I can't imagine how that happened. Oh wait? It happened with major US help, and the recent times are a direct reflection on those moments???

 

Still amazes me how so many ignore the reality of time and relationships. WE funded the birth of Al Queda through that conflict and our 20+ year dependency on "Muslim" oil.

 

How does the old Wives Tale go? You made your bed, now lie in it...

I'm sure it's no news flash for you when I say, "It's a messy world GT."

 

I'm not about to defend everything we've done over the past 232 years, much less the past eight. I just get tired of all the second guessing, Monday morning quarterbacking and trying to sound like the smartest guy in the room through the lens of hindsight. (And no, Habib, I'm not directing that at you specifically... :lol: )

 

I get tired of hearing how our president is an imbecile or a sleezeball or a war monger or whatever... and that is regardless of the party occupying the White House.

 

I get tired of hearing how screwed up America is, and how badly we've messed up the world, when I honestly believe the world would have been and would be much worse off without America.

Truth be told, we all take liberties with one another's posts on this board, primarily because we do not know each other, we have no idea if the other poster is swell guy or a jerk, and we cannot see one another's faces, hear each other's voices, etc. Bottom line, it's hard to convey in type what comes so easily in person. :thumb:

 

:thumb:

 

I don't know how big a red herring Iraq was. Saddam was an evil killer of innocent citizens of his own land. He had WMD at one point and gave many indications he still did. He did not abide by UN demands. We need another democracy in the M.E. besides Israel.

 

There is a lot in here. Hussein was evil and he did kill his own citizens with biological weapons. But, we had an obligation to stop the genocide in 1988, not in 2003. No-fly zones in northern Iraq had kept Hussein in check in that regard. As far as the UN goes, he failed to live up to the demands of Resolution 1441, but there was no military stipulation involved. Acting outside of the UN based on UN Resolution logic is a bit contradictory. I don’t think we were looking for a democracy as much as an ally (Iran is more of a democracy than Saudi Arabia), and I don’t think an invasion was the way to go about it.

 

I don't know how much goodwill we ever had among some M.E. countries, and those in which we did are still friendly to us. I'm not convinced that respect is better than goodwill in some of those nations.

 

Maybe not, but after 9/11 I think we had a strong case to strengthen alliances there, which gels with the statement above..

 

We provide great motivation for the conscripts of terror to listen to the extremists and take up arms by not worshipping Allah, honoring Muhammad, and bowing to Mecca five times a day. Hollywood, the First Amendment and Kentucky distilleries have done more to justify fundamentalist Muslim rage than a war in Iraq.

 

To some, that is true, but it was intangible. The main anti-American argument coming from the extremists is that of America as the “Zionist oppressors” and we provided them an “Exhibit A,” of sorts. Jihad has come to be used as a tool for fighting oppression, so it was an easy transition for bin Laden to make when he wanted more recruits (which is what he makes calls of jihad for).

 

Exactly! It's a lot easier to let them congregate and obliterate them than it is to sit around waiting for them to wipe out another 3,000 innocent American lives. Also, Afghanistan is a no go due to terrain. Bin Laden and crew fought the mighty Soviet army to a standstill, draining Soviet resources and forcing them to return home with their tail between their legs. Iraq was a matter of us picking the battlefield, with the added bonus of getting Saddam out of circulation, and providing us a staging area for other conflicts in the M.E. should they arise.

 

Not quite. The illiterate automatons picking up Kalashnikovs and trotting into Iraq aren’t the people who managed the global terror cell that infiltrated the United States. Muhammad Atta was well educated, well funded, and schemed 9/11 out of Hamburg, Germany. That’s a wide distinction between the Iraqi insurgency.

 

As far as Afghanistan goes, we’ve done quite well there when we’ve had the troops. The USSR’s failure had a lot to do with our support of the mujahideen and their own economic trouble.

 

With a solid basing platform in Iraq and Israel in the mix, Iran won't be as big a problem as it would have with Iraq against us too.

 

I agree, but we can address that when Iraq is stable enough to operate on its own. Hussein balanced Iran free of charge. And Israel has shown that it is more than capable of handling itself on the battlefield.

 

As far as, distracting ourselves and being vulnerable in another area, all I can say is we've been terrorist free in America since 9/11/01.

 

And that is a testament to our counter-terrorism and intelligence efforts post-9/11, but being mired in Iraq certainly causes some depletion on those. Are we really certain there aren’t chinks in our armor somewhere?

 

I don't expect you to agree with much if anything I say here. Don't wear yourself out rebutting me. We can just agree to disagree. :thumb:

 

Everyone agrees to disagree (or agrees to agree, I guess). The whole point of the argument is to make the other person squirm a little bit. :devil:

Everyone agrees to disagree (or agrees to agree, I guess). The whole point of the argument is to make the other person squirm a little bit. :devil:

I'm too tired to go through your post point-by-point. As far as squirming, I will confess that as irritating as you can be, you do make me think things through more thouroughly than I might otherwise. You don't necessarily sway me to your POV, but you do make me think... which is why I come to P&R to begin with. :thumb:

Here is the audio of Senator Joe Gaffe explaining how Obama's inexperience will invite challenges by America's enemies within six months of his inauguration. It would have been great to have video of this event but most of the mainstream media has decided not to cover Biden's traveling circus of missteps.

