61% of historians agree: W. Bush is worst ever - Page 6 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 05-06-2008, 01:21 AM   #76
Blue Crack Addict
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 26,640
Local Time: 04:04 AM
All of this is moot anyway. Until it is, you know, history. Til then, it's just posturing.

the tourist is offline  
Old 05-06-2008, 10:07 AM   #77
U2387's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 2,167
Local Time: 07:04 AM
Strongbow: Your ingorance on the Condi Rice/Colin Powell quotes is shocking, as is the Iraq military and national debt/economy stuff. The people with the most to say often have no idea what they are talking about. All of your line by line responses are meaningless and dont rebut anything with facts, just speculation and putting words in people's mouths. Bosnia is a perfect example- we of course were 90% of that very small peacekeeping force that was deployed to the region, yet you try and sell this as something on par with our full scale military invasion of Iraq. Pathetic. Then your Iraq military strength BS-- would only fly if the rest of the middle eastern militaries consisted of speed boats and handguns. You make Saddam out to be the next Alexander the great, he was far from that and you are crazy for putting forth Iraq as a even a regional, never mind a global military threat.

I will not be entering this thread again or responding to your posts, because you obviously are so blinded by your love for Bush that you can not see facts and have to turn factual rebuttals offered by others into 'liberal fantasy.' In your world, speculation is fact and facts are liberal conspiracies. The FACTS, as have been verified by our own intelligence are that Bush has not made us safer, Al Qaeda is stronger and we are bogged down in a quagmire in Iraq. Economically, our own executive office of budget and management confirms the numbers I have spoke of. You can have your own opinion but not your own facts. These are facts, and the rest is just you living in denial. Have a nice day, WATCH OUT FOR PAKISTAN, YOU HEARD THAT HERE FIRST.

U2387 is offline  
Old 05-06-2008, 10:10 AM   #78
love, blood, life
A_Wanderer's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 09:04 PM
What sort of action do you think should happen in regards to Pakistan.
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 05-07-2008, 12:32 PM   #79
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 11:04 AM
Originally posted by U2387
Here you go:In Cairo, on February 24 2001, Powell said: "He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours."

Two months later, Condoleezza Rice also described a weak, divided and militarily defenceless Iraq. "Saddam does not control the northern part of the country," she said. "We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."

Colin Powell has consistently stated that he supports the removal of Saddam from power because he was a threat. More than a year after he left the Bush administration, he continued to state in an interview with Barbara Walters, that when President Bush said it was not tolerable for Saddam to remain in violation of the UN resolutions, he is right there with Bush on the US of military force to remove Saddam.

As for the qoute, the United States did not have specific evidence at the time that Saddam had developed a new significant capability in regards to a specific type of WMD, but that did not mean that there were not thousands of unaccounted for stocks of WMD which UN inspectors including Scott Ritter in 1998 had reported were missing. At no time did Saddam EVER fully comply with all of the demands of the UN inspections, the UN resolutions, or the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire agreement.

Saddam had a the largest military in the Persian Gulf and was still fully capable of moving that military force around the country as well as entering Kuwait. Its most likely that Colin Powell simply mispoke, since that is just glaringly false. In fact, members of Saddam's army had in the 1990s crossed the border into Kuwait temporarily to take abandoned damaged Iraqi vehicles in the desert back into Iraq and repair them.

All of Saddam's remaining Republican Guard Divisions could still be moved all across the country and into Kuwait if Saddam so desired. In late 1994, Two of Saddam's Republican Guard divisions, the Hammurabi and Al-Nida Armored Divisions, moved quickly towards Kuwait in a similar way that they had back in 1990. The United States response was to deploy over 120,000 troops to the Persian Gulf, but it took a considerable amount of time to deploy the entire force. One can debate about what would have happened if Saddam had actually invaded Kuwait, but what is not debatable is the fact that the United States was forced into a situation where it had to send a large substantial force thousands of miles to meet up with the limited number of US forces in the region in order to try to combat a potential invasion of Kuwait or attempt to reverse an Iraqi invasion and occupation of Kuwait.

If Iraq had no ability to project conventional military power upon its neighbors, the United States would not be needing to deploy such large forces to the region. The problem for the United States is the limited number of troops it was basing in the region because of political restrictions, and the difficulty and time involved in shipping the much larger forces from the United States and other parts of the world in order to deal with a crises situation there.

With the Condoleezza Rice qoute, again it appears that she is misspeaking as the United States nor any other country did not have the ability to "keep his arms from him". Its true in 2001 that Iraqi forces had not rebuilt the capabilities they once had before the 1991 Gulf War, but with sanctions and the weapons embargo starting to fall apart in 2000 and even countries like France, Russia and China violating sanctions restrictions on Iraq, it was only a matter of time before Iraq would be able to rebuild the capabilities they once had. In addition, while Saddam did not have troops stationed in Kurdistan, he had at several points launched successful offensives into Kurdistan to crush uprisings that threatened the regime further south including uprisings that were started and supplied by the CIA.

Its not wise to cherry pick a few qoutes and make wild extrapolations based on them.

Iraq had been disarmed, Ritter's 1998 quote was referring to the period before the inspectors were pulled. As for all the weapons you keep saying he was continuing to compile, where are they? You have a higher burden of proof here since they have not been found and sources in military, intelligence, even Bush have said they were not there. The Burger King incident was never pursued by prosecutors, so there.
If Iraq had been verifiably disarmed, Iraq would not have been in violation of multiple UN resolutions in regards to disarmament on the eve of the 2003 invasion. Ritter himself stated in 1998 that Iraq had failed to account for thousands of stocks of WMD. Its not incumbent upon the United States or any other country to prove or show where such WMD was either stored or dismantled if that in fact happened. Its Iraq's responsibility to do that per the terms they signed onto on the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire agreement. Verifiable disarmament means Iraq had to dismantle ALL WMD in a way that UN inspectors could verify. Failure to show where certain WMD was located or where it was dismantled is a violation of the terms. Its not the UN's or the United States responsibility to verifiably disarm Iraq of WMD, it was Saddam's responsibility, and Saddam failed to do that. Regardless of what you think of Ritter's BK incident, he had already contradicted himself on numourous occasions and never claimed that Saddam had complied with all the terms of disarmament when he was still a UN inspector.

