I am thoroughly sick of this CRA....!

Here's annother example of our robust economy...

Full article here: http://money.cnn.com/2006/10/26/news/econo...sion=2006102610

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Oct 24 2006, 03:14 AM) [snapback]337217[/snapback]</div>

Solution? My solution would have been not to invade Iraq, after all, from what I can find out, they had nothing to do with 911, nor were they any sort of threat to anyone. Pretty easy to sit around and shout what is your solution after the clusterf**k is initiated...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tleonhar @ Oct 26 2006, 04:28 PM) [snapback]338839[/snapback]</div>

Yeah they're moving to Ca. & Fl.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Beryl Octet @ Oct 26 2006, 01:43 PM) [snapback]338848[/snapback]</div>

Betcha our pilots that were enforcing the UN no-fly zone and getting shot at each day would disagree with you. And by the way so do all of these folks. . . [attachmentid=5491]


"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Oct 26 2006, 01:37 PM) [snapback]338693[/snapback]</div>

How about a solution from the right from someone OTHER than G.W.? Or the center?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Oct 26 2006, 01:37 PM) [snapback]338693[/snapback]</div>

Yeah, wish I'd bought stock in prosthetics companies.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Oct 27 2006, 08:54 AM) [snapback]339199[/snapback]</div>

The 9/11 crew was 15 Saudis, if I remember right. Did they catch Osama yet? Did they catch the Anthrax Killer yet? Why trust them on invading Iraq, a country that had zero to do with either?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Oct 27 2006, 08:54 AM) [snapback]339199[/snapback]</div>

I saw Condi Rice squirming and explaining about some report they had called "Bin Laden Determine to Attack in US." They were so stressed out about it that the President had to take a month off to Crawford to calm his nerves in August '01.

 

Why do conservatives are so convinced they are right in spite of all the evidence?

Just follow the link in my sig to the Frontline documentaries or read any of these books:

Cobra II
by Michael R. Gordon, Bernard E. Trainor

Fiasco
by Thomas E. Ricks

State of Denial
by Bob Woodward

Imperial Life in the Emerald City
by Rajiv Chandrasekaran

The Prince of the Marshes
by Rory Stewart

The Assassins' Gate
by George Packer

Right. But that would mean discussing facts rather than opinions. We wouldn't want to do that. I am going to change my avatar for a couple of days in honor of this thread.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Oct 27 2006, 10:02 AM) [snapback]339225[/snapback]</div>

I don't think anyone truly believes that catching OBL would make terrorism magically disappear. But we were told after 9/11:

6-months later we were told:

And now the RNC is using OBL in a campaign ad which (according to them) "underscores the high stakes America faces in the global war on terror by using the words of the terrorists themselves as they describe their intention towards the United States".

A few questions arise from this:

1. If our President isn't that concerned about him, why should we be?
2. If he's not that important, why would the RNC be using him in a commercial?
3. If he is important/dangerous, then why isn't our President concerned about him?
4. Why would the RNC use the image of a guy we swore to catch? Won't that just remind people that he hasn't been caught??

I can accept that President Bush went overboard with the "dead or alive" statement. It was made a week after we were attacked. I don't fault him for that. But to go from finding him being our "number one priority" to "it's not our priority" ... I just don't get that.

Most of the country was completely behind the invasion of Afghanistan. That's where the bastard who orchestrated the attack on us was hiding. We wanted blood, and we wanted OBL's blood. When the talk about Iraq started, people started asking "what about the guy that, you know, actually attacked us".

 

I think the whole problem is we didn't finish what we started in Afganistain before we went elsewhere. Bush was to much in a hurry and over loaded his paper plate.

Plus noboby thinks that "If you send someone to War you better be willing to do all that is needed to win it. You must also accept responsiblity for those that are killed and lamed on both sides. War doesn't recognize innocence, it kills it too.
I have served in the Military but not in a War. I know it's easy for those that have never seen War up front and close to make bold statements. Flying a plane in the Nat. Guard or seeing a movie about War doesn't count. My uncle was dropped behind enemy lines on D-Day. I never knew it till I heard his eulogy, gee I WONDER WHY?.

 

All of those ARMs that the Fed allowed banks give to people who shouldn't have gotten them in the first place are now coming back to haunt us.

