitely admit that the Blow back was big - but in comparison to what could have been - not so much. He had already proven that he would fire missiles indiscriminately at another Country when he started launching Scuds into Israel. And before being executed he said that if given the chance he would have continued a weapons program to take out the United States and Israel. Even though we did not find massive weapons, we did have proof that he was seeking Intercontinental Ballistic Missile technology.

                            - So we'll never know what he may have accomplished if given the chance. And I for one am eternally grateful for that. And I would not for a second diminish the service of those that had the BIGGER picture in mind when they volunteered to sacrifice their life for ours, by second guessing the purpose of that service. - An evil genocidal maniac that admitted he wanted to take us out is now gone. Was it worth the sacrifice?

                            And by the way your "wisdom of the ages" (lol) doesn't take into account the many nations throughout history that no longer exist because of invasion. You may consider it "wisdom", but that's only because the failures are no longer around to write their history.
                            Tell that to pre-WWII Japan and Germany...how'd first strike work out for them?
                            Signature
                            Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
                            Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4984884].message }}
                            • Profile picture of the author garyv
                              Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

                              Tell that to pre-WWII Japan and Germany...how'd first strike work out for them?
                              Tell that to the Khwarazmian dynasty - how'd first strike work out for them? what you can't ask them? Oh that's right - they no longer exist, because Genghis Kahn struck them first.

                              Tell that to the Army at Pravdinsk - Oh wait you can't, because they waited for Napoleon to strike first.

                              There are just as many stories where those that waited for the first strike - no longer exist.
                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4985014].message }}
                              • Profile picture of the author Kurt
                                Originally Posted by garyv View Post

                                Tell that to the Khwarazmian dynasty - how'd first strike work out for them? what you can't ask them? Oh that's right - they no longer exist, because Genghis Kahn struck them first.

                                Tell that to the Army at Pravdinsk - Oh wait you can't, because they waited for Napoleon to strike first.

                                There are just as many stories where those that waited for the first strike - no longer exist.
                                Seriously...Please tell me you aren't using Napoleon and Genghis Khan as role models for us to follow?

                                I thought the point of our conversation about a first strike was for self defense, not global domination? If it's global domination you're after, let's just let loose of all those nukes we have.

                                And you bring up two of history's most notorious conquerors as examples we should follow, in the same conversation as you bring up us being a Christian country? Seriously?

                                But I'll bite: How'd Lil Nappie's first strike against Russia work out? How many of his soldiers starrved and froze to death?

                                Which brings us to: Do you think Lil Nappie or Genghis would have chosen the Rummy/Dick military plan or Powell's plan of over-whelming force. I choose the latter.

                                Also, earlier I mentioned a group of senators and their findings. You discounted them as politicians and they didn't know what they were talking about.

                                Yet, in this conversation, you choose to back the Rummy/Dick plan over the plan of Powell's. How come all of a sudden politicians know more than the military? Is it because they are better strategists, or simply because they "fit" your argument.

                                I'll be honest...I don't see how ANYONE could support a plan from Rummy/Dick over Powell. Again, Colin Powell was the general who defeated Saddam the first time. Why in the World would anyone not take his expertise over Rummy/Dick's plan?
                                Signature
                                Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
                                Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
                                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4985288].message }}
                                • Profile picture of the author garyv
                                  Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

                                  Seriously...Please tell me you aren't using Napoleon and Genghis Khan as role models for us to follow?

                                  I thought the point of our conversation about a first strike was for self defense, not global domination? If it's global domination you're after, let's just let loose of all those nukes we have.

                                  And you bring up two of history's most notorious conquerors as examples we should follow, in the same conversation as you bring up us being a Christian country? Seriously?

                                  But I'll bite: How'd Lil Nappie's first strike against Russia work out? How many of his soldiers starrved and froze to death?

                                  Which brings us to: Do you think Lil Nappie or Genghis would have chosen the Rummy/Dick military plan or Powell's plan of over-whelming force. I choose the latter.

                                  Also, earlier I mentioned a group of senators and their findings. You discounted them as politicians and they didn't know what they were talking about.

                                  Yet, in this conversation, you choose to back the Rummy/Dick plan over the plan of Powell's. How come all of a sudden politicians know more than the military? Is it because they are better strategists, or simply because they "fit" your argument.

                                  I'll be honest...I don't see how ANYONE could support a plan from Rummy/Dick over Powell. Again, Colin Powell was the general who defeated Saddam the first time. Why in the World would anyone not take his expertise over Rummy/Dick's plan?

                                  Wow... reading comprehension is a must. Those were examples of Nations that no longer exist because they did NOT strike first. Had they of anticipated their foe, and struck out first, they may not have been conquered.

                                  And by the way...

                                  "While Powell was wary of a military solution, he supported the decision to invade Iraq after the administration concluded the diplomatic track had failed. After his departure from the State Department, Powell repeatedly emphasized his continued support for the war."