Clinton and other supported regime change/were concerned about Iraq. I thought I already dealt with that. I never said otherwise- what they were concerned about was getting the weapons out and verifying that they were destroyed and Saddam was contained through the sanctions, which he was. The policy of invading regardless of facts was hatched by the PNAC. They were looking for an excuse, that is obvious, connect the dots. DO NOT PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH. His wife and Biden voted for the war? Again, resolution to use force, not war, and Bush did not abide by the terms of a resolution that he had drafted in bad faith, so that 2002 vote is meaningless.
Bill Clinton went on Larry King Live the week before the invasion and stated that Bush was doing the right thing. You can spin the Iraq vote in 2002 any way you want it, but it does not change the fact that it was vote for war against Iraq. If that was not the case where was Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton attempting to pass a congresional resolultion to block the invasion in March 2003? Where was their impassioned opposition and protest to the invasion in March 2003? There was essentially none, because overall they supported the policy and the invasion. But I challenge you to find one qoute from Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton saying that Bush was doing the WRONG thing the week of the invasion. Just ONE!

You seem to think Iraq invaded 4 countries. I count 2- Iran and Kuwait, the former with the material support of the US and the latter with the passive non resistance of Ambassador April Glaspie. Saddam's military again, has a record of getting run down like boy scouts, what part of that dont you understand?
Talk about puting words in peoples mouths. I said Iraq invaded and ATTACKED four different countries unprovoked. Saddam invaded Iran in 1980 with no material support from the United States at all. It was not until 1983 and the difficulties that the Iraqi military was having fighting the Iranians that the United States began to offer some limited aid, but the vast bulk of all of Iraq's weaponry and training came from the Soviet Union which had over 1,000 military personal stationed in Iraq during the entire Iran/Iraq war.

Saddam then invaded Kuwait in August of 1990. In February of 1991, Iraq launched Scud Missiles into Saudi Arabia and sent an Iraqi armored division across the border from Kuwait into Saudi Arabia and captured the Saudi Arabian town of Kafji. In addition to this Iraq launched dozens of Scud Missiles into Israel which could have been armed with unconventional warheads. So yes, thats four countries either invaded or attacked by Saddam. Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Israel.

Saddam's military ended up crushing the Iranian military at the end of the war. By 1989, Saddam's had 12 times as many tanks as Iran(nearly 6,000 for Iraq to just 500 for Iran, which just goes to show you how badly the Iranian military was defeated on the battlefield late in the war. It only took Saddam 48 hours to overrun Kuwait in 1990, and your hero Joe Biden never refered to the Iraqi military as a bunch of Boy Scouts in the run up to the Gulf War. The Democrats were predicting that the United States would lose tens of thousands of troops in the 1991 Gulf War, despite the fact that the United States through Saddam's mistakes had been given time to build up significantly large forces in Saudi Arabia.

The Iranians are dealing w/ their own Kurdish problem, and were not supporting the Kurds at the time at all. Learn history, Kurdistan encompasses parts of Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Azerbaijan. Gas used by only Iranians took out the Kurds in 1988, google the US Army war college study on this. They were able to use the Iran-Iraq war as cover for something they had always wanted to do.
The major incident of the gassing of Kurds in 1988 took place March 16-17, 1988 in the IRAQI town of Halabja. Nearly 5,000 were killed and nearly 10,000 were injured. This was not something that took place inside Iran with Iranian Kurds. It is true that there were allegations that Iran was responsible for the attack based on the results of the deaths and the toxins that appeared to have caused those deaths, but those test were far from being conclusive. Dr Jean Pascal Zanders, Project Leader of the Chemical and Biological Warfare Project at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) concluded in 2007 that Iraq was the culprit, and not Iran. Joost Hiltermann, who was the principal researcher for the HRW between 1992-1994, conducted a two-year study, including a field investigation in northern Iraq, capturing Iraqi government documents in the process. According to his analysis of thousands of captured Iraqi secret police documents and declassified U.S. government documents, as well as interviews with scores of Kurdish survivors, senior Iraqi defectors and retired U.S. intelligence officers, it is clear that Iraq carried out the attack on Halabja. This research concluded there were numerous other gas attacks, unquestionably perpetrated against the Kurds by the Iraqi armed forces. According to Hiltermann, the literature on the Iran-Iraq war reflects a number of allegations of CW use by Iran, but these are "marred by a lack of specificity as to time and place, and the failure to provide any sort of evidence". He calls these allegations "mere assertions" and adds: "no persuasive evidence of the claim that Iran was the primary culprit was ever presented".

Iraq never had nuclear weapons, never was proven to have used chemical weapons on anyone but the Iranians, and with the full blessing and support of the United States, in fact we sold them to Saddam, Rumsfeld's pal at the time. So that is no justification for invading them in 2003 over weapons that had been verifiably destroyed. Pakistan verifiably has weapons and is teetering on the brink of al qaeda takeover. That is a much more serious threat than Iraq was in 2003. Bin Laden was the biggest threat in the region, bar none in 2003.
No one ever said that Iraq had nuclear weapons, but US weapons inspectors in 1991 that Iraq was nearly 1 year away from having a nuclear weapon when previous intelligence had stated they were over 10 years away from getting a nuclear weapon.