The one thing that's actually been propping up our floundering economy has been home values, and people borrowing against them...now it's coming to a screeching halt.

Personally (and I hate to say it), it's looking like it's going to be a great time to make a bundle on distressed real estate.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Proco @ Oct 27 2006, 11:08 AM) [snapback]339330[/snapback]</div>

I think it may be overstating things a little to say that most of the country was behind the invasion of Afghanistan. There sure was

I think that our will, as a group, vascillates incredibly often...the combination of asking us to vote on things that we don't fully understand and our increasingly short attention span makes us that much easier to manipulate.

I'm with you...I don't buy the "will of the people" argument, generally speaking (which the GOP seems to use whenever it's handy). I mean, the "will of the people" was against interracial marriage, for example...

That's what laws are for. To prevent mob rule.

The reality of it is that we as citizens (I, at least), just don't have the knowledge or insight to really understand the nuances of the issues...that's why we're *supposed to* be able to trust our elected officials to consider the good of us all, over the demands of certain special interest groups.

Now, however, the bond of trust has been broken, perhaps for good, and it's become everyone for him/herself. How sad.

 

When I was in Iraq, my CO (a 1LT who loved Ronald Reagan) told me he was glad GW Bush and not Al Gore was president during 9/11. His rationale was that if Gore had been president, he would have responded to 9/11 as a criminal act, and not a state-sponsored act of war.

This is the crux of the issue. 9/11 was a criminal act perpetrated by one individual and his criminal organization. If any state could be associated with it, it was primarily Afghanistan. But the secondary state associated with 9/11 wasn't Iraq, it was Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is where the seeds of radical terrorism is fermented.

So, the correct course of action after 9/11 would have been, obviously, to get Osama bin Laden. Since he was in Afghanistan, and Afghanistan supported him, invading Afghanistan was, in the words of Dick Cheney when speaking about water-boarding to get information from 'terrorists', a no-brainer.

Afghanistan was the one thing that Tenet and the CIA did correctly. Unfortunately, the CIA's initial great success also created so much jealousy within Rumsfeld, that Rumsfeld felt he had to undercut Tenet by witholding US troops to finish the job (and get bin Laden), and then to 'one-up' Tenet by having an even greater military success in Iraq. Rumsfeld's vanity, combined with the looney neo-con ideology (championed by Rumsfeld's butt-buddy Cheney) and Bush's outright stupidity, is the reason we're mired in Iraq.

Instead of going after Iraq after Afghanistan, a long-term plan would have with been to deal with Saudi Arabia in a Cold War, Low Intensity Conflict (LIC) that, like the Cold War, would have taken decades. But, considering the connections of wealth involved, the likelihood of doing anything that might offend the Saudis was extremely remote.

As to the 'what's your solution?' bullshit question, Bush and the Republicans have managed to make what was initially a straightforward situation so convoluted and complicated with their every decision, I don't think Solomon could come up with a good answer to that one.

Frankly, I'm all for pulling out of Iraq immediately, letting it collapse into anarchy and chaos, possibly setting off an all-out, all-encompassing, massive Middle-Eastern conflict, probably involving Saudi Arabia, Israel, and nukes. That way, the United States can do what it does best, i.e., sit back and sell weapons systems to everyone involved, make tons of money in the process, then move in after everyone has annihilated each other. I get the feeling that's exactly what the Europeans are waiting for.

OTOH, if a US pullout from Iraq left the situation the same as when the US left Vietnam, well, about the only bad thing might be an exponental increase in gas prices, maybe finally weaning US auto manufacturers and consumers from gas-guzzlers.

But then, I drive a Prius...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Proco @ Oct, 11:08 AM) [snapback]339330[/snapback]</div>

OBL did not orchestrate 9/11, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed did. OBL just funded it. The U.S. gov't made up the term "Al-Qaeda" in 2001 with OBL as its leader so that it could tie the perpetrators of the 1998 U.S. Embassy bombings together into an "organization" to make prosecution of OBL easier.

The Power of Nightmares explains this all pretty well.

Our gov't sold us a story, and we bought it.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Oct 23 2006, 09:52 AM) [snapback]336833[/snapback]</div>

What is this thing trying to pass for a human?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alnilam @ Oct, 10:23 PM) [snapback]340484[/snapback]</div>

It's a mystery.