Quoting RJdxer (Reply 94): Then our entry into WW1 was an aggressive action since the United States had not been attacked by Germany. Our entry into the European theater of war in WW2 was an aggressive action since Nazi German had not attacked us. Our entry into the Korean peninsula was an aggressive action since North Korea had not attacked us.

I can't believe you're using these examples. WWI and WW2 were a completely different ballgame - our major trading partners were attacked and transatlantic trade was blockaded. Not remotely comparable. A Cold War containment exercise on the Korean peninsula is also incomparable.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 100): WWI and WW2 were a completely different ballgame

Using the definition you used to describe aggression they were not.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 101): Using the definition you used to describe aggression they were not.

Not enough coffee this morning then - let's expand it to include direct attacks on our major trading partners and shipping lanes.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 99): Hmmm....when I hear an actual service person complain your argument will go from theoretical to reality.

Why is my opinion less valid because I haven't served? Did you or did you not insult a lot of liberal Servicemen and women? Do you have the capacity to admit you may have been even an ounce over the line? I highly doubt you do. I base that on dealing with your inability to admit you're wrong even when it's obvious to everyone but yourself. It's pathetic at the lengths you go to smear liberals. Very sad to see a grown man acting in such a manner.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 99): One does not mean you cannot believe in the other.

But you weren't talking about health care, were you? No, you were talking about Serving your country. Here's the quote again:

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 73): Service to your country is considered just to menial. Enjoy the benefits at someone elses expense, follows right along the liberal line.

So you're implying that liberals won't serve their country. When I reminded you that liberals do serve their country you tried to wiggle your way out of being stuck, like you normally do. But that game won't work here.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 99): As usual you let your liberal zero sum philosophy stand in the way of reality.

   Are you serious? Coming from the right wing apologist himself, the worshiper of all things GOP. One of, if not the most partisan people on this site. Hilarious stuff.

Have a good one.

Dave

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 99): If you would care to name them. I have searched and not found a single warship sunk by hostile action prior to 12/07/41.

I had to go look, but here you go. in all cases, before Dec. 7. You couldn't have searched very hard, although I was pretty sure about the Reuben James.:

"This increased American involvement in the Atlantic struggle could serve only to make actual hostilities between the United States and Germany sooner or later inevitable. Indeed such a situation, though unacknowledged, existed from about September 1941, when the USS "Greer", came into conflict with a U-boat. In October, The USS "Kearney" was torpedoed and damaged whilst on convoy duty, and soon afterwards the USS "Reuben James", was sunk by a U-boat with the loss of 115 lives. The actual declaration of war, in December, thus only formalised a situation which was fast becoming reality in any case."

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 99): Perhaps you should read up on the USS Stark.

That was 1987, I think, when Iraq and Iran were trying to throttle each other. The Stark didn't sink. Was that part of the rationale for the 2003 invasion 16 years later? I must have missed that in one of Cheney's speeches.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 99): With what means to deliver it?

You must be joking. During the second "happy time" as it was described by the U-boat commanders, merchant ships were being sunk off the east coast in full view of anyone standing on the shore. That kept up until King came to his senses and implemented a convoy system, but not before thousands of US merchant sailors paid with their lives.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 99): We did not have any treaty obligations to South Korea other than our membership in the UN.

You didn't answer the question. In 2003, did Saddam have any troops in other countries?

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 99): It would have been naked aggression if, as the soviets did in Afghanistan, we had invaded with the intent of creating a puppet state which would be a defacto territorial acquisition.

  
So the current government of Iraq is not a puppet state? Great! That means they can do whatever they want when the US leaves? Including selling all their oil to China?

Quoting Arrow (Reply 104): So the current government of Iraq is not a puppet state? Great! That means they can do whatever they want when the US leaves? Including selling all their oil to China?

So far there haven't been any public reports of opposition to Maliki's buddy meetings with Ahmadinejad.

Jeez, a whole lot of the same blah blah blah from the same posters.

McCain's statements were taken out of context. He didn't have a problem with US troops being in Iraq in 100 years, NOT us being at war in Iraq for 100 years. Having troops based in foreign nations is nothing new. We are STILL in Germany, Japan, Korea and Bosnia. Let's also get on the table the fact that we base soldiers/airmen in several allied countries including England, Spain and Italy. Not to mention the large number of troops based in Kuwait, Qatar and other Middle Eastern nations helping us bare the brunt of this war. This allows our troops to be closer to potential trouble spots and allows ease of transportation and logistics. Please look at the actual meaning of the words instead of blowing smoke out your ears.