 

Of the many gaffes of Joe Biden, this one may be my favorite. Joe may be wrong but he states his case confidently. :lol:

 

* February 26, 1993, attack on the World Trade Center: 6 deaths and 1,042 injured

* April 19, 1995, Oklahoma City bombing: 168 deaths and over 800 injured

* June 25, 1996, Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia: 20 deaths and 372 injured

* August 7, 1998, attacks on American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania: 12 U.S. deaths out of a total of 223 deaths; 12 U.S. injured out of a total of over 4,000 injured

* October 12, 2000, attack on the USS Cole in Yemen: 17 deaths; 39 injured

* September 11, 2001, attacks in New York and Washington (occurred during Bush presidency but planned during Clinton administration): 2,975 deaths and 24 missing.

 

Except for the Oklahoma City bombing, all these terrorist attacks were the work of al Qaeda. Regarding 9/11, it is well established that al Qaeda planned, rehearsed and financed these attacks while Clinton was in office.

 

 

How many of these terrorist where from Iraq?

* February 26, 1993, attack on the World Trade Center: 6 deaths and 1,042 injured

* April 19, 1995, Oklahoma City bombing: 168 deaths and over 800 injured

* June 25, 1996, Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia: 20 deaths and 372 injured

* August 7, 1998, attacks on American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania: 12 U.S. deaths out of a total of 223 deaths; 12 U.S. injured out of a total of over 4,000 injured

* October 12, 2000, attack on the USS Cole in Yemen: 17 deaths; 39 injured

* September 11, 2001, attacks in New York and Washington (occurred during Bush presidency but planned during Clinton administration): 2,975 deaths and 24 missing.

 

Except for the Oklahoma City bombing, all these terrorist attacks were the work of al Qaeda. Regarding 9/11, it is well established that al Qaeda planned, rehearsed and financed these attacks while Clinton was in office.

 

:thumb:

People getting killed gets a thumbs up. Not sure I understand.

And I suppose it was his fault that Bush invaded Iraq, which is the primary reason, imo, why this country is in the shape it's in. That and trickle- down economics.

 

It wasn't just Bush that invaded Iraq, the Dems voted for it also. Remember?

 

I assure you that the radical Muslims back Obama.

Mousa Abu Marzook(Hamas leader) supports Obama, Ahmed Yousef(Hamas political advisor) supports Obama, and Mohammad-Ali Fardanesh,a professor at an Iranian state funded school, stated on September 2, 2008 on an Iranian state run television that they are supporting Obama and opposing McCain.

People getting killed gets a thumbs up. Not sure I understand.

 

Its because you don't want to understand. The point being, that Bill Clinton did nothing in his reign to stop terrorism. We all know it but you simply do not want to face the facts.

Unless Biden is suggesting that terrorists and/or unfriendly countries will test Obama because of racism, I believe that he is saying that Obama will be tested because of his inexperience.

 

Biden seems to oscillate wildly between dishonesty and extreme honesty. I believe that he is telling the truth in this instance but I cannot understand why. It seems awfully late in the game for Obama to replace Biden with Hillary.

 

 

My theory as to why. I think Biden genuinely knows that Obama is not prepared or experienced enough to handle the situations that Biden very confidently thinks will be coming and there are going to be missteps taken by Obama. I think he realizes that such situations and the impact created thereby (including on our fragile economy) are going to cause real pain on Americans. I think he is trying to set the bar low so if it does happens, he can say: see I told you it was coming, stick with Obama through his missteps and don't let those Republicans say "we told you he wasn't ready".

 

And for those of you seemingly only focused on economic issues, Biden's comments confirm what I have been saying for a long while: if you are really worried about the economy, you best vote for the one person qualified to handle military, terrorism and foreign policy matters. Because if the guy elected President does not handle those matters properly, the resulting damage caused to our economy will make the current economic situation look rosey. You think Iraq is expensive and a drain on our economy? Well just wait and see the costs when Putin, Syria, Iran and N. Korea decide to "test Obama's mettle" or put in more accurate words "exploit Obama's inexperience". And not withstanding what I think Biden was trying to accomplish with his comments, you can dang well bet I will be saying "I told you so" to a lot of posters on here.

Here is the audio of Senator Joe Gaffe explaining how Obama's inexperience will invite challenges by America's enemies within six months of his inauguration. It would have been great to have video of this event but most of the mainstream media has decided not to cover Biden's traveling circus of missteps.

 

 

Careful, that could be misconstrued as whining. And, for the record, it has been all over CNN.

And I suppose it was his fault that Bush invaded Iraq, which is the primary reason, imo, why this country is in the shape it's in. That and trickle- down economics.