It has been proven multiple times that Iraq used WMD on its own citizens and Iranians. The United States never sold Iraq ANY WMD. Its an absurd and laughable allegation. The United States did allow Iraq to obtain duel use items some of which later were used to produce Biological Weapons that were never used in the Iran/Iraq war. Such duel use items were available to any country in the world though as long as they were not currently on the the United States list of terrorist sponsors. The United States did provide 5 Billion dollars in loans to Iraq, Trucks, Transport Helicopters, Computers and other technical equipment, as well as duel use medical equipment, but it never provided Iraq with Combat Weapons, or any form of WMD or weaponized material for WMD.

Pakistan was not in 2003 and is not now about to fall to Al Quada. There are serious problems with certain tribes in North West Pakistan who harbor remaining elements of Al Quada and support the remaining Taliban in Afghanistan, but the situation there is much more complex and presents a very different type of problem than the situation with Saddam in Iraq in 2003. The probability that Pakistan was going to be overthrown by a few hundred members of Al Quada in 2003 was next to impossible, while Saddam invading and attacking Persian Gulf Oil supply either then or years later with the aid of new weapons acquired because the containment regime had fallen apart was a very likely senerio that required that Saddam be removed from power.

Now I think its time for a word about Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction that you continue to maintain were verifiably destroyed. I give you UN resolution 1441 passed in November of 2002 by a unnanomous vote which had even Syria voting in support of it, take note of the following lines in the resolution:

Recognizing the threat Iraq’s non-compliance with Council resolutions and
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to
international peace and security,

Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and
complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its
programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a
range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such
weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all
other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not
related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,


Sorry, but Saddam NEVER verifiably destroyed all of their WMD as required by the United Nations according to the United Nations based on what the inspectors new.

Iraq was not the strongest military in the region, ever, period. Just take Saudi Arabia and Egypt. In terms of overall military strength it has to be the Saudis or Egyptians. The Saudis have 315 M1A2 tanks and are going to be recieving 58 M1A2SEP. The Egyptians have over 750 M1A1 tanks. In terms of APC/IFV, The Saudis have Bradleys, LAVs, Mowag Piranha, and varients of the M113 whereas the Egyptians equipment mostly consists of old Soviet equipment with the exception of the M113.The Egyptians have a larger army but the Saudis have the advantage of American military assistance with training they also have better communication equipment. Also in the case of a war the Egyptians have a large trained reserve to call on. Both countries possess the AH-64 but it is the Egyptians that have the AH-64D. As long as the Saudi army stayed loyal they almost certainly have a superior army to the Egyptians. In the air the Egyptians modern fighter inventory consists of 20 Mirage 2000C and over 200 F-16 40 of them are block 30/32 and about 130 of them are of the modern block 40 configuration. They also have some E-2 hawkeyes. The Saudis have 96 Tornado IDS, about 60 F-15C/D, and about 70 F-15s (Similar to the F-15E but less advanced). Additionally the Saudis have an order for 72 Eurofighter Typhoons to begin deliveries in 2008. The Saudis undoubtedly have the strongest airforce (except for Israel) in the region. In terms of Navies the Egyptians have 2 Jianghu class patrol frigates, 2 Knox class anti-submarine frigates, and 4 Olivar Hazard Perry class frigates. The Saudis have three Lafayette type stealth frigates which are far superior to anything the Egyptians have.
Well, first let me inform you that EGYPT is NOT in the Persian Gulf. It is nearly 1,000 miles from the Kuwait/Iraqi border as well as the Persian Gulf. Overland, Egypt would have to go through Israel Jordan and hundreds of miles of desert in Saudi Arabia just to get down to the Persian Gulf. When Egyptian forces deployed to Saudi Arabia in 1990, they were transported by sea by the United States, but it took months for those forces to get there. Egypt played little if any serious combat role in the 1991 Gulf War in any event. In terms of an immediate Iraqi attack on Kuwait and northern Saudi Arabia, there would be virtually nothing Egypt could do because they are simply to far away and don't have the resources independently to send and supply their ground forces that far from home. Some of their air assets could be available but thats it.

So forgetting Egypt since its not relevant to combat situations in the Persian Gulf area around Kuwait, lets move on to Saudi Arabia. Yes, Saudi Arabia TODAY has 315 M1A2 Tanks, but it did not have such tanks back in 1990 when Iraq invaded Kuwait. Its total tank force was only 550, less than 10% of Iraq's. TODAY Saudi Arabia does have 910 tanks, but nearly half of them are in storage. Saudi Arabia only actively uses 115 of the 315 M1A2 tanks that it has. The other 200 are kept in storage. The rest of the tanks that fill up its 14 tank Battalions are the older M-60 tanks. The Saudi's are only actively using 550 of their tanks, which is still less than 1/5 of what Saddam had potentially ready to throw into any offensive to the south of Iraq.

Yes, the Saudi Military does possess the AH-64 Attack Helicopter. Its the only attack Helicopter they have and they only have a grand total of 12 of them. In 1990 when Iraq invaded Kuwait, the Saudi's had no attack Helicopters.

The Saudi Airforce today does have 278 combat Aircraft and impressive Aircraft types like the F-15S, F-15C, F-15D and the Tornado IDS. But this leads me to my next point, Saudi training and combat experience are notably lacking compared to Iraqi's. The situation was worse back in 1990, but it has not improved to the degree that it should be today. Combat experience as well as training are important factors in assessing overall capability. A force with superior equipment can be defeated by a more experienced, motivated, and trained force with equipment that is relatively dated. Iraq never gained the upper hand over Iran until the Soviet trainers succeeded in developing the Iraqi Republican Guard into a trained military force capable of executing large scale military manevours at every level from the Battalion level all the way up to the divisional and Corp level. Iraq's forces had the extensive experience of nearly 25 years of war, whether it was against Iran, Kuwait, the United States and its allies, or rebels within Iraq. Saudi Arabia does not have nearly that level of experience, and their participation in the actual combat of Desert Storm in 1991 was rather limited. While some equipment types obviously favored Saudi Arabia in 2003, training, combat experience, and raw numbers favored Iraq.

But lets go back to 1990 and actually look at what Kuwait had that only lasted less than 48 hours against Saddam. Kuwait had 275 Tanks including 70 Vickers Mk 1, and 165 British Chieftains which were once regarded as the best tank in the world. When it came to other armored vehicles they had 100 Saladin's, 90 Ferret's, 50 BMP-2's, 200 M-113, 130 Saracen, 100 Fahd. With Artillery Kuwait had 16 M-101, 40 AMX Mk F-3, 36 M-109A2's, 12 FROG-7 launchers. With Anti-Tank Guided Weapons Kuwait had 20 HOT Missile launchers, 56 TOW mounted M-901's, 200 Vigilant. The Airforce had 20 Mirage F-1CK, and 4 F-1BK. 12 SA-342 Attack Helicopters armed with HOT Anti-Tank Missiles, and 6 AS-332's armed with the Exocet anti-ship missle.

All of what Kuwait had was crushed by two Republican Guard Divisions, TWO, in less than 48 hours in early August 1990. Iraq had 6 other Republican Guard Divisions well over 50 regular army Divisions. Iraq had the worlds 4th largest military in 1990 and even in 2003, Iraq's weakened military was still the 15th largest in the world, with one of the worlds largest inventories of military equipment. It was determined in 2003 after the initial invasion that Iraq had more ammo and munitions and other military related stockpiles still after all this time, than any other country in the world except for the United States and Russia when counting individual shells, missiles, bullets etc.

Again, you cannot narrowly caculate overall military power by simply listing a few equipment types. Training, combat experience, motivation, as well as raw numbers also heavily impact such caculations. Saddam was consider to have by for the most powerful Arab military force in 1990. In 2003, his military weakened by the first Gulf War, and unable to start rebuilding until recently because of the sanctions and embargo, was still regarded by most experts to the strongest military force in the Persian Gulf Region, ie countries bordering the Persian Gulf.

Israel and Turkey are significantly stronger than Iraq ever was. All the countries I mentioned relied on modern US weaponry as they are our allies, while Iraq was still relying on outdated Soviet weaponry that never matched up in the first place.
Turkey in 1990 was not stronger than Iraq, in 2003 an arguement could be made that Turkey was indeed stronger, but not strong enough or positioned properly do to geography to stop a determined thrust by Saddam's military into Kuwait. Israel's forces are very advanced, but numerically small and face multiple other security problems in defending a country with such a thin and vulnerable geography. Just as Egypt is not positioned to intervene in a timely manner in the Persian Gulf in a significant and decisive way, neither is Israel, plus Israel is further strained by other security concerns. So again, not only are raw numbers, training, combat experience important, technology of equipment, but so is geography, and other political and security situations which heavily influence the ability of the country in question to play any sort of a role in a crises in the Persian Gulf.

Saddam only got Iran because he was propped up by the US.
Saddam was not propped up by the United States. More than 90% of the funding for Iraq in the 1980s came from Arab States, the Soviet Union, China and some European countries. The United States played a relatively minor role. The Iraqi's were flooded with Equipment from the Soviet Union in the 1980s, and they were able to produce spare parts for such equipment as well as manufacture their own ammunition and other vital things to keep that military in the field.

Iraq has never had the industrial capacity, the self-sustaining economy, the domestic arms industry, the population base, the coherent ideology or political mobilization, the powerful allies, or any of the necessary components for large-scale military conquest that the German, Italian, and Japanese fascists of the 1930s and 1940s had.
Iraq and many other countries don't actually need several of those things to pose a massive threat to the United States and the world. Saddam does not need a force large enough for continental conquest on a scale relative to World War II Germany and Japan. All he needs is a force strong enough to overrun Kuwait. Its only 60 miles from the Iraq/Kuwait border to Kuwait City. The Iraqi border is only 300 miles from the Saudi capital of Riyad. Just 20 miles across the Saudi border from Kuwait lies the start of the rich Saudi oil fields, so Saddam would not need to even go all the way to the Saudi Capital to cause massive damage. With so much of the planets oil supply located in close proximity in and around Kuwait, either in Kuzistan in Southwestern Iran, Kuwait itself, or North Eastern Saudi Arabia, Saddam does not have to go very far, several dozen miles in each direction, to cause massive damage, against countries that are relatively weaker than he is when you accurately caculate all of the factors that determine military strength.

One thing that Saddam has, that Hitler never did is relatively advanced technology, Ballistic Missiles, more sophisticated WMD and he came closer to building a Nuclear Weapon than Hitler ever did. Plus, Saddam's Iraq is geographically positioned ideally in area of the world that makes it very easy for Saddam to threaten the global economy in a way that Hitler could not in the 1940s world which was far less dependent on Persian Gulf Oil than the world is today. The global economy is far more interdependent and impacted by international trade and oil supply from one specific area of the world than the world was in the 1930s and 1940s.

Though better off than most of the non-Western world, Iraq was still a third world country and was quite incapable of seizing or holding large amounts of territory.
As I already explained before, Saddam does not need to seize or hold large amounts of territory in order to be a threat to the planet. He only has to seize, hold or sabotage a very small area that he is geographically located next to in order to cause a disaster for the global economy.
Strongbow is offline  
Old 05-07-2008, 12:34 PM   #80
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 11:04 AM
Hitler’s army could not have been completely destroyed in less than 100 days, as was Saddam Hussein’s.
Again, the United States and its allies were only able to do what they did to Saddam in 1990 as well as 2003 because they were given the time to deploy and set up a large force in the area. Hitler's army could have been destroyed in a few months back in the early 1930s when the European allies should have taken action which would have saved millions of lives and prevented World War II. Instead, they Europe sat and did nothing as Hitler violated every treaty designed to prevent another dangerous security situation from developing. The failure of the European allies to decisively act when Hitler was weaker led to World War II and the deaths of tens of millions of people. Allowing Saddam to remain in power with the sanctions and embargo regime essentially gone as well as several other parts of containment would have allowed Saddam to rebuild his conventional and non-conventional military assets and threaten the planets vital energy reserves located nearby Iraq. Failing to act as many countries had failed to in past conflicts, or repeating the same situation of 1990 was not an option, and everything to prevent those sitiations from occuring again had to be done, and with containment crumbling, regime change in Iraq was the only option left.