Military families and soldiers have had an extremely difficult 6-7 years of high ops tempo. Their sacrifice's can not be put into words. I salute each and everyone of them and wish them a speedy return to loved ones. With that said, they JOINED the US Military and that job is not 9-5 and it does not include weekends off. They weren't drafted and didn't get out of criminal sentences. They willing walked into a recruiter's office and signed on the dotted line. Military life is hard and the burdens soldiers carry for their constant training and deployements is tremendous. With that said, STFU and do your job. Bringing them all home now is not supporting them. That's a slap in their face and a big spit on the grave of those who have given their life in OIF/OEF and other GWOT operations. If you actually talked to the majority of them they would say, "Let's get this job done right, the first time and then we can come home."

Now that we have gotten that out of the way, I actually support the notion of us withdrawing from the cities sooner rather than later. That allows the Iraqi police and military the opportunity to solve issues on their own with the knowledge that if things get out of hand an AH-64 is always ready. At some point in time, we have to put our big toe in the water and now is as good as ever.

I do not agree with pulling all of our troops out of Iraq anytime soon. Iraq is still very fragile and unstable. Pulling out too soon could mean us having to go back in. Don't think that their aren't any bad guys in Iraq anymore. Some of the them have traded in their guns, some of them have gotten smart and don't want the 82nd Airborne blasting their a$$ and some of them are just biding their time. Let's pull our troops back to our major bases and see how the Iraqis do. If thing procede successfully, then we can reduce our overall numbers but keep our foot print at US bases. The US and Allies rid the world of a tyranical dictator and Iraqis of a tyranical leader. We put our boots on the ground and gave them the opportunity of a life without Saddam Hussein. I have no problem with the US telling Iraq that we get to stay in some of the bases. That's the price of American's spilling blood on their behalf.

Also, I love how this entire war and how things have gone are President Bush's fault and now somehow are thrusted onto John McCain. It's not like Bush has rode around like a Cowboy for 8 years blasting and taking over any country that he liked. Notice how we are NOT in Iran? Notice how things have gotten BETTER in Iraq? Heck, one of the MAIN reasons why we are in the GWOT is the fact that Clinton refused to move on Al Qaeda/Taliban/Bin Laden when we had a chance. Time after time the CIA came to him with exact locations of Bin Laden and many times over Bill's 8 years in offce did foreign countries offer him up. Unfortunately, Bill's mistakes became Bush's problems.

Now, has Bush caused problems of his own? Yes, the US economy is not doing well but realistically speaking NO President has ever had a large impact on how it grows or shrinks. Yes, he brought us into a war with Iraq that was not popular with outside nations. Get over it, he asked for their help, they said no and he pushed on. JUST LIKE HE SAID HE WOULD. If you are howling about no WMDs then look at the other reasons why we went in. 1. Saddam broke numerous UN sanctions 2. The Iraqi government was a constant threat to many of our allies and it was only the US and Brits keeping them in the box. 3. Saddam's men engaged US military personnell on a daily basis by shooting SAM missiles at OUR pilots. People's vast hatred of George W. Bush is amazing.

Last but certainly not least is "Mission Accomplished". George Bush didn't have the poster put up, it wasn't his idea and it wasn't for political purposes. The poster was the idea of the men and women on the ship (USS Abraham Lincoln) and the USN. They asked if they could put the poster up. They had completed their 6 month deployment when they were ordered to turn around and head back to Iraq. They had just spent many months of operations supporting OSW and now were headed back for OIF. It was meant as a thank you to those serving on the Lincoln because their deployement had been over 9+ months long. Think about that for a second. 9+ months of planes launching and recovering and making a hell of a racket. 9+ months of 115+ degree days on the flight deck with jet engines howling and your neck being on a swivel. 9+ months of flying off of a carrier in defenss of your nation and putting yourself and your crew on the line over Iraq. 9+ months of not being able to hold the woman or man you love when you go to sleep. Don't use their sacrifice for your own political hatred of the Commander in Chief who happened to go out and thank them.

Quoting DavestanKSAN (Reply 103): Why is my opinion less valid because I haven't served?

Because you haven't served, so you have not idea of what it is like to do so, just as I have no idea what it is like to be a priest.

Quoting DavestanKSAN (Reply 103): Did you or did you not insult a lot of liberal Servicemen and women?

I don't know, none have complained so far. When one does I will discuss it with them. I can't discuss it with you since you have not served.

Quoting DavestanKSAN (Reply 103): Do you have the capacity to admit you may have been even an ounce over the line?