 

How does the war in Iraq have anything to do with banks failing? Failure to act on information about the growth and problems with Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac as well as the subprime issues was the fault of the war? Please explain how that works because that doesn't make sense to me. Also, which specific Bush policies were implemented which have impacted our economy? The one area that I believe this administration and congress have failed miserably is having virtually no enforceable policy on illegal immigration. And this is a negative against both Obama and McCain in that they have done nothing on it as well, and haven't discussed it in the campaign, not even once. It wasn't even an issue in the debate and that is a factor in our current failing economy.

 

As far as trickle down economics, it is easy to do the math. Reagan's tax cuts did generate more tax revenue for the federal government. The issue was that he spent a lot of money upgrading the military which had been all but dismantled by the Carter administration AND (like Dubya), Reagan allowed other areas of government to grow too much. This caused our national debt to grow. Bush Sr had bad final 1-2 years in the economy when it was in a down cycle, but after the final debate, the report came out that the economy was on the way back up. Clinton slowed down the growth of the military and reaped the benefits of a fruitful economy. However, NAFTA, while good initially, has turned into what Ross Perot said it would, ... a loss of good American jobs.

 

If we want to make our economy more liquid very quickly, there are better solutions than the Bush/Pelosi/Paulson/Franks $700 billion bailout.

 

1. Eliminate capital gains taxes (at least for the short term)

2. Cut out the mark to market accounting practices which have done more damage than good to the banks

3. Cut the business tax (we have the 2nd highest tax on business in the world

4. Pass immigration reform NOW

 

This could be cheaper and quicker and makes more sense than giving money to the greedy morons who helped to put us in our current situation.

"...if you are really worried about the economy, you best vote for the one person qualified to handle military, terrorism and foreign policy matters. Because if the guy elected President does not handle those matters properly, the resulting damage caused to our economy will make the current economic situation look rosey. You think Iraq is expensive and a drain on our economy? Well just wait and see the costs when Putin, Syria, Iran and N. Korea decide to "test Obama's mettle" or put in more accurate words "exploit Obama's inexperience".

Outstanding points... :thumb:

 

Unfortunately, our amazing press/media has so predisposed public opinion by giving full and immediate access to negative stories out of Iraq, and to clowns like Murtha who tried and judged the Marines in Haditha before all the facts were known, and has yet to apologize to any of them for calling them "cold blooded killers" after their actions were fully justified. There have been many good news stories out of Iraq and Afghanistan that a World War II media would have featured acroos the front pages of newspapers nationwide. Today they are buried deep in newspapers, if they are published at all.

 

The overwhelming message for nearly eight years has been, war is bad, Bush is a fool, Bush lied, yada, yada, yada. Yes war is bad, but in an ugly world full of evil people, it is sometimes inevitable... and it is not always profitable to negotiate and compromise with some people.

 

How do you negotiate with people who have no central government and are actively wiring bombs to their children and sawing the heads off unarmed, non-combatant Americans? They've already made their choice and drawn a line in the sand under that scenario. I'm all for trying to "understand" them, but not while their hand is on the trigger.

 

The problem is, we are divided against ourselves moreso than any other time in our history short of perhaps the Civil War. We are not smarter as a society than we were during WWII, but we want to think we are. If we're not careful, we're going to surrender everything those amazing Americans sacrificed to build and preserve.

How does the war in Iraq have anything to do with banks failing? Failure to act on information about the growth and problems with Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac as well as the subprime issues was the fault of the war? Please explain how that works because that doesn't make sense to me. Also, which specific Bush policies were implemented which have impacted our economy? The one area that I believe this administration and congress have failed miserably is having virtually no enforceable policy on illegal immigration. And this is a negative against both Obama and McCain in that they have done nothing on it as well, and haven't discussed it in the campaign, not even once. It wasn't even an issue in the debate and that is a factor in our current failing economy.

 

As far as trickle down economics, it is easy to do the math. Reagan's tax cuts did generate more tax revenue for the federal government. The issue was that he spent a lot of money upgrading the military which had been all but dismantled by the Carter administration AND (like Dubya), Reagan allowed other areas of government to grow too much. This caused our national debt to grow. Bush Sr had bad final 1-2 years in the economy when it was in a down cycle, but after the final debate, the report came out that the economy was on the way back up. Clinton slowed down the growth of the military and reaped the benefits of a fruitful economy. However, NAFTA, while good initially, has turned into what Ross Perot said it would, ... a loss of good American jobs.

 

If we want to make our economy more liquid very quickly, there are better solutions than the Bush/Pelosi/Paulson/Franks $700 billion bailout.

 

1. Eliminate capital gains taxes (at least for the short term)

2. Cut out the mark to market accounting practices which have done more damage than good to the banks

3. Cut the business tax (we have the 2nd highest tax on business in the world

4. Pass immigration reform NOW

 

This could be cheaper and quicker and makes more sense than giving money to the greedy morons who helped to put us in our current situation.

 

:thumb: