Economy Predictions - what are yours?

No Rumsfel's plan was to ignore the generals, a civilian who doesn't have a clue doesn't override generals who know war.

I believe Rumsfel and Cheney had ulterior motives at the start of the war, Cheney knew the consequences of an invasion of Iraq, what to plan for, what was going to happen, and he promptly ignored that knowledge.

The generals said what they needed, the financial department said it would be upwards of $200 Billion, but all were ignored, I suspect to inflict the most damage to the American military as possible, to keep the war going as long as possible.

 

Double

 

Kow I want what you have been smokin'. Because I read and listen to the opposition (ie right wing) on a daily basis I can state for a fact that your words EXACTLY mirror those talking heads illustrating your penchant to follow/copy instead of research and think for yourself. Most others would not see this as they don't take the time to keep up with the neocons as I do. How about this?

VetVoice A project of VoteVets.org
Congressman McHenry Violates OPSEC; Endangers Troops
by: Brandon Friedman

Congressman Patrick McHenry (R-NC) gave away intelligence information last week that could have aided Shi'ite militias and/or other terrorist organizations in targeting the Green Zone. Only two days after McHenry promoted a video of himself in the Green Zone describing in detail the effectiveness of the rocket attacks on Easter Sunday, the area was hit with a barrage that killed two U.S. soldiers and wounded 17 It was the deadliest attack on the Green Zone so far this year.

Think Progress » Blog Archive » Rep. McHenry calls U.S. soldier in Iraq a ‘two-bit security guard.’
Rep. McHenry calls U.S. soldier in Iraq a ‘two-bit security guard.’»

During a public appearance on Saturday, Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-NC) belittled a U.S. soldier in Iraq who was following orders and wouldn’t let McHenry go to the gym without the proper credentials. McHenry referred to the guard as a “two-bit security guard“:

MJ: Back to the main article:
This quote, coupled with McHenry's comment about the "two-bit security guard" on March 29th, is not good. The bottom line is that whoever launched that strike could take the information McHenry provided and use it to kill Americans in the Green Zone. This is why professionals operating in a combat zone are trained not to reveal any battle damage after an attack. You never want the enemy to know whether or not he's been successful. In this case, Congressman McHenry very clearly broke "operations security" (OPSEC) by revealing "critical information" as defined in Army regulations.

On Saturday, I communicated with one military officer currently in the Green Zone who stated that this was "undoubtedly a violation of OPSEC." On Sunday evening, I spoke with a senior intelligence official in Washington who seemed dumbfounded by McHenry's remarks. Asked whether he considered this a breach of operations security, the official shouted over the phone at me, "Of course! He's helping to dial them in." He meant the people firing the rockets.

Unfortunately, only two days after the bellicose, yet clueless, Congressman McHenry posted the video, more rockets rained down on the Green Zone--this time killing two U.S. soldiers and wounding 17 in the most damaging attack on U.S. forces in the Green Zone since last year.

 

You just made my point. You don't think, neither did Rumsfeld, you don't listen to others advice, neither did Rumsfeld, you haven’t learned a thing from history, neither did Rumsfeld and you're basically wrong all the time as was Rumsfeld in this case by trying to minimize the cost of war with Iraq with his “Light Footprint†strategy. He tried to minimize costs by shortchanging on materials, troops and armor for the vehicles. That cost America lives when what we should have done is sweep that country from one end to the other and eliminated the terrorist means of committing violence upon our troops. Sealed the borders, guard the streets and population and bomb the F’ers that are smuggling in materials to the enemy. Obama said he’d do it. It’s terrible and it’s easier said than done but . . .

In war you never hold back you go all out to completely and utterly defeat your enemy. You lose less of your own people, less innocent casualties and less overall cost. We learned that in WWII when the Nazi's and fascism was utterly defeated. Today there are very little vestiges of it lying about and certainly none are in power. Then we promptly ignored that maxim in Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War I and now Gulf War II. Now that’s your strategy again!

Wildkow

 

If true I am outraged at this breach and likewise your outrage is noted. Now please demonstrate for me the sincerity of your outrage by summing up your comments and thoughts on this forum when the New York Times breached security by publishing facts about methods and investigations used by the FBI and CIA to secure citizens here at home.

BTW McHenry's comments were directed at one individual solider. Unlike the comments made by many Democrats when they grouped together all American Soldiers and described them as . . .

“cold blooded killers†– Sen. (D) John Murtha

Compares treatment of prisoners at Gitmo by US soldiers to Nazis, Soviet gulags and Cambodia’s Pol Pot. Sen. (D) Dick Durbin

U.S. Soldiers terrorize Iraqi children – Sen. (D) John Kerry

Fraudulent “Phony Soldier†letter used to score political points by Rep. (D) Harry Reid and signed by 41 other Democratic leaders.