                                  Colin Powell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

                                  Don't you just hate those pesky facts?? lol
                                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4985332].message }}
                                  • Profile picture of the author Kurt
                                    Originally Posted by garyv View Post

                                    Wow... reading comprehension is a must. Those were examples of Nations that no longer exist because they did NOT strike first. Had they of anticipated their foe, and struck out first, they may not have been conquered.

                                    And by the way...

                                    "While Powell was wary of a military solution, he supported the decision to invade Iraq after the administration concluded the diplomatic track had failed. After his departure from the State Department, Powell repeatedly emphasized his continued support for the war."

                                    Colin Powell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

                                    Don't you just hate those pesky facts?? lol
                                    Ironic you stoop to personal instults about reading comprehension...A true sign of someone without a legit argument.

                                    You need a lesson in logic. You ASSume that the "countries" that were defeated would have won if they struck first. There's no way Ghengis Khan would have been defeated if your little Khwarazmian dynasty attacked the Khans first. That's laughable.

                                    And, I'd also bet Powell conceded because he's a loyal American and showed support to the cabinet, not because he felt war was the best option. Yep, I'm speculating.

                                    Not to mention, the "diplomatic track" only failed because the administration was dead set to go to war. Remember, there weren't any weapons. You keep ignoring that point and the point that everyone but the US wanted more time.
                                    Signature
                                    Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
                                    Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
                                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4987182].message }}
                                    • Profile picture of the author garyv
                                      Originally Posted by Kurt View Post


                                      You need a lesson in logic. You ASSume that the "countries" that were defeated would have won if they struck first. There's no way Ghengis Khan would have been defeated if your little Khwarazmian dynasty attacked the Khans first. That's laughable.
                                      It's only laughable if you don't have much foresight. Anyone is defeat-able if you strike them early enough. Such as before their full forces come together. Or in present day terms - before they acquire weapons that can harm you.

                                      It doesn't take a genius to figure out that sometimes the best defense is a good offense. You don't always wait for the first strike to come - especially in an age where the first strike may be all it takes to defeat you.
                                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4988599].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                        Originally Posted by garyv View Post

                        Monday morning quarterbacking is fun eh? lol - But at the time a majority of Republicans AND DEMOCRATS in the senate voted for the Iraq War Resolution. And for good cause. After 9-11 we decided to go on the offensive against anyone that could possibly pose a threat. And even though we "defeated" Saddam in the Gulf War, he still managed to use chemical weapons against thousands, and possibly hundreds of thousands of his own people.

                        It still boggles my mind how anyone that watched the 2 towers go down, would think that a bluff of having weapons would get you anything but annihilated. And before you say it - of course we ALL know that Saddam had nothing to do with the towers. That has NEVER been the point.

                        The point is we were on the offensive against likely future threats.

                        And in case there's any doubt, Saddam in his own words before being executed, said that if given the chance, he would have definitely continued his weapons program to take out the United States and Israel.
                        So, it's confirmed, in your mind, the 2nd Iraq war was not a stupid war.

                        All The Best!!

                        TL
                        Signature

                        "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4984724].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author ThomM
              Originally Posted by garyv View Post

              Actually they are... The only reason you don't see as many stories in a place like china, is because they execute radical Muslims. search - uighur radical muslim. These are muslims in China - and actually, I think we had some of them in Guantanamo, straight from Afghanistan. And they do stir up trouble in China - but those that do are executed. - Plus, our U.S. Media doesn't cover it.

              We are more of a target than most because we are Israel sympathizers.


              And it's not the military that's causing us to go broke. It's the other giant social programs that we're funding. - in reality, a properly funded and maintained military creates revenue. Military bases that are maintained create a huge economy all around them. Many large cities in our Country came into existence simply because they were built around a military base.
              That's a rather mild term for what our relationship with Israel really is.
              Over the last 20 years, the U.S. has been slowly phasing out economic aid to Israel and gradually replacing it with increased military aid. Beginning in 2007, the U.S. has increased military aid by $150 million each year. By FY2012, we will be sending Israel $3.09 billion a year (or an average of $8.5 million a day) and will continue to provide military aid at that level through 2018. U.S. tax dollars are subsidizing one of the most powerful foreign militaries. According to the CRS report, “[current U.S. military aid] grants to Israel represent 18.2% of the overall Israeli defense budget.” US Aid to Israel and the Palestinians
              If you don't believe that web site.
              Do a google search for "US aid to Israel per year" and you'll find a PDF of the report.
              That's one of the reasons why they hate us, the other is we've been sticking our face into their business since WWII ended.
              Bring the troops home and use them to secure our borders.
              That will cut the military budget by trillions and help our economy by having the soldiers here to spend their money instead of in other foreign countries.
              Signature

              Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
              Getting old ain't for sissy's
              As you are I was, as I am you will be
              You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4979528].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author garyv
                Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                That's a rather mild term for what our relationship with Israel really is.
                If you don't believe that web site.
                Do a google search for "US aid to Israel per year" and you'll find a PDF of the report.
                That's one of the reasons why they hate us, the other is we've been sticking our face into their business since WWII ended.
                Bring the troops home and use them to secure our borders.
                That will cut the military budget by trillions and help our economy by having the soldiers here to spend their money instead of in other foreign countries.
                Yes that's a mild term, but that's exactly the reason why. And that relationship will not change any time soon. 76% of Americans claim to be Christians, and Israel is the birthplace of Christianity. The destruction of Israel would go against Bible prophecy, and thus destroy Christianity. So you can bet that we will provide them protection. And that's something that you just can't change. And so with that comes the fact that every Radical (and some not so radical) Muslims want you dead.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4980041].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                  Originally Posted by garyv View Post

                  Yes that's a mild term, but that's exactly the reason why. And that relationship will not change any time soon. 76% of Americans claim to be Christians, and Israel is the birthplace of Christianity. The destruction of Israel would go against Bible prophecy, and thus destroy Christianity. So you can bet that we will provide them protection. And that's something that you just can't change. And so with that comes the fact that every Radical (and some not so radical) Muslims want you dead.
                  But that's not the entire reason.
                  We've been giving aid to Israel since WWII.
                  We haven't had a problem with the terrorist all that time.
                  They are sick of us trying to influence their govts.
                  Iran originally hated us for backing the Shah.
                  Then we backed Iraq in attacking Iran.
                  We backed the Taliban in Afghanistan supplying them with weapons, money, and "advisors" against the Russians. When it ended we tried to tell the Taliban what they could and could not do. This started the problems we have today.
                  Signature

                  Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                  Getting old ain't for sissy's
                  As you are I was, as I am you will be
                  You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4980150].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author garyv
                    Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                    But that's not the entire reason.
                    We've been giving aid to Israel since WWII.
                    We haven't had a problem with the terrorist all that time.
                    They are sick of us trying to influence their govts.
                    Iran originally hated us for backing the Shah.
                    Then we backed Iraq in attacking Iran.
                    We backed the Taliban in Afghanistan supplying them with weapons, money, and "advisors" against the Russians. When it ended we tried to tell the Taliban what they could and could not do. This started the problems we have today.
                    No that's not the entire reason, but most of those reasons you gave are directly related to our relationship with Israel. We backed the Shah, because he was the first Muslim leader to recognize Israel. We backed Sadam at the time, because he was anti-Islam, and was going up against the Ayatollah Khomeini, who was very much for the destruction of Israel.

                    And that last one where we "tried to tell the Taliban what they could and could not do" - had to do with the fact that they were harboring Bin Laden and what we "told them to do" was to give over Bin Laden. A fairly reasonable request I would think. It was definitely a mistake that we gave the Mujahideen weapons. But at the time it was for us a Cold-War tactic. But those we supplied w/ funds and arms later used them against us "The American Devils" because of our protection of Israel. - And by the way that just goes to show you that even being diplomatic w/ them does not at all work.
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4980486].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                      Originally Posted by garyv View Post

                      No that's not the entire reason, but most of those reasons you gave are directly related to our relationship with Israel. We backed the Shah, because he was the first Muslim leader to recognize Israel. We backed Sadam at the time, because he was anti-Islam, and was going up against the Ayatollah Khomeini, who was very much for the destruction of Israel.

                      And that last one where we "tried to tell the Taliban what they could and could not do" - had to do with the fact that they were harboring Bin Laden and what we "told them to do" was to give over Bin Laden. A fairly reasonable request I would think. It was definitely a mistake that we gave the Mujahideen weapons. But at the time it was for us a Cold-War tactic. But those we supplied w/ funds and arms later used them against us "The American Devils" because of our protection of Israel. - And by the way that just goes to show you that even being diplomatic w/ them does not at all work.
                      No this was before we where after Bin Laden, right after the Russians withdrew from Afghanistan. At that time we where still supporting the Taliban.
                      Other then that you're right. Really you're just giving the same reasons we're in this mess that I did.
                      We had no reason to try to manipulate those other countries.
                      The CIA knew what would happened and coined the term Blow Back to describe it.
                      Now we're over there basically fighting Israels enemies and paying them for the privilege. Considering how much we've built up Israels economy, I don't see the need to keep sending them money and fighting their battles.
                      Signature

                      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                      Getting old ain't for sissy's
                      As you are I was, as I am you will be
                      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4980606].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author garyv
                        Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                        No this was before we where after Bin Laden, right after the Russians withdrew from Afghanistan. At that time we where still supporting the Taliban.
                        Other then that you're right. Really you're just giving the same reasons we're in this mess that I did.
                        We had no reason to try to manipulate those other countries.
                        The CIA knew what would happened and coined the term Blow Back to describe it.
                        Now we're over there basically fighting Israels enemies and paying them for the privilege. Considering how much we've built up Israels economy, I don't see the need to keep sending them money and fighting their battles.
                        Basically, because as a Christian nation, we are Israel.
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4980624].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                          We are not a Christian nation. Israel is a Jewish state but that may change someday simply by the fact the Muslim population in Israel is growing and might be a majority in the near future. What happens then? I would guess they would become a secular state like us.