Sure, it is and has been our policy to defend the Gulf Oil supply, but there were ways to both prevent the invasion of Kuwait and get Saddam out of there before we went to war. He never threatened Saudi Arabia. It was Bush's decision to ratchet up the rhetoric and abandon sanctions and go rushing in there. Arab experts have said Saddam could have been compelled to withdraw diplomatically, and we never gave that a chance and as a result, got a war that turned Bin Laden against us. As for the French going for it, I dont give two shits about the French, you got that?? They always want us to do their dirty work, much like Israel. I evaluate policies based on what is best for this country, and if that happens to agree w/ the French(2003) or disagree (1991) then so be it. Kerry and all the Democrats have said they dont get a veto over us, so dont go there, which I know you will try.
I find it very odd that you would continue to defend a vote by Joe Biden that not even Joe Biden would defend today! There was no other way for the United States and the Coalition to restore security to the region and remove Saddam from Kuwait than through the use of military force. The only people who really opposed the use of military force in 1991 were the Democrats in Congress. The rest of the world along with the Republicans and a few Democrats supported military action to remove Saddam from Kuwait. Sanctions would never have removed Saddam from Kuwait. The same sanctions that were on Saddam before the 1991 Gulf War were still on him later in the 1990s and failed to compell Saddam to comply with the UN resolutions or the Gulf War Ceacefire Agreement. Some leaders only stand the language of military force, and Saddam was one of those leaders. In hind site, the Democrats position on the Gulf War in 1991 including Joe Bidens looks silly and Joe Biden himself would not disagree with that.

When there are thousands of Iraqi tanks in Kuwait only miles from the main Saudi Oil fields across the border, you've gone well beyond just a simple threat to Saudi Arabia. That was an intolerable situation that the world could not let stand do to the extreme dangers of having so many Iraqi troops so close to the worlds largest source of oil, and defended by a relatively small and inexperienced Saudi military at the time.

The same Arab experts who said Saddam would withdraw from Kuwait eventually were the same Arab experts who said that Saddam would NEVER invade Kuwait or another Arab neighbor. The United States and other countries did what they needed to do to protect global security in the 1991 Gulf War, and while it seems you would like to give Bin Ladin a veto over US military intervention in the Gulf, many people would never support a policy that endangered US security just to maybe appease a terrorist. The fact is, Bin Ladin's goals well beyond the Israely/Palestinian issue or his anger about US troops on Saudi soil for the 1991 Gulf War. Bin Ladin may co-opt other causes but his main goals are to return the Muslim world to the 13th century and destroy as much of the non-muslim world as he can.

Most of the Afghanis killing us in Afghanistan are Al Qaeda. Most of the Iraqis killing us in Iraq are not, that is the distinction. Though incidents of terrorism are highest in Iraq, terrorism is a TACTIC, not unique to one organization. They are Shiite and Sunni militants, not Al Qaeda, and they are vying for control of the country with us in the middle. The awakening councils are serving our interests and helping us now, but wait until they dont get their way in the government that we defend.
No most of the Afghanis killing other Afghanis and Coalition troops are members of the Taliban. They are not foreigners or Arabs as you recently claimed in your last post. CENTCOM figures have already shown that Al Quada kills far more people in Iraq than anywhere else in the world. Foreign Al Quada fighters may only represent 5% of the of the fighters in Iraq, but they are allied with large numbers of sunni insurgents who work with them. Even if you added up all the people Killed by the Taliban and Al Quada in Afghanistan in a given year like 2007, its still less than 50% of the number of people that Al Quada killed in Iraq. Provided the United States does not withdraw prematurely from Iraq, the Awakening Councils will be reconciled with the Shia majority government which I again stress is composed not just of the Shia but also has Sunni, Kurdish and other political blocks as well.

As for the Balkans, we were the initial force going in w/90% but it was not a full scale invasion/occupation, you still dont get that. It was primarily air support and ground equipment support to a much lesser extent. The Dayton accords established a federal system quickly, w/ all sides involved, and we have had a minor support presence there, nothing more, nothing less. This is what we need in Iraq.
The initial military combat phases in Bosnia in 1995 and Kosovo in 1999 were done primarily by the United States. The forces that eventually went in on the ground were large armored forces with tanks and other heavy equipment prepared to carry out any mission required including large scale combat missions as seen in Iraq and Afghanistan. During the Kosovo war, if Serbia had not been swayed by 3 months of Airstrikes, the United States would have had to invaded Serbia with US ground forces just as it invaded Iraq. Bill Clinton was already starting to make plans for such an invasion when Milsovic finally gave in. Once the forces were on the ground in both Bosnia and Kosovo, the risk that fighting could flare up was always there. Bosnia and Kosovo were REAL Civil Wars in countries that had even less of a historical basis for existing than Iraq. It is complete contradictory to be supporting interventions and nation building activities in places like Bosnia, Kosovo, and Afghanistan and not to be supporting the same efforts in Iraq, country from a security standpoint that is more important to the United States than the other three do to its geographic location and close proximity to much of the planets energy supply.

The reason that the United States has been able to reduce its presense in Bosnia and Kosovo is because conditions on the ground allowed it. The United States did not simply withdraw troops unilateraly without considering conditions on the ground as you a proposing be done in Iraq. When the Iraqi's have a military strong enough and a government strong enough to provide the security and services that Iraq needs is the time which the United States can begin to safely withdraw its troops. Withdrawing troops before Iraq is ready risk causing Iraq to collapse with serious consequences for the region and US Security.

Israel: I misspoke, I should have said turned a large segment of the populations of the Arab world against us. Alot of the governments are dictatorships whose views of the US are not shared by public opinion. Our strongest ally over there, Saudi Arabia is the biggest exporter of the Wahhabist ideology and home to the Bin Laden family. To be sure, some people and governments are genuinely allies of the US- Jordan, UAE, but that is the exception rather than the rule in the United States.
The United States has a 60 year long history of friendship with Saudi Arabia that was started by Franklin Roosevelt. Yes there are extremist in Saudi Arabia like there are in several countries in the Middle East, but US ties with Saudi Arabia are very strong given the history of the relationship and the difficult financial and natural resource bonds that are difficult to break between the two countries. The United States has had bases and done training with various Arab countries all over the region. There are strong intelligence and diplomatic ties that have helped to role up Al Quada cells in many Arab countries over the past few years.

If you look at the complaints of the terrorists , our support for Israel is #1. They illegally took Palestinian land when they settled in 1948, then again in 1967.
Jews have been living in Israel/Palestine for thousands of years, even if the numbers were very small from the 2nd century AD onwards. The area was Ottoman Empire land for 400 years from 1500 to the end of World War I. After the Ottoman Empire collapsed, the various ethnic and religious groups in the area all had a right to form their own nations. For nearly 30 years Arabs tried to suppress Jews right to form their own country on land they owned or had fairly purchased from other Arabs. After several Arab countries had been formed in the decades following World War I, Israel finally formed and declared its independence. The UN in 1947 had created a plan that divided Israel/Palestine based on where the various populations lived. It was a fair plan, but the Palestinians rejected it. When Israel declared its Independence, The Palestinians along with 5 Arab countries brutally attacked Israel in 1948. Israel in fighting for its survival that first year did acquire some more land, but the situation would never have occured if the Palestinians had accepted the UN partion plan of 1947. Its the best plan the Palestinians were ever offered and they rejected it, just as they have rejected every plan since then and always favored war and terrorism over political compromise. Their refusal to recognize Israel's right to exist and their engagement in brutal terrorism killing inocent civilians for the past 60 years has only worsned their position.

Israel had no choice in 1967 but to take the West Bank, Golan Heights and the Siani Pennisula. There are military realities do to Israel's small and thin geographic size that force it to take pre-emptive military action when certain military conditions across the border materialize because failure to do so would allow other countries to potentially cut Israel in half and overrun the country, which of course is what the Arabs were attempting to do in 1967 when Israely intelligence successfully detected it and eliminated the threat. Israel returned the Siani Pennisula to Egypt in the late 1970s when Egypt agreed to reconize Israel and not deploy certain military forces in the area. Israel is willing to return the Golan Heights to Syria when Syria agrees to reconize Israel and end its support for terrorist attacking Israel. Israel does support the idea of a Palestinian State, but not a terrorist state along its borders. Israel's security comes first, only then can land be given back and a Palestinian state formed. I find your opposition to Israel Ironic in light of the Democrats strong support for Israel including Joe Biden's support.

They are currently in violation of more UN resolutions than Saddam ever though of being in violation of, thats also a fact. They took the Golan Heights in violation of international law, 3 days after the Liberty was out of the way to notice. Interesting.
None of the UN resolutions that Israel is in violation of were passed under Chapter VII rules. They were passed under Chapter VI rules of the United Nations which allow enforcement only through diplomacy and do not allow military force to be used as a method of enforcement. The 17 UN resolutions passed against Saddam were ALL passed under Chapter VII rules of the United Nations which allow the resolutions to be enforced with military force. The resolutions passed against the Saddam were passed under Chapter VII rules because Saddam's violations were far more serious than anything Israel had done.

We have got nothing from this relationship but terrorist propoganda. You peddle the typical Israel propoganda line of we benefit from this relationship. We do not, it is what created the backlash against us from the radical elements of Islam. Not excusing terrorists or their actions, just pointing out what they are motivated by.
Thats because your simply unwilling to acknowledge the military, intelligence, and diplomatic benefits of having a friend like Israel in the Middle East that supports democracy and security and is against terrorism and warfare to overun other countries. Israel recognizes the other States of the region, unfortunately many of them don't recognize Israel. Israel is not the problem. They have every right to exist and even Joe Biden certainly agrees with that.

With respect to diversion from Afghanistan: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...-2004Oct21.html dont take my word, look at the internal debate in the Bush administration.
Again, the report only list small commando and special forces units. The number of actual US troops on the ground in Afghanistan increased with the Iraq war. The vast majority of US forces on the ground for the invasion of Iraq, like the 3rd Infantry Division Mechanized, the 4th Infantry Division Mechanized, the 1st Marine MEF and elements of the 101st Air Assualt Division and 82nd Airborne Division. These were the units in addition to the British 1st Armored Division that launched the invasion of Iraq. They were not in Afghanistan or diverted from Afghanistan.

Violence in Iraq increases:http://www.usnews.com/articles/news...up-in-iraq.html http://www.reuters.com/article/topN...eedName=topNews these figures are only new highs in violence since the summer of 07, well after the surge kicked in. It is not working by any objective standard. Political progress has not been made at the national level, that is where it counts. The local level progress only vindicates Biden's plan for a federal system that no one wants to discuss as well as vindicates my earlier point that Iraqis controlling their own destiny will find the foreign al qaeda and get them out of their country. We can not stay as a crutch, it will not work.
Since September of 2007, violence in Iraq has led to Iraqi security and civilian deaths that have been consistently below 1,000 in every month up to date. Prior to that you had death rates for that group that were in excess of 3,000 per month. Most military commanders who have done multiple tours in Iraq have reported that violence levels resemble 2003 more than 2005 and obviously not 2007. The military on the ground in Iraq has seen the results an they report that it is working by every objective measure one can think of. You can find monthly violence results for Iraqi's as well as US casualty totals and similar figures for Afghanistan at www.icasualties.org .

