Defeatocrats Hit New Low

[Guest Radagast]

Iraq didn't attack us, doofus.

71878[/snapback]

Yeah, right. Next thing you know, you kool-aid drinking defeatocrats will be telling us that the Chinese didn't attack Pearl Harbor.

72024[/snapback]

Oh so now we will rewrite history ... typical wingnut. Just when DID Iraq attack us?

[Guest Radagast]

Iraq didn't attack us, doofus.

71878[/snapback]

Yeah, right. Next thing you know, you kool-aid drinking defeatocrats will be telling us that the Chinese didn't attack Pearl Harbor.

72024[/snapback]

Sorry, I misread you post. I will do my best Emily Litella here .. 'Never Mind'

[Guest Guest]

Read the following carefully, I've tried to use small words;  We are at war with

  "Global Terrorism".  "Global Terrorism" is not the name of a country, 

Reda thid carefully nitwit.

For once you're actually right about something, accident?

global terrorism IS NOT the name of a country yet we attacked/occupied a country due to the actions of your favored dimwit.

READ CAREFULLY: IRAQ is not even contained in the word global terrorism.

Didn't learn too much sitting in your air-conditioned office while a war was going on, did you?

[Bryan]

Social security is run efficiently.

You know why mail costs 41 cents a letter? Because the government set up the mail system. Go to a FedEx or UPS office and tell them you want to send a FedEx or UPS letter for 41 cents. You will be laughed out of the office.

FedEx and UPS are prevented by law from offering a competing mail service.

That's the only reason they'd be laughing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States...tutory_monopoly

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States...ail_monopoly.22

Who do you think created the National Interstate Higway system in the 50's?

71933[/snapback]

It pretty much killed rail transport, but we thought we needed to be able to move military equipment around the country quickly during the Cold War era.

Fortunately the infrastructure had positive unintended consequences.

[Bryan]

The war money is borrowed. With interest, a trillion.

For those of you who need a math refresher, that is 3,300 dollars for every man, woman and and child. A family of four has a war debt of 13,200. That is the current total.

That kind of ignores the fact that not all persons are taxed the same amount.

It increases by 500 million (1 billion with interest) every day. Later, taxes will have to be significantly increased to pay for this. Or do some of you think the tooth fairy will pay for this? There is no free ride.

First, the war expenses are no more borrowed than any other government expense (that is to say, borrowing takes place but there is no partitioning of government expenses). Bern simply makes the determination arbitrarily.

Second, neither is the economy a zero-sum game. Watch what happens to an economy when a belligerent entity puts the squeeze on energy supplies and you have some idea of the economic payoff involved in a ME intervention.

http://www.buyandhold.com/bh/en/education/.../2002/arab.html

Priorities. You pour your resources into war and the military or you can take care of your people and infrastructure.

That worked out very well for Belgium and Holland during WW2, as I recall.

I have relatives who live in Holland, where they take care of people. They are less stressed, retire earlier, don't worry about health costs, live longer and are healthier.

71676[/snapback]

... and they allow another nation to handle their security to a large degree (the United States, under NATO). They're a mite bummed because their membership in NATO is forcing them to up their military expenditures. The mostly free ride will start costing a bit more.

(see "Netherlands")

http://www.nato.int/structur/countries.htm

http://www.imf.org/external/np/ms/2005/041105.htm

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118903445878218649.html

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/may/06050202.html

[Autonomous]

Yeah, right. Next thing you know, you kool-aid drinking defeatocrats will be telling us that the Chinese didn't attack Pearl Harbor.

72024[/snapback]

Well played.

[Autonomous]

Read the following carefully, I've tried to use small words;  We are at war with

  "Global Terrorism".  "Global Terrorism" is not the name of a country, it is a

  worldwide net of terrorists that are committed to the defeat of the western

  world. That's why there have been terrorist attacks in the U.S., Spain, England,

  France, Africa, etc., etc.  After 9/11, we knew we had to "drain the swamp" and 

  Iraq was a good starting point because of Saddam's record of terrorism.

    I applaud Bush for his courage to take the fight to the terrorists, he has kept

  us safe for 6 years and  Rudy will continue to keep us on the offensive after he

  becomes president.  Semper Fi.  ( And "Guest", you keep hiding under your bed,

    the Patriots of the U.S. will protect your candy ass).

72005[/snapback]

Why Iraq instead of Iran? Saddam had no record of terrorism. The only act of terror Iraq has been definitely linked to (before we invaded) is the attempted assassination of Bush Sr. (The good Bush).

Iran, on the other hand, openly supports terrorist organizations and is obviously trying to build a nuclear weapon. Of course the experts say they're years away-but they said the same thing about North Korea. With our occupation of Iraq we can't do much about Iran unless we institute a draft. That is NOT protection-if Iran goes nuclear a nuclear terror attack WILL happen that will make 9/11 seem like a cakewalk.

