A war of utter folly

30%, which is about 1/3 ………. or $1 BILLION worth that is now going to the people in Iraq, …… right? And you and the Gazette Editors are pissing and moaning about that

The money is going, via the black market, to groups that are killing our soldiers.

A model of efficiency.

I don't let the Gazette do my thinking. If you notice, the stats come from the Pentagon.

Terry, if the American Corporate Interests here and abroad are not protected ......... then who is going to "look out for and protect the working American people's interest", ........ you State and Federal government employees maybe. And will the Educational professionals be helping you all do that?

Me thinks you all had better get your acts together and all your promises in motion ...... because the "rust belt" is getting bigger every day.

By the way Terry, how many Government employees, ....... local, county, state and federal, ......... do ya suppose an economy without Corporations would support?

Yes, more of the "all government employees are worthless" argument.

You managed to keep your resolution about an hour, didn't you.

TerryRC wrote:How do you specifically address what didn't happen? What I believe is, had Al Gore been president, terrorist attacks would not have ended with 9/11. GWB provided decisive leadership after 9/11 and as a result of that and his actions in October, 2001, I believe prevented moreattacks that I believe would have certainly occurred. What the results of those attacks would have been is hard to say but it wouldn’t have been good and that is what I mean when I say GWB saved America. I believe his actions and leadership saved thousands of lives, millions in damage and the ensuing fear and terror that would have surely followed.

You can "believe" that all you want. The fact is that this administration has buried so many records and twisted the truth so many times, we will never know the truth.

Interesting how spending trillions and sacrificing thousands of American lives has "saved thousands of lives, millions in damage...". As to the fear and terror, surely the present admin has been PROMOTING that, rather than PREVENTING it.

With the aid of Congress, who sold out their constituents and allowed all of the above for $2.00/hour.

Not disagreeing but that doesn't make him less culpable.

How have they failed miserably? Because we haven't captured OBL? We've certainly taken the Taliban out of power. So what are we supposed to do there? Keep a military occupation in Afghanistan until it's 'mission accomplished'.

Have we truly taken the Taliban out of power? How much ground do we control there? Aren't we still there? Isn't this what you are recommending for Iraq? And, yes, capturing or killing OBL would have been nice seeing how Bush set that goal for himself.

Nothing. I don't. I do recognize his leadership directly after 9/11 and I do recognize that he's not a poll chaser like the do-nothing democrats and at least has some convictions.

You are kidding, right? His leadership has been almost non-existent. He has also spent more time on "vacation" than any president I can remember.

Ah, well. If "belief" is the criteria for deciding Bush saved this country, go for it. If "fact" is the criteria, I fear your stance indefensible.

Once again, you're talking about the past 7 years and Iraq. My comments were directly relatied to late 2001/early 2002 and his leadership compared to that of what Al Gore would have done. Understand?

You're bring all that has happened with Iraq into the situation. I made a statement, you questioned it and I addressed it specifically.

Aaron wrote:What I will disagree with you on is Ziggy. I don't think it's that he doesn't like the answers. I think Ziggy is a peacenik copperhead coward and believes there is NEVER justification for war.

What "answers"? The so-called "answers" are bogus, after the fact political ass covering for a crazed Commander-in-Chief who can't keep even his own excuses for war straight nor admit that the whole Iraq war thing has been one gigantic blunder.

You lie. I never said there was "NEVER justification for war", nor do I believe that.

But this is not the 19th century, and it's not the American civil war were talking about here. So what is a "copperhead" in the context of Bush's Iraq war?

When questioned if the US had faught one this century, he pretty much said no. He said his daddy thought Tojo and Hitler needed removed and he wouldn't disagree with his daddy. But he didn't agree that our fighting in WW2 was justified and righteous.

You lie again. I never said I wouldn't disagree with my father. I disagreed with him about many things- much to his displeasure sometimes.

I said I had no reason to question his judgement that Tojo and Hitler needed to be removed- that U.S. involvement in WWII was mostly wise and just, Dresden notwithstanding.

But I was not even born when WWII was going on. No one demanded that I fight WWII for them while rich boys were getting deferments that poor boys didn't get- as was the case in the Vietnam war era. And so I have no reason to get my dander up either way about a decision to go to war that was made years before I was born.