Political progress has been made at the national level. The government is providing services for various regions. There has been progress on a new debathification law. Provincial elections are now scedual for the fall. That is progress regardless of whether you acknowledge it or not. The progress at the local level has been achieved by the work of the US military, not Biden's or some democrats plan in congress.

Its a bit odd that you support withdrawing from Iraq as a way to defeat Al Quada there, yet support the opposite plan when dealing with Al Quada in Afghanistan. Think about it. Your plans for bringing stability to Iraq completely contradict your plans for bringing stability to Afghanistan.

Our military is broken, despite what you say. Our commanders have testified as much, troops are on 5 time deployments to Iraq, reserves are being called up. http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...606888,00.html
Its funny, but the Time article you site actually contradicts your statement that the "military is broken". Check out the third paragraph of the third page of your link here http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...888-3,00.html. Notice the following qoute:

"Those in charge deny there's a crisis. Schoomaker, the Army's top general, served in the Vietnam-era Army. "I know what an Army that's near broken smells like, what it looks like, how it acts," he said in January. "Drug problems, race problems, insubordination — all kinds of things going on. We're nowhere near anything like that." General George Casey, who will succeed Schoomaker as the Army's top officer April 10, said at his confirmation hearing that "the Army is far from broken."

General George Casey says "THE ARMY IS FAR FROM BROKEN". Yes, the military is very stressed do to the level and length of deployments. Also, its true any time you deploy anywhere in the world for anything, you have less forces to deal with unexpected contingencies. But the US military is engaged in a conflict that is vital to US security right now, and the other potential contingencies that could develop around the world is currently remote.
Strongbow is offline  
Old 05-07-2008, 12:36 PM   #81
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 11:04 AM
As for budget and the economy, dont bother to crunch phony numbers, I will do the real ones for you:
We have a $415 billion projected deficit and a $9 trillion national debt. Your claim about Clinton is laughable re: national debt and GDP. http://uspolitics.about.com/od/thef...-Comparison.htm ^

Here is a good website with plenty of information on US defense spending, other spending, as a percentage of GDP as well as the annual budget per year since 1940:


Here is a chart of US public debt from 1791 to 2006:


Here is US unemployment rate by year:


Here is US inflation rate by year:


Here is the US poverty rate per year:


The national debt increased under both administrations (in today's dollars). But under Clinton the debt rose more slowly and GDP rose faster than under Bush. The result is that the ratio of debt to GDP went down an average of 3.89 percent per year during the Clinton years, but has gone up an average of 0.94 percent per year during the Bush years.
Bush has had to fight two wars and deal with the terrorist attack of 9/11 and the economic difficulties that caused. Clinton had an easy peaceful period of time in office relative to Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. Those factors account for the decreasing debt as a percentage of GDP in Clinton's 2nd administration and the rise during the Bush administration.

But the fact remains that when you take the average level of debt for all the Clinton years vs. all the Bush years as a percentage of GDP, it is has been lower under Bush.

The Average National Federal Debt as a percentage of GDP:

Clinton Years 64.5%

Bush Years 61.9%

It is true that debt as a percentage of GDP was higher in 1993 than any Bush yr, but that was before Clinton's first budget and deficit reduction, a gift from Reagan-Bush, who had the largest peacetime real debt and debt as a percentage of GDP.
Thats actually false, debt as percentage of GDP continued to rise during all four years of Clinton's first administration. The highest peacetime debt as a percentage of GDP was in 1996 when it reached 67.3%. Bill Clinton is the one that has the record, not Bush Sr. and Reagan when looking at the highest national debt as a percentage of GDP in a given year.

You cant have your own facts, no matter how hard you try. You are just making yourself sound more ludacris by the second.
Well, when it comes to the facts, you've been misinformed. The highest peacetime debt level as a percentage of GDP was not under Bush Sr. or Reagan, it was under Bill Clinton 4 years after he was elected President. In 1996, the national debt as a percentage of GDP was 67.3%. That is higher than any other peacetime year in the history of the United States.

Of course we have spent more militarily before than we have on this war, but that does not mean we do not have record deficits and debt for no reason whatsoever, or that we do not have more pressing issues to deal with in terms of spending money. Whether it be infrastructure, health care, rebuilding our military, taking care of our veterans, securing loose nukes in Russia, increasing homeland security, the list goes on. All of this is drawn from scarce resources, and historical context can do nothing to justify squandering what will be 2 trillion for nothing when there are other needs.
When you adjust for inflation, current Debt and Budget Deficit levels are not records, not even close. Helping to stabilize and secure the Persian Gulf area is a necessity for the United States. Nothing would harm the US economy and the rest of the world more than the seizure and sabotage of Persian Gulf Oil supply by Saddam. With the containment regime in shambles and every other method to remove him tried and failed, and with Saddam in violation of 17 UN Security Council Resolutions, it was not tolerable to let him remain in power. It was a necessity for US security to remove him. All of the pressing issues you site, would be in far worse shape if the United States failed to do what was necessary to secure and protect the Persian Gulf. The siezure and sabotage of Persian Gulf oil would cause a worldwide economic depression which would cause industrial society to collapse. As the price of Oil sky rockets, so would the price of food people buy as well as all kinds of other products. Business would fail, unemployment sky rockets. Millions of people lose their income those that still have money can't afford to buy the basics. There would be no money in such a situation for rebuilding infrastructure in the United States, the US military, providing Health Care and any of the other items that you site. Only a United States that has its interest at home and abroad secured can tackle these other issues you list. Security comes first, because the United States and other countries around the world need a secure global economy and energy supply in order to maintain their current wealth, standard of living, and society. Without those things, it would be impossible to address the issues you were listing.