Sure I do, but in this case I am not over the line. You are though as I will describe below.

Quoting DavestanKSAN (Reply 103): It's pathetic at the lengths you go to smear liberals.

Correct me if I am wrong, liberals, as a generality, want bigger more invasive government as it pertains to give away programs for the masses. Health care, any other kind of care you would like to mention as well.

Quoting DavestanKSAN (Reply 103): But you weren't talking about health care, were you? No, you were talking about Serving your country. Here's the quote again: Quoting RJdxer (Reply 73): Service to your country is considered just to menial. Enjoy the benefits at someone elses expense, follows right along the liberal line. So you're implying that liberals won't serve their country.

I was not implying that and you have taken that quote completely out of context. Arrow said:

Quoting Arrow (Reply 72): As one of those spoiled brats, I can't tell you how proud I am of that accomplishment

To which I replied to Arrow and no one else:

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 73): I guess being more involved with yourself is something to be proud of in some worlds. Service to your country is considered just to menial. Enjoy the benefits at someone elses expense, follows right along the liberal line.

So I was not implying that all liberals will not serve their country as I was making a direct reference and response to Arrow. No need to apologize.

Quoting DavestanKSAN (Reply 103): When I reminded you that liberals do serve their country you tried to wiggle your way out of being stuck, like you normally do. But that game won't work here.

I didn't try and wriggle out of anything. Since you misread the post and implied that I was talking about all liberals instead of just Arrow I responded as best I could. People serve their country for all sorts of different reasons. Some out of a sense of patriotism, other for school funds, any number of reasons. That does not mean they can't hold liberal views. In Arrows case he seems to be proud to have avoided service to his country when there was a draft in place. I am assuming here that he was a U.S. citizen at one point. Or that he still is and is ex pat living in Canada. In either case those that chose to run to Canada rather than serve in the military, or serve their time in jail are obviously more interested in themselves than anything else. If you wish to disagree go ahead, it's your right.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 107): In Arrows case he seems to be proud to have avoided service to his country when there was a draft in place. I am assuming here that he was a U.S. citizen at one point. Or that he still is and is ex pat living in Canada.

Wrong assumption. I was in the US with a green card, as a student. I never became a citizen, and came home after graduation. But I worked hard in the antiwar movement while I was there (that's the pride aspect) and have many U.S. friends who did likewise. Some of them came to Canada, but not all. Some of them went in the army. Some went to Viet Nam. And some didn't come back.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 107): No need to apologize.

That's right.

Quoting Arrow (Reply 108): That's right.

That's a good thing since hell and I ain't talking about Hell MI either, would be completely frozen over before I would.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 107): Correct me if I am wrong, liberals, as a generality, want bigger more invasive government as it pertains to give away programs for the masses.

As opposed to things like bloating the military, Department of Homeland Security, TSA.... How are those things helping the average American that has to work two, three, or four jobs just to put food on the table and pay for rent, utilities, health care, retirement?

Quoting CX747 (Reply 106): Notice how things have gotten BETTER in Iraq?

Hmmm.... Car bombs, suicide bombs, brink of civil war, Islamic government, rationed utilities.. Yes, things are so much better than under Saddam: secular government, low cost education, low cost health care....

Quoting CX747 (Reply 106): Clinton refused to move on Al Qaeda/Taliban/Bin Laden when we had a chance. Time after time the CIA came to him with exact locations of Bin Laden

And Clinton asked Congress for authorization to strike selected targets, but the Republican controlled Congress said no. Republican controlled Congress said "Afganistan's problem is their own and has nothing to do with the Untied States." I guess Clinton should have pulled a 1441, declaired he had a mandate, and done whatever he wanted to.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 110): How are those things helping the average American that has to work two, three, or four jobs just to put food on the table and pay for rent, utilities, health care, retirement?

Providing for a common defense is mandated in the Constitution. SS, medicare, and medicaid are not. Perhaps if Congress were to actually do something, no matter which party is in charge, about runaway entitlement spending we could do two extremely important things. One, start getting the budget under control. Don't bother to spout off that we had a balanced budget or a surplus because we never will have either as long as FICA taxes are fixed to the general fund. Two we could start paying down the national debt and guess what, that would lead to less taxes which means that we might actually be able to go back to where we were before the "great society" programs got us into this mess. One income households. What a concept.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 110): Yes, things are so much better than under Saddam: secular government, low cost education, low cost health care....

Rape, torture, mass murder, political prisoners, kangaroo courts, yes, so much better when the ordinary person has no say in their how their country is run. Oh, and continue to ignore the reality in Iraq.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 110): Hmmm.... Car bombs, suicide bombs, brink of civil war, Islamic government, rationed utilities.. Yes, things are so much better than under Saddam: secular government, low cost education, low cost health care....

A bit more success seems to have arrived for the Iraqis today.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7506749.stm
At least 35 people have been killed and more than 50 injured in a double suicide bombing north of the Iraqi capital, Baghdad, army sources say.

The two attackers mingled with a crowd of would-be recruits at an army base in the city of Baquba and then blew themselves up simultaneously, they say.
An interesting account of the fate of minorities in the SMH this morning Seb146.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/i...edom/2008/07/15/1215887626474.html
Even casual observers of the international situation would be aware of the conflict between Sunni and Shiite communities in Iraq.

But what has achieved less prominence in the national and international media is the fate of other Iraqi minorities: Assyrians, Chaldeans and Mandaeans.
......
As the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has said, "The situation of members of non-Muslim religious communities has been noticeably aggravated since the invasion of coalition forces".

Hundreds of thousands of Assyrian and Chaldean refugees live in desperate circumstances in Syria and Jordan. It is simply too dangerous for them to return.

There are of course, many millions of people from different groups around the world who face diabolical human rights and humanitarian catastrophes, all of whom deserve greater attention.

However, in all the public debate about Iraq over recent years the Assyrian and Chaldean minorities have received scant attention from both governments and the media. Their plight is one of the untold stories of the narrative of post-Saddam Iraq. Their situation as minorities in Iraq has substantially worsened since the war.
....
My constituents from Iraq are still waiting to see the fruits of that freedom for their relatives.

Chris Bowen is the federal Assistant Treasurer and the Minister for Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs.

Mmmm. Quite a success story there then.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 111): Providing for a common defense is mandated in the Constitution. SS, medicare, and medicaid are not.

We are still waiting on how invading Iraq is providing for the common defense of the United States. al Qaida was not a force in Iraq until AFTER the United States invasion. Also, how is little or no taxes for large corporations and the very wealthy helping the "little guy?" All that money from the super rich and the corporations is going to off-shore accounts and to factories in places like China and India.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 112): Mmmm. Quite a success story there then.

I also heard the refugees from Iraq into Syria are not allowed to work in Syria. Such a success!

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 113): Also, how is little or no taxes for large corporations and the very wealthy helping the "little guy?"

Perhaps you should check the percentages of just who pays how much of what. Besides that is a topic for another thread. No matter how you try and dissolve it, the Constitution says nothing about government paying for the three items I mentioned and is clear about providing for a common defense.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 113): Quoting Baroque (Reply 112): Mmmm. Quite a success story there then. I also heard the refugees from Iraq into Syria are not allowed to work in Syria. Such a success!

I think the same holds for Jordan.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 113): Also, how is little or no taxes for large corporations and the very wealthy helping the "little guy?"

US corporate taxes are the second-highest in the developed world...what are you talking about?

Quoting CX747 (Reply 106): Jeez, a whole lot of the same blah blah blah from the same posters.

I could say the same about the general thrust of your entire treatise-like post.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 114): is clear about providing for a common defense.

We are still waiting for the answer as to why Iraq is the enemy? Why was Iraq invaded? There was no threat from Iraq. Where were all the huge al-Qaida training camps in Iraq that Saddam set up? That three sided offense in Tora Bora worked out well, didn't it?

And, sure, corporations shell out billions in taxes, but how much of that do they get back? Are you telling me they suffer so because the billions in taxes they pay are not given back at all? The hundreds of millions in severence pay to retiring CEOs are worth it when employees are not able to make ends meet? Those poor, nay, destitute board members need the millions of dollars more than the cashiers working three jobs?

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 117): There was no threat from Iraq.

Which is why I didn't bother to answer. You are locked into your view and nothing will change that so why bother. I was against a pull out of the troops in Iraq but now that things are becoming more secure I think it's time the President takes a hard look at the Iraqi proposal. Whether Iraq or even 9/11 had happened the Constitution would still be clear on the governments responsibility, the need to provide for a common defense. It would be equally unclear as to the responsibility to provide SS, medicare, and medicaid. Also, regardless of the war on terror, those three programs combined would still continue to dwarf defense spending, as they do today even with a war going on.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 117): Those poor, nay, destitute board members need the millions of dollars more than the cashiers working three jobs?

Your philosophy dovetails with Falcon84's. It won't be fair until everyone is equally poor.

And with today's announcement the beginning of the end is in sight. While victory still remains to be won, success is obviously in hand. I congratulate the President, the Prime Minister of Iraq on reaching agreement, and all the troops who are, will, and have served in Iraq for a job well done.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080718/ap_on_re_mi_ea/us_iraq

WASHINGTON - The United States and Iraq have agreed to seek "a general time horizon" for deeper reductions in American combat troops in Iraq.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 118): Your philosophy dovetails with Falcon84's. It won't be fair until everyone is equally poor.

IIRC, there was no "equally poor" under Clinton's tax-and-spend terms. IIRC, yes, taxes went up, but so did personal spending. People could actually afford things like food, gas, rent not to mention shoes, iPods, and computers.

Who will bare the brunt of the tax cuts and military spending (borrowed from China, Japan and Saudi Arabia)? Will it be the CEOs and large corporations? Will people like the Bush twins be taxed on what grandpappy and great-grandpappy earned when it is handed to them?

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 118): Whether Iraq or even 9/11 had happened the Constitution would still be clear on the governments responsibility, the need to provide for a common defense.

How is invading a soverign nation providing for the common defense? Sending a minimal amout of troops to help another country's fight for independance is one thing. Enforcing a no-fly zone is one thing. What about intel? What about beefing up CIA and spying in places like Pakistan? We are still waiting on the answer as to how invading a soverign nation is providing for the common defense? I know, I know: Clinton had the chance to take out Osama. But, let's not forget the Republican Congress said "NO!" to that. The Republican Congress said Osama is a matter for Afganistan to take care of and the United States should not invade soverign nations.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 113): al Qaida was not a force in Iraq until AFTER the United States invasion.

Guerrilla warfare 101... force them to come to you and crush them : Al Qaida played along perfectly , their tactics of terrorizing people backfired on them and the coalition has won a battle in this war. The world should have no doubt about who the enemy is , the coalition has exposed them and the President should be given credit for leading this effort. Of course those who see us as the evil doers will never do that, but thats OK , the freedom our troops die for gives you that right.

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 121): The world should have no doubt about who the enemy is , the coalition has exposed them and the President should be given credit for leading this effort.

But, they were nearly surrounded in Afganistan. We knew they were in Afganistan, and Bush decided to pull troops to invade Iraq. We still know they are in Afganistan and Pakistan. It does not make me the least bit comforted to know al-Qaida is still at large and Bush has done nothing in the past 5 years to quell that.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 122): Bush has done nothing in the past 5 years to quell that

NOTHING ?? You honestly think that Al Qaida operatives are not a bit more worried than they were pre 911. ? Seb I dont expect you to give the President credit for anything , but this comment is very debatable.

Personally I am glad that we have not gotten Bin Laden , I prefer him to just fade away into the sand somewhere. If we captured him, it would become such a circus that containing it would be impossible. My secret wish though is that just maybe pilots from the 3rd MAW or 4TH ID 2/4 Aviation regiment buried him in a cave over their somewhere. Or maybe our buddy UH-60 put a hellfire in his hole somewhere , no one knows I guess.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 120): taxes went up, but so did personal spending.

Two things. One, I can decide what, if anything I want to spend my money on when it comes to personal spending. I have no say when my money is taken from me in the form of taxes so the comparison is not valid.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 120): People could actually afford things like food, gas, rent not to mention shoes, iPods, and computers.

If you can't afford food, gas or rent you need to get off the crack pipe and get responsible since even a minimum wage job allows for that. You might not live in Beverly Hills or drive a Bentley but it can be done, been there and done that. As to ipods and computers, ipods didn't come out until late in 2001 and most homes still don't have a computer so that comparison is invalid. As to shoes, TV's, boats, and all the other toys people bought, Mostly they did it on credit and they are still paying off their credit cards, unless of course they have already filed for bankruptcy or had their home foreclosed on because they tied that spending to the homes equity.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 120): Who will bare the brunt of the tax cuts and military spending (borrowed from China, Japan and Saudi Arabia)?

What part of " unencumbered entitlement spending" don't you get? Each year yet another layer of baby boomers becomes eligible for SS and medicare. The increases are automatic and can only be changed by law, which as we saw earlier this week, Congress is unwilling to tackle. Those programs dwarf any spending in the past 5 years on the military. Even if we were to pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan tomorrow and not spend another dime on either the government would still have to borrow money to keep pace with the cost of unencumbered entitlement spending. As far as the tax cuts go.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aInDKe.SrsHQ

Imagine how much less the treasury department would have collected if the tax rate were higher and had not allowed for the expansion seen in previous years?

BTW at the bottom of the article:


"Military spending so far this fiscal year totaled $439.5 billion, up from $397.4 billion a year earlier, according to the Treasury's statistics.

Spending on Medicare totaled $285.9 billion, down from $291.2 billion a year earlier. Spending on Social Security totaled $491.7 billion, up from $467 billion a year earlier."

Medicare spending was down since Medicare had announced in June they would not process anymore payments until July 15th giving the President and Congress a chance to hammer out legisltion. Expect that spending to jump next month as the department plays catch up.

Take SS at 491.7 billion plus medicare at 285.9 billion, plus Medicaid at 330 billion and you get 1 trillion 107 billion. And that does not include things like HUD, welfare, or a multitude of other programs. Compare that to 439.5 billion for the military.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-10-08-medicaid_N.htm

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 120): How is invading a soverign nation providing for the common defense?

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 118): Which is why I didn't bother to answer. You are locked into your view and nothing will change that so why bother.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 124): most homes still don't have a computer so that comparison is invalid

http://www.insiderreports.com/storyp...Q_ChanID_E_HU_A_StoryID_E_20012775

According to the most recent U.S. Census data, 62 million households in the United States have an Internet-connected computer. That means just over half, 55 percent of homes have relatively easy access to the net, including e-mail and web resources.

Yet again you're caught spewing incorrect information. What was that you were saying about "invalid"?

Quoting Itsjustme (Reply 125): Yet again you're caught spewing incorrect information. What was that you were saying about "invalid"?

I will admit most homes now have computers, the comparison is still invalid.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 124): If you can't afford food, gas or rent you need to get off the crack pipe and get responsible since even a minimum wage job allows for that

Let me paint a picture of Oregon, since that is where I live. The "average" apartment in one of the metro areas goes for about $600 a month. Electric and phone are not included. Minimum wage is $7.75 at 30 hours (usualy places that hire minimum wage workers do not schedule them a full 40 hours) works out to $232.50 per week, or $930 per month (providing there are 4 weeks in a month). In addition, Oregon takes out for income tax, but we have no sales tax. So, out of that $930 (without tax), has to be paid $600 for rent, $100 or so for electric leaving $230 to pay for things like a phone, health care, food and transportation. Typically, the landlord wants a full months rent upfront by the 5th. So, a person has to go without some things in order to just pay rent.

However, there are parts of Oregon where rent is cheaper, but there are no jobs, or the minimum wage jobs are only working at 20 hours a week or less. That does not really help anyone, does it?

Even when we were living on credit, we could still afford to keep up with our credit card payments.

Again I ask: How did invading a soverign nation help the average person of the United States? How did that provide for the common defense?

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 127): So, out of that $930 (without tax), has to be paid $600 for rent, $100 or so for electric leaving $230 to pay for things like a phone, health care, food and transportation. Typically, the landlord wants a full months rent upfront by the 5th. So, a person has to go without some things in order to just pay rent.

You are leaving out section 8 apartments in your figures.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 127): Again I ask: How did invading a soverign nation help the average person of the United States? How did that provide for the common defense?

And you can keep on asking. I have answered many times over but you don't agree so I won't bother to continue pointless arguing. The threat was there and would continue to be there as long as Saddam Hussein remained in charge of the country. You won't agree and I won't waste any more time.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 127): Again I ask: How did invading a sovereign nation help the average person of the United States? How did that provide for the common defense?

Well Al Q found it excellent as a training ground and it looks as it they are now combining improved technical skills in the area of bombs (aka, IEDs) with the Afghan talents for fighting. 

The Sunnis rejoining government is either promising, or suggests that future deadlocks will be even more dangerous.

Between the Iraqi and US government's joint secrecy it is difficult to know where anything is at about the really contentious issues, such as a really representative government, will the US continue to have bases in Iraq and most of all, what are the T&Cs for foreign oil companies.

On the last of these issues, I would like to think that the quality of advice that Timor Leste got from the UN would be available to them, but I rather doubt that the US will be arranging that. Which will be rather short sighted as Iraq will presumably have access to advice from many OPEC countries.

Then again, corruption will become a major issue, correction it already is. Where is most of the assistance (and oil) money going now? Certainly most is not showing up in better services. Even just partitioning the corruption problem into foreign and domestic aspects is a formidable challenge.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 128): You are leaving out section 8 apartments in your figures.

But, the applicant has to be a certain percent below poverty level and have children. As a single man, I could not qualify for Section 8.