I can go on and on and on. So please demonstrate your sincerity once again by refreshing my memory of your outrage when these leaders made these comments about the troops they “support.â€

Wildkow

 

Ahh, but again, history never serves a NeoCon well, none of those were justified wars, they were NeoCon police actions, even Iraq is not war, it is an illegal invasion and occupation of a sovereign country. This country only wins wars, just like most other countries, police actions and occupations usually never turn out well, because they aren't a declared war and aren't justified to go all out, so politicians run them.

Afghanistan should have been a declared war, then Bush the idiot would have had a hard time not finishing the job, not doing so opened the Pandora's Box to stupidity, which Bush has plenty of. Bush was so easily led by Cheney and Rumsfel that all they had to do is point and he went along happily.

 

Call me cynical, but I thought that was the whole idea.

 

I still believe we should have invaded Iraq and Afgan. The other solution would have been to do nothing and let them continue planning major attacks against us without intervention. I can't see how that could be a good thing. If Iraq and Afgan move towards a democracy in the next 10-15 years (And the middle east becomes more stable) which I think they will, you'll all have to eat your words. As far as the comments about the war being carried out improperly I could not agree more. And that's because Rumsfeld was an ego maniac like I said earlier. We'll never agree about this. I do have a prediction though.

You keep hearing how Obama and Clinton are against the wars. I believe if one of them is elected you will not see them pull us out quickly. Why? Because they are going to get access to classified material regarding terrorists, the Iraq situation, etc... which they don't have access to right now. And then they will decide not to pull out quickly.

I guess we'll have to wait and see if I'm correct.

 

Iraq never had any intentions of attacking the US, Afghanistan is another story altogether, but connecting them as one and the same is not justifiable. Iraq was planned as a money pit, if you believe it was justifiable, if you believe we shouldn't have gone into Iraq, then you would be one of the people that believe we should have finished off Al Qaeda and Osama in Afghanistan, where there was a clear reason for attacking, invading and destroying.

Iraq can be made to believe anything you want to make it at this point, you can pretend its a terrorist stronghold, you can pretend its all Al Qaeda, you can even pretend its the savior of the US for some reason, but its none of those, they are just pretend dreams. I'll tell you what Iraq is, its a money pit, its a bunch of groups wanting control of all the wealth, including the US, and it wouldn't be a terrorist stronghold of people wanting to destroy the US, unless we stay there forever, which is the current plan. Iraq will align itself with its only ally in the region, one that shares the majority religious sect, Iran, and Shiites are NOT friends with Al Qaeda, who are mostly Sunni, and Sunni that are not Iraqis. And I'll qualify that, YET.

 

Iraq did not plan on attacking us personally and Al Qaeda was not in the the country..... But Iraq had plenty of nuclear scientists that Sadam was willing to let other countries borrow, they had lots of money, and they had a strong hate for us. Breaking up the Iraq government and trying to push it towards a democracy was not a bad idea.

 

Kow, are you obtuse or just have alzheimers? The last time you 'called me out' I ignored you until you became so ridiculous that I made the following response. It seems that one size all response fits anything you may direct my way, so let me refresh your memory:

http://priuschat.com/forums/freds-h...gast-breadth-gop-corruption-4.html#post580164
Kow, there is nothing you can EVER say to me which will impinge my understanding and credibility because I read, document, and have a modicum of intelligence. You may not like my politics but I don't make unsubstantiated statements of fact. I do give opinions occasionally, and opinions don't have to be substantiated. I may even interpret a reading of fact differently than you, but that is no reason for you to not agree to disagree. I'd really prefer not to put you on ignore because I like reading the oppositions FACTS but you are getting really as irritating as ringworm, and will soon lose your right to spread your drivel to yet one more person who could use a dose of oppositional reality.

 

You have way more than a modicum of intelligence.

 

Sure, of course, only in this country (USA). Please direct me to a country where the "rich people" (I assume they are the "evil people" to you) are satisfied and give away their money as soon as they EARN it.

Perhaps all rich people and the government should give away all their money. Then no one would have to work... Then, we'd all be rich!

Rick
#4 2006

 

Great idea!! :humble:Just kidding...

I don't think we should play Robin Hood, but I think that no one should have an unfair advantage. With great wealth comes power and influence and an ability to open doors. Every American should be willing to do their part to keep our country great, a place where everyone has a fair shake. I have a problem with a tax cut for the wealthiest 2% of Americans when we are at war, when we are lagging behind the world in science and technology, when children are starving, bridges are collapsing, and gas is over $3 a gallon. I wish that there were more people willing to give back to the system that allowed them to achieve such wealth. I know they are out there. I work in the development department of my employer and we elicit gifts to support medical research. There are people who care about what happens to the world after they are gone, who want to make a difference, who want to give something back, something to the human race. We need more like them. This land belongs to us all and we all have a stake in it. Right now, with the economy tanking, we will all suffer, some way more than others. I know, as a single mom, I pull my share of the weight, as far as staying out of the red, earning a good salary, paying my bills, raising my son to be a good, responsible man, etc. With prices on everything rising and rising, it is going to hurt our lifestyle. There are people who aren't in as good shape as I and they will really suffer. I'm not saying we should all pay their way. I just think that giving tax cuts to people who don't need it shouldn't be more of a priority than funding programs that keep families off the street or better schools, not to mention keeping bridges from collapsing and helping devastated people who lost everything they had in a hurricane. Everybody needs to pay their fair share.