What I did say, in answer to Keli's question, is that the wars the U.S. has instigated during my adult lifetime were not wise and just. Both Vietnam and Iraq were / are wars built on ever-shifting bogus excuses, one after another, all shown to be shams as relates to the then stated reasons for going to war.

Aaron wrote:Once again, you're talking about the past 7 years and Iraq. My comments were directly relatied to late 2001/early 2002 and his leadership compared to that of what Al Gore would have done. Understand?

One does not have to be a Bush hater to realize that it's pretty damn bad when the best you can says about your president is to speculate that Al Gore might have been worse.

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:Once again, you're talking about the past 7 years and Iraq. My comments were directly relatied to late 2001/early 2002 and his leadership compared to that of what Al Gore would have done. Understand?

One does not have to be a Bush hater to realize that it's pretty damn bad when the best you can says about your president is to speculate that Al Gore might have been worse.

It's not my job to defend GWB. I made a statement which I believe to be true and I don't think it's speculation. Not when he didn't speak out when the USS Cole was attacked by Islamic fundamentalist or when he made comments similar to Kerry's in that we as nation should utilize the UN more for combat situations. There is nothing to indicate that he would have responded the the full force and might of the United States of America. There is plenty to indicate that he would have hidden under his desk and given his authority to the UN.

As bad as it is, it WOULD have been much, much worse had Al Gore 'answered' the phone.

SamCogar wrote:

TerryRC wrote:

(Ziggy) Come on, man, and tell us how Bush "saved this country" in 2001!

I'm kind of curious about that, also. Was the Taliban Navy getting ready to invade us on their amphibious camels?

Terry, can either you or Ziggy provide proof or reasoning that our Middle East oil supply would have remained 100% safe and unaffected from 2001 through say 2020 ........ if the US had not invaded Iraq and established a Military presence in the Middle East?

I'm kinda curious as to how you two will answer that question.

.

Oil supply? Both Bush and Cheney have said repeatedly that going to war in Iraq was NOT about oil supplies.

So once again your after the fact effort to cover their political asses is busted- and by their own words.

Once again, you're talking about the past 7 years and Iraq. My comments were directly relatied to late 2001/early 2002 and his leadership compared to that of what Al Gore would have done. Understand?

You're bring all that has happened with Iraq into the situation. I made a statement, you questioned it and I addressed it specifically.

I do understand. You made a general statement about how Bush "saved" this country.

I did mention Iraq because you were not particularly specific. I have since talked about Afghanistan (we are still there and troops are still being killed by insurgents) and the fact that we will never truly know what kind of threats there were to us. This administration has been destroying records and covering up in a move that makes the document bonfires held by the outgoing Adams administration had upon Jefferson's take over look like a candle.

Bush saved this country, hmmm...

Believe it if you like, but the facts seem to be against you.

Oil supply? Both Bush and Cheney have said repeatedly that going to war in Iraq was NOT about oil supplies.

"We don't take our forces and go around the world and try to take other people's real estate or other people's resources, their oil. That's just not what the United States does," he said. "We never have, and we never will. That's not how democracies behave." - Donald Rumsfeld, Feb. 26, 2003

TerryRC wrote:Once again, you're talking about the past 7 years and Iraq. My comments were directly relatied to late 2001/early 2002 and his leadership compared to that of what Al Gore would have done. Understand?

You're bring all that has happened with Iraq into the situation. I made a statement, you questioned it and I addressed it specifically.

I do understand. You made a general statement about how Bush "saved" this country.

I did mention Iraq because you were not particularly specific. I have since talked about Afghanistan (we are still there and troops are still being killed by insurgents) and the fact that we will never truly know what kind of threats there were to us. This administration has been destroying records and covering up in a move that makes the document bonfires held by the outgoing Adams administration had upon Jefferson's take over look like a candle.

Bush saved this country, hmmm...

Believe it if you like, but the facts seem to be against you.

I spoke of the good Bush has done and said he would never be given credit for it. The only thing that really suprises me is that it is you that's proven my point instead of Ziggy.

TerryRC wrote:

By the way Terry, how many Government employees, ....... local, county, state and federal, ......... do ya suppose an economy without Corporations would support? [/i]

Yes, more of the "all government employees are worthless" argument.