                          Originally Posted by garyv View Post

                          Basically, because as a Christian nation, we are Israel.
                          Signature
                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4980816].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author garyv
                            Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                            We are not a Christian nation. Israel is a Jewish state but that may change someday simply by the fact the Muslim population in Israel is growing and might be a majority in the near future. What happens then? I would guess they would become a secular state like us.
                            76% of the United States claims to be Christian, so it's safe to say that we are a Christian nation. And it's proved out by our policy.
                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4982297].message }}
                            • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                              BS. We are a secular nation. Doesn't matter what the percentage of the nation believes.

                              Originally Posted by garyv View Post

                              76% of the United States claims to be Christian, so it's safe to say that we are a Christian nation. And it's proved out by our policy.
                              Signature
                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4982638].message }}
                              • Profile picture of the author garyv
                                Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                                BS. We are a secular nation. Doesn't matter what the percentage of the nation believes.
                                Sorry, but as long as you want to call this a democracy, then 76% = a Christian Nation.
                                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4984287].message }}
                                • Profile picture of the author LarryC
                                  Originally Posted by garyv View Post

                                  Sorry, but as long as you want to call this a democracy, then 76% = a Christian Nation.
                                  So if more than 50% of the population has some characteristic, that means it defines the whole nation? That has nothing to do with the definition of democracy at all. Besides, this is a republic, not a democracy, but that's another subject. Some people might want to make this a "Christian nation," but that will never be the case, any more than it will be a Muslim, Jewish, Wiccan or atheist nation.
                                  Signature
                                  Content Writing, Ghostwriting, eBooks, editing, research.
                                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4985004].message }}
                                  • Profile picture of the author garyv
                                    Originally Posted by LarryC View Post

                                    So if more than 50% of the population has some characteristic, that means it defines the whole nation? That has nothing to do with the definition of democracy at all. Besides, this is a republic, not a democracy, but that's another subject. Some people might want to make this a "Christian nation," but that will never be the case, any more than it will be a Muslim, Jewish, Wiccan or atheist nation.
                                    I hoped someone would mention that we're not actually a democracy but a Republic. So in that sense, we are not really a "nation" of anything, but a collective of individuals w/ individual rights. And while thankfully we as individuals have the right to be Christian or non-Christian - the fact still remains that 76% are Christians. And most of our policy is formed democratically.
                                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4985069].message }}
                                • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                                  Sorry. We are a secular country. There are more females than males in this country. Does that make this a feminist nation? By the way, the percentage is dropping from about 86% in 1990 to about 76% now. I'll be happy when it's below 50% which should happen in our lifetime.

                                  Originally Posted by garyv View Post

                                  Sorry, but as long as you want to call this a democracy, then 76% = a Christian Nation.
                                  Signature
                                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4985713].message }}
                                  • Profile picture of the author Thomas
                                    Please excuse the unintended pun, but, considering its descent into religious and political bickering, how has this thread not been nuked yet? :confused:
                                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4987060].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author katarina1

                      He is a Chief Master Sergeant in the USAF serving in Afghanistan
                      As high as you can go in enlisted ranks (E-9)
                      Wouldn't it be fitting if this went completely around the world!
                      John Gebhardt's wife, Mindy, said that this little girl's entire family was executed.
                      The insurgents intended to execute the little girl also, and shot her in the head...but they failed to kill her.
                      She was cared for in John 's hospital and is healing up, but continues to cry and moan.
                      The nurses said John is the only one who seems to calm her down, so John has spent the last four nights holding her while they both slept in that chair. The girl is coming along with her healing.
                      He is a real Star of the war, and represents what the combined service is trying to do.
                      This, my friends, is worth sharing. Go for it!! You'll never see things like this in the news.
                      Please keep this going.
                      Nothing will happen if you don't, but the world needs to see pictures like this and needs to realize that what are they doing over there is making a difference.
                      Even if it is just one little girl at a time...
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4980633].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author jimbo13
                        Unfortunately Americans are on a 'lets blame ourselves' guilt trip.

                        Dan
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4980702].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author garyv
                          Originally Posted by jimbo13 View Post

                          Unfortunately Americans are on a 'lets blame ourselves' guilt trip.

                          Dan
                          Yes, I've never really understood that.
                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4980740].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                          Originally Posted by jimbo13 View Post

                          Unfortunately Americans are on a 'lets blame ourselves' guilt trip.

                          Dan
                          IF you look at the history of our involvement in the middle east, it's plain to see that all this is our fault. No guilt trip, just facts.
                          Signature

                          Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                          Getting old ain't for sissy's
                          As you are I was, as I am you will be
                          You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4981173].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author garyv
                            Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                            IF you look at the history of our involvement in the middle east, it's plain to see that all this is our fault. No guilt trip, just facts.
                            Not facts - but an opinion (and usually based on mis-information)
                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4982431].message }}
                            • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                              Originally Posted by garyv View Post

                              Not facts - but an opinion (and usually based on mis-information)
                              You can call it what you want.
                              Facts are facts.
                              Signature

                              Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                              Getting old ain't for sissy's
                              As you are I was, as I am you will be
                              You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4983845].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                      We backed the Shah because we put him in power. Search 1953 Iranian coup d'état. Saddam was not anti Islam since he was a Sunni which is a Muslim sect.