[Guest Guest]

Iraq didn't attack us, doofus.

71878[/snapback]

Yeah, right. Next thing you know, you kool-aid drinking defeatocrats will be telling us that the Chinese didn't attack Pearl Harbor.

72024[/snapback]

We all know it was Iran, using themissiles sold there by Reagan

George Walker Bush-Semper Lie

[Guest what?]

Iraq didn't attack us, doofus.

71878[/snapback]

Yeah, right. Next thing you know, you kool-aid drinking defeatocrats will be telling us that the Chinese didn't attack Pearl Harbor.

72024[/snapback]

They didn't, it was the Japanese who attacked Pearl Harbor. Either your posting is extreme sarcasm (the point of which is not evident at all) or your really are misinformed.

[Bryan]

Why Iraq instead of Iran? Saddam had no record of terrorism. The only act of terror Iraq has been definitely linked to (before we invaded) is the attempted assassination of Bush Sr. (The good Bush).

Incorrect.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/9513/

Iran, on the other hand, openly supports terrorist organizations and is obviously trying to build a nuclear weapon. Of course the experts say they're years away-but they said the same thing about North Korea. With our occupation of Iraq we can't do much about Iran unless we institute a draft.

That also seems to be incorrect. It is unlikely there is any scenario, regardless of Iraq, in which it would be advisable to attempt a land invasion of Iran. Though many in Iran (as in Iraq) would be happy to see a new government take the place of the current repressive regime, Iran is larger and far tougher than Iraq. Were it not for forward operating bases on either side of Iran (Iraq and Afghanistan) it would be tough to put much pressure at all on Iran other than air strikes (which is precisely the military threat that most worries the Iranians).

That is NOT protection-if Iran goes nuclear a nuclear terror attack WILL happen that will make 9/11 seem like a cakewalk.

72201[/snapback]

Israel's probably first in line. Other than that I'm disinclined to disagree with your final statement.

[Guest a proud american]

Read the following carefully, I've tried to use small words;  We are at war with

  "Global Terrorism".  "Global Terrorism" is not the name of a country, it is a

  worldwide net of terrorists that are committed to the defeat of the western

  world. That's why there have been terrorist attacks in the U.S., Spain, England,

  France, Africa, etc., etc.  After 9/11, we knew we had to "drain the swamp" and 

  Iraq was a good starting point because of Saddam's record of terrorism.

    I applaud Bush for his courage to take the fight to the terrorists, he has kept

  us safe for 6 years and  Rudy will continue to keep us on the offensive after he

  becomes president.  Semper Fi.  ( And "Guest", you keep hiding under your bed,

    the Patriots of the U.S. will protect your candy ass).

72005[/snapback]

Perhaps you could share with the rest of us defeatacrats who you consider to be the enemies in the war on terror. And while you're at it, what countries do these terrorists live in?

I know that there are terrorists in Iraq. We helped create them. I know there are terrorists in Iran because the great leader has told us. I know there are terrorists in Afghanistan. And I know there are terrorists in Pakistan. And what do you use as criteria to determine who is a terrorist. You said we need to drain the swamp. Where would you like to start.

And as far as the 9/11 kid is concerned, what qualification does he have that makes you think that he would do any better at keeping us safer than say John Mc Cain or Fred Thompson or even the Ice Queen.

If listening to his avisors is any indication that he'll keep us safer than good luck.

Here is what we do know about the 9/11 kid. Against the best advice possible, he kept the emergency command center in the World Trade Center. From 1993 through 2001 the city of New York held no disaster drills in spite of the first attempt on the WTC.

He failed to upgrade the radio communications for both the Police and Fire Departments. And he kept the radio repeater on top of Tower one.

At the end of the day, the war on Global Terrorism is a nice sound bite but has very little meaning except to people who would be willing to give up their freedoms under the guise of being kept safe.

So keep believing the company line. Because someday the truth will come out. And the swamp that you want to drain is all about whats under the ground and it isn't water.

[Autonomous]

Incorrect.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/9513/

Please note my use of 'definitely linked to.' Strong suspicion is not definite.

That also seems to be incorrect. It is unlikely there is any scenario, regardless of Iraq, in which it would be advisable to attempt a land invasion of Iran. Though many in Iran (as in Iraq) would be happy to see a new government take the place of the current repressive regime, Iran is larger and far tougher than Iraq. Were it not for forward operating bases on either side of Iran (Iraq and Afghanistan) it would be tough to put much pressure at all on Iran other than air strikes (which is precisely the military threat that most worries the Iranians).

The problem is that taking action requires the cooperation of allies in the region. Having seen us take out one regime, it is hardly certain that they'd support us doing it again.

Israel's probably first in line. Other than that I'm disinclined to disagree with your final statement.

Of course they are. Considering that Israel is likely to be a nuclear power themselves, no one should consider that situation with anything approaching relief.

72282[/snapback]