You managed to keep your resolution about an hour, didn't you.

Terry, it was you that introduced Corporations into this discussion, not me.

TerryRC wrote:You put your finger on one thing - this war is about protecting American Corporate Interests. Saves them spending money on mercs.

I simply asked you a legitimate question and all I got from you was a pierty remark that had nothing to do with the question I asked.

Did my question embarrass you or what?

Ya know, I do not make accusing statements or accusations if I am not willing to explain them.

.

I spoke of the good Bush has done and said he would never be given credit for it. The only thing that really suprises me is that it is you that's proven my point instead of Ziggy.

Again, I ask: What good?

Are you talking about the President's eroding of privacy rights? Erosion of Habeus Corpus? His making torture (waterboarding) legal? His economic policies?

Stunning successes.

When will we be successful? How will we know we've won? When terrorism is no longer used anywhere? What is your definition of success? What is your definition of failure?

Even if, for the sake of argument that Bush has "done good", it is encompassed by the "bad" he has done.

I will never agree that he "saved this country" and you have offered no evidence, besides your "belief" that this is even the case.

Terry, it was you that introduced Corporations into this discussion, not me.

Actually it was you that did it by bringing oil into the equation.

How secure is that supply? As I pointed out, not very, considering how much ends up on the black market.

The military is to defend this country, not provide free security for Exxon.

BTW:

Feb 26,2008--Former Halliburton subsidiary KBR Inc. said Tuesday fourth-quarter profit rose 65 percent. Revenue for the final 3 moths of 2007 amounted to $2.4 billion.

TerryRC wrote:Oil supply? Both Bush and Cheney have said repeatedly that going to war in Iraq was NOT about oil supplies.

"We don't take our forces and go around the world and try to take other people's real estate or other people's resources, their oil. That's just not what the United States does," he said. "We never have, and we never will. That's not how democracies behave." - Donald Rumsfeld, Feb. 26, 2003

GEEEZE Terry, now why did you post that …….. so soon after posting this, to wit:

TerryRC wrote: Well, Sam, how do you respond to this:

Last year, according to Pentagon analysts, as much as 70 percent of output from the huge Baiji refinery - about $2 billion worth of gasoline, kerosene and diesel fuel - disappeared into the underground economy.

Gangs, tribes, police, town leaders and provincial officials raked in about half of those black market profits, Iraqi officials estimate. Insurgents took the other half.

http://wvgazette.com/Opinion/Editorials/200803230323

Is it "Mission Accomplished"?

Does not your Gazette quote prove what Donald Rumsfeld stated in your above quote?

Rumsfeld said "we don't take other people's oil" ........... and the Gazette provided you proof that "we didn't take it".

So what is your problem, Terry?

.

TerryRC wrote:Terry, it was you that introduced Corporations into this discussion, not me.

Actually it was you that did it by bringing oil into the equation.

How secure is that supply? As I pointed out, not very, considering how much ends up on the black market.

The military is to defend this country, not provide free security for Exxon.

And that brings us back to another question you refused to answer.

Terry, if our military doesn't provide free security to guarantee our import supply of oil .............. just how secure is our economy and our country?

And please, ....... try not to reply with more pierty remarks which do not address my question.

.

And that brings us back to another question you refused to answer.

Terry, if our military doesn't provide free security to guarantee our import supply of oil .............. just how secure is our economy and our country?

And please, ....... try not to reply with more pierty remarks which do not address my question.

Sam you asked me to prove that, without our action in Iraq, our oil supplies would have been secure.

Stupid.

Our oil supplies, even with the action, are not secure - that is obvious.

If you don't want pierty remarks, don't ask dumb questions.

Looking at the mortgage and housing problems and the corporate welfare being handed out, I'd say that, even with secure oil supplies, our economy is still farked, mostly due to greed and deregulation of certain markets.

There were other options to keep this country going besides invading Iraq.

TerryRC wrote:Terry, it was you that introduced Corporations into this discussion, not me.

Actually it was you that did it by bringing oil into the equation.

How secure is that supply? As I pointed out, not very, considering how much ends up on the black market.