                      Originally Posted by garyv View Post

                      We backed the Shah, because he was the first Muslim leader to recognize Israel. We backed Sadam at the time, because he was anti-Islam,
                      Signature
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4980904].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author M_Jones
                        Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                        We backed the Shaw because we put him in power. Search 1953 Iranian coup d'état. Saddam was not anti Islam since he was a Sunni which is a Muslim sect.
                        Can you reiterate this, without sounding like fox news or Alex Jones?
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4981109].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                          This is just plain history.
                          Originally Posted by M_Jones View Post

                          Can you reiterate this, without sounding like fox news or Alex Jones?
                          Signature
                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4982622].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author garyv
                        Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                        We backed the Shaw because we put him in power. Search 1953 Iranian coup d'état. Saddam was not anti Islam since he was a Sunni which is a Muslim sect.
                        Again, that at the time was another cold-war tactic - but if you look up "first muslim leader to recognize Israel" You'll see why we continued to back him. And yes Suddam was Muslim, but his regime was anti Islam. Just look up "because his regime was anti-islamic" and you'll see that it was a major factor in the Iran/Iraq war.
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4982423].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                          Oh gee. I found another mistake in your posts: ( it's not hard )

                          "Turkey was the first Muslim-majority state to recognize Israel, just one year after its founding, and they have the longest shared close military and economic ties."

                          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_..._and_conflicts

                          Umm, also a Muslim is a follower of Islam! Hello! You can't be Muslim and be anti Islam!!!

                          Originally Posted by garyv View Post

                          Again, that at the time was another cold-war tactic - but if you look up "first muslim leader to recognize Israel" You'll see why we continued to back him. And yes Suddam was Muslim, but his regime was anti Islam. Just look up "because his regime was anti-islamic" and you'll see that it was a major factor in the Iran/Iraq war.
                          Signature
                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4982670].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author garyv
                            Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                            Oh gee. I found another mistake in your posts: ( it's not hard )

                            "Turkey was the first Muslim-majority state to recognize Israel, just one year after its founding, and they have the longest shared close military and economic ties."

                            Muslim world - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

                            Umm, also a Muslim is a follower of Islam! Hello! You can't be Muslim and be anti Islam!!!

                            https://www.google.com/search?q="first+muslim+leader+to+recognize+israel"


                            Sorry - but there are more than enough links there to back up my statement - I said first Muslim Leader - not State. The Shah was ousted because he was willing to compromise w/ Israel. So obviously his state was not the first state to recognize Israel. That still does not negate my statement that he was the first "MUSLIM LEADER" to recognize Israel.

                            Also - I know what a Muslim is - More links for you to ponder...

                            https://www.google.com/search?q=Saddam+Hussein+"because+his+regime+was+an ti-Islamic"

                            I believe his actions during those times were considered anti-Islam, because he was in conflict with the Kurdish people. And the Kurds are Muslim. - Again, Saddam like Bin Laden was another Muslim that we failed to understand. Because we simply don't get their religious culture. We put trust in Suddam as another Cold-War tactic, and later - like any good Muslim - he lobbed Scud Missiles into Israel. - And if truth be told, may be one of the main reasons why he's dead today.

                            Our problems are not from our actions over there. Most of our actions are actually re-actions. Our problems lie in the fact that we put trust into people and leaders that are not trust-worthy.

                            They are willing to be Martyrs for their religion, which means they're willing to be friends with the devil, just to get him close enough so that a self inflicted blast takes them both out. Guess who the Americans are in that picture? - We are the Great Satan.
                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4984384].message }}
                            • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                              Originally Posted by garyv View Post


                              https://www.google.com/search?q="first+muslim+leader+to+recognize+israel"


                              Sorry - but there are more than enough links there to back up my statement - lol. A bit of reading comprehension is in order here. I said first Muslim Leader - not State. The Shah was ousted because he was willing to compromise w/ Israel. So obviously his state was not the first state to recognize Israel. That still does not negate my statement that he was the first "MUSLIM LEADER" to recognize Israel.

                              Also - I know what a Muslim is - More links for you to ponder...

                              https://www.google.com/search?q=Saddam+Hussein+"because+his+regime+was+an ti-Islamic"
                              FYI...

                              The Shah was ousted way more (1,000X)...

                              ... because he was an a-hole that replaced a democratically elected leader with bloody force, killing at least 10k in the process, and deprived a proud people of their dignity - among other things.

                              As soon as the army would not go ape-**** on the population they kicked his arse out.

                              The problem for the Iranians, is that a group just as bad replaced the Shah.

                              ( who really wants to live in a theocracy? - maybe you Gary? )


                              That may have been some icing on the cake...

                              ... but to say the Shah was kicked out because of his willingness to compromise with Israel is totally misunderstanding what has happened in that country.

                              TL
                              Signature

                              "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4984513].message }}
                              • Profile picture of the author garyv
                                Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                                FYI...

                                The Shah was ousted way more (1,000X)...

                                ... because he was an a-hole that replaced a democratically elected leader with bloody force, killing at least 10k in the process, and deprived a proud people of their dignity - among other things.

                                As soon as the army would not go ape-**** on the population they kicked his arse out.

                                The problem for the Iranians, is that a group just as bad replaced the Shah.

                                ( who really wants to live in a theocracy? - maybe you Gary? )


                                That may have been some icing on the cake...

                                ... but to say the Shah was kicked out because of his willingness to compromise with Israel is totally misunderstanding what has happened in that country.

                                TL
                                Mohammad Reza Pahlavi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

                                "A secular Muslim himself, the Shah gradually lost support from the Shi'a clergy of Iran, particularly due to his strong policy of modernization, secularization, conflict with the traditional class of merchants known as bazaari, and recognition of Israel."
                                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4984608].message }}
                            • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                              "Like any good Muslim"?! What? I sense a level of Islamophobia in your posts Gary and that's a nice way of putting it.

                              Yes, in fact our problems are partly, many argue mostly, from our own actions. What the CIA coined decades ago Blowback.

                              Originally Posted by garyv View Post

                              We put trust in Suddam as another Cold-War tactic, and later - like any good Muslim - he lobbed Scud Missiles into Israel. - And if truth be told, may be one of the main reasons why he's dead today.

                              Our problems are not from our actions over there. Most of our actions are actually re-actions. Our problems lie in the fact that we put trust into people and leaders that are not trust-worthy.

                              They are willing to be Martyrs for their religion, which means they're willing to be friends with the devil, just to get him close enough so that a self inflicted blast takes them both out. Guess who the Americans are in that picture? - We are the Great Satan.
                              Signature
                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4985656].message }}
                              • Profile picture of the author garyv
                                Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                                "Like any good Muslim"?! What? I sense a level of Islamophobia in your posts Gary and that's a nice way of putting it.

                                Yes, in fact our problems are partly, many argue mostly, from our own actions. What the CIA coined decades ago Blowback.
                                Nothing Islamophobic about that... It's prophesied in the Qur'an that Israel will be destroyed. And what Muslim would not want to fulfill a prophecy from the Qur'an?

                                And yes our problems are partly from Blowback - but it's from actions we took defending ourselves and Israel.
                                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4985870].message }}
                                • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                                  The Quran was written centuries before Israel existed Gary.

                                  How does overthrowing a democratically elected President and setting up a dictator puppet defend us?

                                  Also, regarding "what Muslim would not want to" destroy Israel? I would say about 1.5 million who are Israeli citizens to start with. Geesh. Unbelievable.

                                  Originally Posted by garyv View Post

                                  Nothing Islamophobic about that... It's prophesied in the Qur'an that Israel will be destroyed. And what Muslim would not want to fulfill a prophecy from the Qur'an?

                                  And yes our problems are partly from Blowback - but it's from actions we took defending ourselves and Israel.
                                  Signature
                                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4985921].message }}
                                • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                                  Originally Posted by garyv View Post

                                  Nothing Islamophobic about that... It's prophesied in the Qur'an that Israel will be destroyed. And what Muslim would not want to fulfill a prophecy from the Qur'an?

                                  And yes our problems are partly from Blowback - but it's from actions we took defending ourselves and Israel.
                                  Gary, please alert me to the chapter and verse of the prophecy.

                                  I'd love to see it.

                                  TL
                                  Signature

                                  "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4985933].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Kurt
              Originally Posted by garyv View Post

              Actually they are... The only reason you don't see as many stories in a place like china, is because they execute radical Muslims. search - uighur radical muslim. These are muslims in China - and actually, I think we had some of them in Guantanamo, straight from Afghanistan. And they do stir up trouble in China - but those that do are executed. - Plus, our U.S. Media doesn't cover it.

              We are more of a target than most because we are Israel sympathizers.
              Yet China doesn't feel the need to spend what we do on their military. I wonder why?



              And it's not the military that's causing us to go broke. It's the other giant social programs that we're funding. - in reality, a properly funded and maintained military creates revenue. Military bases that are maintained create a huge economy all around them. Many large cities in our Country came into existence simply because they were built around a military base.
              This is PURE BS. All anyone needs to do is compare our military spending with our deficit/debt and can clearly see a direct correleation since 1980.

              And we had a balanced budget in 2000...Remember the surplus checks? What's changed since then was two wars coupled with a tax cut. We haven't paid for the wars and have borrowed money from China to finance them...Considering this conversation, I'd call that ironic.

              I do agree that military bases contribute to local economies. When I drove a cab in Denver, Lowery Air Force Base was a major source of income for me on the weekends. But....Lowery was closed in the late 1990s.

              However, all of our over-seas bases are providing economic boosts for those foreign countries, another source of US dollars going out, but not coming back.

              It's funny how you can claim the military spending isn't a factor in our debt, when it's the biggest part of our budget and bar far the biggest reason for our borrowing.
              Signature
              Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
              Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4979610].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author garyv
                Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

                Yet China doesn't feel the need to spend what we do on their military. I wonder why?
                Maybe you missed the part where "they execute them". lol - We have many people here that want to give them Miranda rights. It takes much more money to be "civil". But because we are much more civil here, it's easier for them to do what they want to to us when they set foot on our soil. So it then becomes necessary to take care of it, before it gets here.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4979759].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Kurt
                  Originally Posted by garyv View Post

                  Maybe you missed the part where "they execute them". lol - We have many people here that want to give them Miranda rights. It takes much more money to be "civil". But because we are much more civil here, it's easier for them to do what they want to to us when they set foot on our soil. So it then becomes necessary to take care of it, before it gets here.
                  No, I didn't miss it. I ignored it, as it doesn't mean a thing and is totally non-sequetor. If anything, executing Muslims without any rights would seem to add motivation for terrorists.

                  The difference isn't the China executes Muslims, the difference is China doesn't occupy Middle Eastern countries.

                  And you still haven't explained why we need to spend 10x more on our military than China does? Unless you're suggesting we should become a totalitarian society?
                  Signature
                  Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
                  Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4983592].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author electroglyder
    I've been in the peace movement for many years.As far as politics goes,I I've given up playing that loosing game of deciding which idiot should go where ,or be put in what position. Reality ,and it seems that most of you seem to realize it,is not a political crap shoot. People are getting killed ,daily, while most of us put that fact in some compartment ,and glaze it over with ,WHATEVER ! Each kid that is killed over there ,no matter how ,leaves a hole that can't be refilled. Even if that kid , VOLUNTEERED,to go there ,we all know the truth behind his going. Don't assume to not understand what I am saying. His actions are a direct product of OUR society. Meanwhile ,most people understand what the hell is going on ,and still run around with blinders on. Accepting their lot ,and following blindly,the rantings of people who have NEVER cared about us. They could give a rats ass about your son or daughter. They have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt ,that they would rather argue about trivialities ,than do anything positive for anyone. I could go on ,but I believe you get it.
    Signature

    Love & War

    <A HREF="http://topseobiz.com">Love & War</A>

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4973943].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ryanmckinney
    The people that are making these strategic decisions do not have easy decisions to make, and they understand the ramifications of their decisions as it reaches out and effects hundreds of thousands of families globally. It is always easy for us to sit on the sidelines and condemn, no matter what you support. There are always theories as to what will happen "if they do this" or "if we do that" ..

    Speaking from a veterans stand point (U.S. Marine 06-10), we knew what we were getting into when we signed up (I did, I signed up in 2006), and we wanted to make some sort of difference, we wanted to defend our country, we wanted to be a Marine.


    Ironically, being enlisted with a family is what got me started in IM, trying to supplement my income, with a wife and two kids.

    Spending some time at Lejuene, there was a love/hate relationship with the Marines there. When we were home, we stimulated the local economy ..they loved us but you had the "rukus" at local watering holes that came with some Marines who couldn't "turn it off", so they hated us. When large units deployed, there businesses suffered, so they missed us. The vicious circle that happens down there in Jacksonville, NC.

    Now we are dealing with BRACs (Base Re-alignment something) basically closing down bases, and moving units to new cities. So, say a city like Atlanta, which use to house Ft. Mcpherson, well they moved a large Army unit from there to an AFB in a smaller city, which I think was a ploy to stimulant the economy in the smaller city, among other things.

    To sit and try to dissect all of the economics behind all of this (wars/local economy/tax revenues/etc/etc) is a daunting tasks (and not for nothin' but I am starting offline marketing so I don't have to think so much!), so I am not going to take any snippets or any facts to support one position or another, just comment on my own small piece of the pie experience that I have lived.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4980098].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    Kurt, Gary's been pulling our legs all along.



    TL
    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4985087].message }}
  • {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4985152].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
      That's Alex thinking about all his fans who believe his BS. "My god, am I getting rich off these people".

      Originally Posted by M_Jones View Post

      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4985789].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author garyv
    And by the way, you do know that Rumsfeld was in the ROTC in college and he served in the Navy right? - again just a few pesky facts there.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4985355].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kurt
      Originally Posted by garyv View Post

      And by the way, you do know that Rumsfeld was in the ROTC in college and he served in the Navy right? - again just a few pesky facts there.
      And BTW...What are the military credentials of the senators you disparaged above? You're right about those pesky facts...You already formed your opinion totally ignorant of the facts of their backgrounds.

      But Rummy trumps Colin Powell? While he was in the Navy, he never served in a war and spent most of his time in the reserves in a time when the reserves NEVER served in battle.

      But a nice little red herring...Logic really isn't your strong point. The point is simple: Who was more qualified to devise a war plan to defeat Saddam: Rummy or Powell? Have a spine and answer the question.

      "It'll be a cake walk!" "Mission Accomplished!" If these comments weren't so sad, they'd be laughable.
      Signature
      Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
      Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4987241].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author garyv
        Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

        But Rummy trumps Colin Powell? While he was in the Navy, he never served in a war and spent most of his time in the reserves in a time when the reserves NEVER served in battle.

        But a nice little red herring...Logic really isn't your strong point. The point is simple: Who was more qualified to devise a war plan to defeat Saddam: Rummy or Powell? Have a spine and answer the question.
        Wait... is that a personal insult about logic? lol... well I guess according to you, that must mean you've run short of a legit argument.

        I never said one trumps the other - but since you brought it up - The reason Rumsfeld never served in a war, was because most of his service was in between wars. And by the time Vietnam came around, he was already a congressman. - But if you were to look at both of these men's highest achievements, they both received the Presidential Medal of Freedom which is the highest civilian award in the United States. Rumsfeld received it with distinction - which is actually a slightly higher degree of the medal.

        And by the way, anyone who's ever been in the military knows that an officer is basically a politician in a uniform.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4988558].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Roaddog
          Originally Posted by garyv View Post


          And by the way, anyone who's ever been in the military knows that an officer is basically a politician in a uniform.

          Man ain't that the truth...the Brass chain of command is from (br)ass to nose...
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4988657].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
            Rumsfeld, Bush and Cheney should be on trial.

            Retired General Paul Eaton, senior adviser to the National Security Network said:

            "The record is clear: Dick Cheney and the Bush administration were incompetent war fighters. They ignored Afghanistan for 7 years with a crude approach to counter-insurgency warfare best illustrated by: 1. Deny it. 2. Ignore it. 3. Bomb it. While our intelligence agencies called the region the greatest threat to America, the Bush White House under-resourced our military efforts, shifted attention to Iraq, and failed to bring to justice the masterminds of September 11.

            The only time Cheney and his cabal of foreign policy 'experts' have anything to say is when they feel compelled to protect this failed legacy. While President Obama is tasked with cleaning up the considerable mess they left behind, they continue to defend torture or rewrite a legacy of indifference on Afghanistan. Simply put, Mr. Cheney sees history throughout extremely myopic and partisan eyes."

            Not only did the Bush admin lie to get us into war, they were completely incompetent with how they ran the wars. This comes from someone who served under Bush.
            Signature
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4988872].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author garyv
              Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

              Rumsfeld, Bush and Cheney should be on trial.

              Retired General Paul Eaton, senior adviser to the National Security Network said:

              "The record is clear: Dick Cheney and the Bush administration were incompetent war fighters. They ignored Afghanistan for 7 years with a crude approach to counter-insurgency warfare best illustrated by: 1. Deny it. 2. Ignore it. 3. Bomb it. While our intelligence agencies called the region the greatest threat to America, the Bush White House under-resourced our military efforts, shifted attention to Iraq, and failed to bring to justice the masterminds of September 11.

              The only time Cheney and his cabal of foreign policy 'experts' have anything to say is when they feel compelled to protect this failed legacy. While President Obama is tasked with cleaning up the considerable mess they left behind, they continue to defend torture or rewrite a legacy of indifference on Afghanistan. Simply put, Mr. Cheney sees history throughout extremely myopic and partisan eyes."

              Not only did the Bush admin lie to get us into war, they were completely incompetent with how they ran the wars. This comes from someone who served under Bush.
              Maybe you should take some cues from your hero - Listen to what he has to say about the former admin...

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4988994].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                My hero?! ha. I like Biden but he isn't my hero. Yes, he said a couple nice things about Bush. He pretty much had to at that event which was an anniversary of 9-11. Actually, I agree with what he said partly, Bush did bring the country together right after 9-11. But then he went in another direction. That direction is what the general I quoted was talking about. Real life decisions that cost the lives of hundreds of thousands at least and is still going on because of their incompetence.

                Originally Posted by garyv View Post

                Maybe you should take some cues from your hero - Listen to what he has to say about the former admin...

                VP Joe Biden 9/11 10th Anniversary Speech In Shanksville Pennsylvania - YouTube
                Signature
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4989626].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author garyv
                  Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                  My hero?! ha. I like Biden but he isn't my hero. Yes, he said a couple nice things about Bush. He pretty much had to at that event which was an anniversary of 9-11. Actually, I agree with what he said partly, Bush did bring the country together right after 9-11. But then he went in another direction. That direction is what the general I quoted was talking about. Real life decisions that cost the lives of hundreds of thousands at least and is still going on because of their incompetence.
                  I do believe he said something along the lines of being grateful for a long LONG time. Not language for someone you think is incompetent or purposefully killed people. It looks like you're on the fringe my friend. Admitting it is the first step toward recovery
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4991062].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author M_Jones
    In other news, the G20 fail to agree on IMF help for euro.

    Federal Reserve (#EndTheFed) backstops another 67 Trillion in derivatives... (but won't call it QE3)


    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4992063].message }}

Trending Topics