It looks to me, this country is reverting back to the days of the founding fathers when only those with money and land decide what is going to happen. Corporations get what they want and the citizens don't get much of anything.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 128): The threat was there and would continue to be there as long as Saddam Hussein remained in charge of the country.

Like he was such a huge threat to the United States under Bush I and Clinton? Bush I had the good sense to stop at Kuwait. I think Bush I knew Saddam was not the huge threat he had been made out to be in 2002.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 129): Well Al Q found it excellent as a training ground and it looks as it they are now combining improved technical skills in the area of bombs (aka, IEDs) with the Afghan talents for fighting.

Don't forget that threat was not there in full effect until AFTER the United States invasion.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 130): Quoting Baroque (Reply 129): Well Al Q found it excellent as a training ground and it looks as it they are now combining improved technical skills in the area of bombs (aka, IEDs) with the Afghan talents for fighting. Don't forget that threat was not there in full effect until AFTER the United States invasion.

I don't Seb, I don't. I should have made it clear that under Saddam it was a singularly lousy training ground for Al Q. In fact the only reps on the ground seem to have been in the Kurdish area in the extreme N which was sort a US bailiwick rather than being at all under Saddam's control.

Now it seems that Maliki is taking an Obama-like position in an article in Der Spiegel. Shades of other campaigns where the incoming candidate may influence outcomes.

While any loss of life is tragic, to go from 66 killed in action in July 2007 to 5 killed in action for July 2008 is an amazing sign of progress.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25928013/

Keep it going, I think 16 months after this upcoming election is the right time to begin pulling the combat brigades out. Keep it going at current levels for an additional 16 months after this November's election, finish strong and then bring the combat brigades home.

A residual force must stay, to train Iraqi forces, attack terrorists, prevent Iranian subversion. But the forces that stay (40,000-50,000) should be on large airbase away from the Iraqi population and off the streets.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 130): As a single man, I could not qualify for Section 8.

But you could qualify for a room mate which is how many singles have lived for decades. To suggest there are no options as a minimum wage worker is just lazy.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 130): Like he was such a huge threat to the United States under Bush I and Clinton?

Under Bush 41 our European allies held Saddam to the sanctions outlined by the UN. As the years passed deals were made under the table and by 2002 there was outright talk of dropping sanctions altogether. After the oil for food debacle became public it became increasingly clear that some had lost their will which would have enable Saddam to sooner or later resume his old ways.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 8): Let's hope the Iranians are smarter than they let on.

I have a lot of confidence in the Iranian people, but little in the government that hardly represents their values. I see Israel in the same way.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 12): it is unlikely that Iraq will allow for US bases in the long term future because they don't want the US there.

I am a bit troubled by the idea of long-term US bases in Iraq, not because of sovereignty issues but because the non-combat presence in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, et al has already caused so many problems and is arguably the root of al-Qaeda's campaign.

Quoting Confuscius (Reply 15): That'll put a damper on McCain's A Hundred Year War plan.

I don't understand why his comment is so often distorted. He committed to a presence in Iraq as long as it was militarily necessary to maintain security and stability. If 100 years is what it takes, and casualties aren't being taken, he's committed to that. Of course he and everyone would want troops out as soon as feasible.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 27): reports our out that Mr. Bush is bound and determined to launch an attack on Iran before he leaves office? That Cheney and he are disregarding the advise of advisors and intel estimates that no military action need take place at this time?

How can you really make a statement like this without security clearance (or with it, for that matter)? No one outside of the intelligence and defense communities and the executive staff would even know enough to say something like this. It seems extreme to me that you would toss around that claim.

Quoting NorCal (Reply 43): Quick surgical attacks against terrorist groups would be much more effective than a full blown invasion of a country that is hiding terrorists. The use of Delta Force, Navy Seals, etc. would be much more effective than a mechanized division (and cheaper).

Quoting NorCal (Reply 49): It requires good intelligence (not just fancy satellites, but men on the ground) and quick action.

I think this sounds nice wrapped up in a pretty package, but is much more difficult and cumbersome than the media might suggest.

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 31): Bush is not determined to launch an attack on Iran. He is making sure Iran doesn't attack Isreal or develop a nuclear weapon which would be a disaster. Huge difference.

I am more worried about Israel starting a (possibly nuclear) war.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 38): But what about all the damage we caused? I think we owe a lot of long-term reparations to Iraq. It might actually be difficult for us to earn enough money. But we should try. Clearly, this will hurt ourselves and our kids, because it will be a lot of money.

Reparations are almost never a good idea, unless they specifically address acute damages to individual sectors (ie rebuilding infrastructure). The United States has made mistakes in its distant (ie slavery) and very recent past and in Iraq; it could be conservatively said that we have caused more suffering than necessary or intended. BUT all each of us can do is pursue the interest of human liberty the best way we can and know how and take the smartest course of action going forward.

We did not go to Iraq to kill civilians, and that so many have been traumatized, injured, killed, is seriously a tragedy. But, how can you quantify that in dollars? I don't aim to be insensitive, but aren't these events part of human living?

Quoting AirStairs (Reply 134): We did not go to Iraq to kill civilians, and that so many have been traumatized, injured, killed, is seriously a tragedy. But, how can you quantify that in dollars? I don't aim to be insensitive, but aren't these events part of human living?

YES BUT! The US should seriously think about supporting the Iraqi hospital system for some time and I notice that employment is being found for some of the widows. If something is not done for the hundreds of thousands of war widows, another generation of extremists will be generated - a proportion of their children.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 42): Huh? The United States has a HUGE public relations fiasco on it's hands and has since BushCo deiced to invade Iraq for no good reason. It could have been salvaged during this administration, but no. It, along with other major problems, will be left for the next one or two commanders in chief.

I have little reason to believe that the next commander in chief will be any more adroit at balancing the primary interests of Americans with a popular brand abroad. And it is admittedly not one of my priorities. We have long arms around the globe and a lot of those fingers are going to be unpopular for any number of reasons. The job of the President is to a) protect the interests of the citizens and b) maintain friendly relations abroad.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 47): I would much rather have a public relations fiasco than a national security fiasco. What France or Germany thinks of what we do to protect ourselves is pretty low on the priority tree to me.

  

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 46): Whereas, before, we had a secular nation with a dictator who, at least, provided health, utilities, and education for his people so long as they voted for him and his party.

Well, your view of the past is tinted quite rosily. As someone who never met my uncle because he was targeted and poisoned by Ba'athist's, I see it quite differently. Voting for Hussein was unfortunately not the only condition for a peaceful life or a natural end.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 51): Before we came in, Hussein was far too much of an egomaniac to allow Al Qaeda in. He was many things, but a terrorist no. He was way too proud to be sneaking around with box cutters and 767's. He fancied himself a military giant and he wanted to fight wars THAT way.

Lest we forget that fighting wars "THAT" way involves civilian casualties, disruption in our daily lives and having to be vigilant for our own safetly aka not the way I want to live, and I am terribly sad that those are the conditions in which Iraqis are living today, but NIMBY, really.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 58): By that logic we will need to invade over 30 countries. are you really serious... that is a lame excuse for killing so many people against their will.

In principle, yes (to some extent); but, in practice we can only engage countries that, to the best of our current knowledge pose a threat. That we have 20/20 hindsight does not change what the circumstances were antebellum.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 59): A big superpower invading, without provocation, a thrid-world nation, and plunging it into 5 years of war, terrorism and misery. And the end isn't in sight.

Now I am a bit worried you are being melodramatic. The intent of the war was to disarm Iraq and prevent future development of chemical, biological, nuclear weapons and remove Ba'athists and Hussein who were committing crimes against humanity towards groups incapable of defending themselves. Yes, a lot of the intelligence that led to the formation of those objectives was found to be erroneous in hindsight. But do not pretend that it was to to colonize and plunder Iraq and embattle its citizens.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 59): Then we go from "invaders"--->"occupiers"---->"imperalists". Because if we stay beyond when that government says they want us, then that nation will turn on us with a vengance.

We are only imperialists if we are engaging in territorial and political conquest, which, even if we disagree with Iraqis on a timetable for withdrawl, does not make us an imperial force. We did not invade Iraq with the aim of ruling it. That withdrawl is the goal for both parties (and was from the outset) would place the USA firmly outside of the "imperialist" definition.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 90): We aren't winning in Iraq. The situation is tenuous, and gains are certainly not permanent there.

All any of us have to go by is what is fed through the press. I don't care which spin machine you prefer, but you can't possibly say that you (or I) have the whole picture on what is going on inside Iraq and any strategic or diplomatic ground that is being made or lost.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 90): But 5 years ago, the Taliban weren't using Pakistan, because they were mostly on the run in Afghanistan.

Again, I can't claim any authoritative knowledge on the subject (but neither could you), but from media reports and any information I've gotten my hands on, it would seem that while al-Qaeda operated comfortably under the Afghani Taliban government, they have allegedly had a long-term presence in the areas along and across the Pakistani border, recruiting and training, because of the lack of central government control in those areas of Pakistan.