The military is to defend this country, not provide free security for Exxon.

So should we defend ourselves against an economic attack? Would that be 'defense' of this country?

TerryRC wrote:BTW:

Feb 26,2008--Former Halliburton subsidiary KBR Inc. said Tuesday fourth-quarter profit rose 65 percent. Revenue for the final 3 moths of 2007 amounted to $2.4 billion.

And?

TerryRC wrote:
I spoke of the good Bush has done and said he would never be given credit for it. The only thing that really suprises me is that it is you that's proven my point instead of Ziggy.

Again, I ask: What good?

If you refuse to open your eyes, you're not going to see.

Rumsfeld said "we don't take other people's oil" ........... and the Gazette provided you proof that "we didn't take it".

The Gazette's cite of the PENTAGON data proves we didn't take it all, not that we "didn't take it". Also, the cost of reconstruction was to come out of oil revenues, not our pockets. That has been a tremendous FAIL.

Terry, if our military doesn't provide free security to guarantee our import supply of oil .............. just how secure is our economy and our country?

Also wanted to address this again in terms of the security of our country.

there are tons of National Guards over in Iraq. Loss of personnel and equipment is rampant to the point that many Guard units here at home can't perform their ordinary duties. Many of those people signed up to do what the National Guard is supposed to do which is taking care of local emergencies, riot detail, etc. If Bush wanted the National Guard serving in Iraq, he should have federalized them, As was done in the past when National Guard troops were sent to war.

So, after being "saved" by Bush, I'd say our country is in a piss-poor state of security.

If you refuse to open your eyes, you're not going to see.

So you can't tell us how Bush "saved" the country?

So should we defend ourselves against an economic attack? Would that be 'defense' of this country?

Did Iraq attack us economically?

And?

Bush "saved" Cheney's profits, at least. The fact that a private company is making billions in no-bid contracts out of the blood of our sons and daughters and Bush is the one that pulled the trigger (even if Congress did give him the gun) should have you condemning the man, not praising him.

/I swear, the end times cometh

TerryRC wrote:So should we defend ourselves against an economic attack? Would that be 'defense' of this country?

Did Iraq attack us economically?

I didn't say they did. I ask a question. You didn't answer it. I'll ask again.

Are we justified in defending ourselves militarily against an economic attack?

TerryRC wrote:And?

Bush "saved" Cheney's profits, at least. The fact that a private company is making billions in no-bid contracts out of the blood of our sons and daughters and Bush is the one that pulled the trigger (even if Congress did give him the gun) should have you condemning the man, not praising him.

/I swear, the end times cometh

Two questions.

1) Is there competitive companies that provide the same services and 2) what did Congress do as far as oversight on this?

TerryRC wrote:
If you refuse to open your eyes, you're not going to see.

So you can't tell us how Bush "saved" the country?

I explained what I meant. You don't buy it. You're wrong. What else is there to say?

Are we justified in defending ourselves militarily against an economic attack?

Not necessarily. It depends on the type of attack. Why is it relevant?

1) Is there competitive companies that provide the same services and

Bad question. If it was to support the troops, it should have been done internally, through the Corps of Engineers. If it was to rebuild Iraq, it should have been contracted by the Iraqi government.

2) what did Congress do as far as oversight on this?

How much oversight has this administration let ANYONE have. Haven't you read the latest on the "ruined hard drives"? Regardless, Congress gave Bush the OK to invade Iraq if there were WMD's present. Bush kicked out the inspectors so that he wouldn't have to deal with the pesky fact that there weren't any.

Even if they did hand him the gun, Bush pulled the trigger. He hasn't bothered to answer to anyone since.

I explained what I meant. You don't buy it. You're wrong. What else is there to say?

No, you didn't. You said you "believe" he saved thousands of people and saved us millions of dollars (while killing thousands of people and spending billions of dollars). You have provided no EVIDENCE to support your position.

I have given you some facts on the bad things he has done (rights abuses, distortion of facts and outright lies, sanctioning torture) and you ignore them.

You never did address the fact that has has spent more time on vacation than any president in history. Great leadership, there, Lou.

I'm the one that is wrong, however. Brilliant.

Bush is a buffoon. Two out of three people seem to agree, not that polls mean that much.