 

Sure it was a bad idea, Iraq was/is never going to be a Democracy, and it never will be, it might be something close to a Religious Republic, but Democracy, nope, not going to happen, all you have to do is look at history, you think 1000's of years of history is going to be fixed by the Great Satan?

Its very sad that Americans fall for the Democracy carrot/slight of hand joke by politicians, they fall into the daze of yeah they will be just like us, but have no knowledge of what the area is really like, about the muslim religion, about what the different sects are all about, how religious leaders have an almost Jim Jones fascination on their followers, how the region is oil wealth and poor, a middle class in shambles, a majority sect that now is free to align themselves with Iran.

Yep, its going to be a Democracy alright, a belief by the worst US leader in history is something you want to believe in, pretty sad. A leader who believed that it was only going to cost $50 Billion, our soldiers were going to be treated as liberators with flowers thrown in the streets, a leader who made a decision to invade an innocent country before finishing off the attackers of 9/11?

 

It was ignorance of history and great arrogance that made those in this adminstration think they could march in there, wave a magic democracy wand, and everything would just fall into place. Like you said, for thousands of years, there have been great and ongoing conflict between religious sects, changes of regimes, and different cultural, governmental, and societal factors in play in that region. So many complex issues that were not studied by Bush, inc., of course. Ignorant cowboy foreign policy. It's downright embarrassing, frankly.

 

OK, here's the rub. In any country there will always be rich people, there will always be poor people. Rich people are usually rich because they are intelligent, work hard, etc. Oh sure, some get rich just being born with a certain name, but that comes with the territory.

Rich people HAVE to spend their money eventually. They won't burn it and they know they can only live so long. Rich people buy stuff. Lots of stuff. Like land; land that will be developed and create jobs and create houses for people to live. They buy Gulfstream jets; constructed by thousands upon thousands of hard working, well paid blue collar employees. They buy boats made by the same. They vacation at places all staffed by people with jobs to support there families. They create jobs, lots and lots of jobs. Hmm, I wonder how many people depend on their livelihood just because of Bill Gates and his vision with Microsoft? And how our lives are better because of the device called the computer.

Nearly everyone wants to be rich or at least make more money than they are presently. The human system is set up to reward those who create and invent ideas and things that make our lives better. Take away that incentive with punitive taxes and such and you have less rich people and less incentive to create. Heck, why should I put in 80 hours a week at my business knowing full well the government will take away most of my windfall.

Imagine life 100, 200, or even 2,000 years ago. Imagine getting a simple toothache back then or a simple infection. Imagine spending your entire day just gathering food. Because of rich people we can only improve our condition.

I am continually discouraged by those who blame all their ills and economic woes to "rich people". I usually think of those as immature, whiners, followers. Those who will never make a positive contribution to this world.

So is the economy "bad"? Depends on who you ask. The whiners, followers, or those who have the foresight and creativity to make everyones' lives better.

Rick
#4 2006

 

I would argue that there is a general tendancy for the rich or ultra-rich to maintain that status by taking advantage of various financial systems that make it easier for them to amass even more wealth and with their disproportionate influence they can further manipulate those financial systems to their advantage. So to say all of these rich people EARNED their money and are somehow entitled to it is in error IMO. Too many people had to be stepped on, too many systems are tweaked in their favor, and too many rights have been violated to make your statement true across the board.

 

Your view on the economy is too short-sighted IMO. You again lump people into two categories. How an economy is built and what it is based on is VERY important and in that respect those who are building it should be looked at differently according to their methods. Someone who is taking advantage of systems and plundering the wealth/well being of future generations should not be held in high esteam in my opinion.

 

But there are also many who worked three jobs to get through college and built a better life for themselves and for their own. They had the drive, the will, and the spirit to create their own wealth and in this country, you can do that. I agree that all rich people are not the enemy to the rest of us poor suckers. There are some greedy a$$holes out there, however, for whom there is never enough wealth, never enough power, never enough - period. They take and give nothing back. They exploit everyone they meet and value money more than anything else - life, the world, and the land within which they thrive. Their priorities are only self-serving. Those are the enemies of us ALL. Spoiled, rich, entitled, self-centered, misguided party boys who never had to work for anything and never learned what's really important, like our president. Unfortunately, that ilk has a tendency to give the general population a bad opinion of the rich. As noted above, there will always be rich and poor, haves and have nots. It should be the goal of every American to give something back to the good of our nation and to not take more than what they've earned, more than their fair share. I apply that same principle to lazy slobs who lay around, refuse to work, and collect government funds that are meant for people who are acturally trying to move up in the world. They take away opportunities from people who, with a little help, could potentially lift themselves up to a better life. The greedy scum of the earth make it hard for everyone.