We absolutely had to fight WW II, needed to contain the Soviet Union as they were the other superpower. Now, we dont have such a superpower, again, apples to oranges.
The United States still has other threats to its security that it has to resolve or contain. Protecting Persian Gulf Oil supply has been in the national security interest of the United States for over 60 years now. Protecting global energy and the global economy will always be in the vital interest of the United States regardless of whether the United States is fighting a World War or facing a Super Power.

We have never borrowed like this to pay for a war, we actually increased taxes like we should to finance World War II and Vietnam and has a result had less money added to the national debt as a result. And we paid it off quicker. Since Reagan, this has not been a concern.
Thats absolutely false. The national Debt as a percentage of GDP was at its highest during World War II. National Debt currently under Bush involved in two wars is still less than the high point of the peacetime Clinton era in 1996 when it stood at 67.3%. Whats important is to keep the economy growing since Government revenue actually increases faster when the economy grows fast than when you increases taxes which eventually hurts economic growth there by actually reducing the amount of money that they government gets.

Whatever, when the economy collapses in a few years, more jobs are lost and interest rates or inflation skyrocket, the dollar falls even more and oil is $250 per barrell, keep telling yourself deficits dont matter.
When you don't do what is necessary to secure Persian Gulf Oil supply as well as protecting other US security interest around the world, you make the economic collapse you speak of more likely. All of those things become more likely when you fail to secure the vital area's of the world that the global economy is dependent upon.

Jobs: 23 million under Clinton, compared to a total of around 3 million for Bush. Unemployment rate 1.1 percentage points higher than when he took office, at 5% and rising. It got to 6.8% in 2003 and it is on its way back there, in case you havent been following the news. He is the first president since Nixon to have presided over 2 recessions. Clinton inherited unemployment of 6.9% and got it down to 3.9%. The average means very little, one inherited a very low unemployment rate and made it worse and never got it back down to where he inherited it. The other inherited a high 6.9% and consistently reduced it. Who did better? Besides, the average for Clinton was 5.2%, which is probably the exact average during Bush's term, and it may wind up being higher because of this yr. We dont have a full comparison yet, and it is meaningless.100-200,000 per month was his job creation rate until he went back to losing them this yr. That is not even enough to keep up w/ population growth. Previous expansions saw 300-400,000 jobs created each month. In addition, wages fell for the average American Clinton-median household income +1.45%, Bush -1.15%. When did you have more money in your pocket?
Yes, Clinton did improve the economy during the relative peaceful time in office. Its easy to balance the budget an do such things when you don't have to fight two wars. I never stated that Clinton did not do good things for the economy. At the same time, if your being honest and objective, you have to acknowledge that what Bush has done with the economy is excellent given the wars, Terrorist attacks and economic slow downs he has had to deal with.

Bush's Unemployment rate is roughly equal or actually better than Clintons average unemployment rate:

Average Annual Unemployment Rate:

Clinton Years 5.21%

Bush Years 5.20%

Average Inflation rate during the Bush years is almost as good as the Clinton years:

Average Annual Inflation Rate:

Clinton Years 2.60%

Bush Years 2.69%

The average poverty rate during the Bush years has been much better than it was during the Clinton years:

Average Annual Poverty Rate:

Clinton Years 13.3%

Bush Years 12.3%

Clinton did have a better GDP growth rate, but not by much:

Average GDP growth rate:

Clinton Years 5.4%

Bush Years 4.8%

And as I have already stated before, Debt as a percentage of GDP has been lower under Bush than it was under Clinton despite the fact that Bush has been fighting Two wars while during the Clinton years, the country was primarily at peace.

The Average National Federal Debt as a percentage of GDP:

Clinton Years 64.5%

Bush Years 61.9%

Both US real GDP and real GDP per capita have grown during the Bush administration. US Standard of living as measured by the UN Human Development Index is higher now than it was during the Clinton administration.

If your objective and honest in your research, you'll find that Bush has maintained an impressive economy despite harder times. His numbers in terms of average debt as a percentage of GDP and the average rate of poverty beat the Clinton numbers. Those are facts that cannot be disputed. Even in the area's where Clinton did better on GDP growth, Inflation or about the same in Unemployment, Bush's numbers by any historical standard are very good.

Strongbow: Your ingorance on the Condi Rice/Colin Powell quotes is shocking, as is the Iraq military and national debt/economy stuff. The people with the most to say often have no idea what they are talking about.
I already explained the Condi Rice/ Colin Powell quotes above. That the Iraqi military had not ability to launch an attack on Kuwait is just grossly incorrect. Colin Powell has already stated that those Cherry picked qoutes were mis-interpreted. Colin Powell to this day still supports the removal of Saddam from power. The qoutes you report also have plenty of what can only be viewed as mis-statements or an error in reporting. The idea that the United States was preventing Iraq from using its arms or its military equipment is simply, laughably false. If any of these things were true, the United States would not have had to rush over 100,000 troops to the Persian Gulf in late 1994 in response to two Republican Guard Divisions moving close to the border with Kuwait.

Everything I explained on the debt and economy are supported by factual indisputable numbers.

All of your line by line responses are meaningless and dont rebut anything with facts, just speculation and putting words in people's mouths.
Only trying to make the reading and response easier for you. If you carefully look at my response you'll find that there are plenty of facts you seem unwilling to acknowledge or consider. In addition, some of your own "facts" statements, and sources, actually have ended up contradicting what you had to say like claiming that the US military is broken and then siting a source in which the Army's top General says the Army is "far from being broken".

Bosnia is a perfect example- we of course were 90% of that very small peacekeeping force that was deployed to the region, yet you try and sell this as something on par with our full scale military invasion of Iraq. Pathetic.
The conflicts are similar in the sense that they involved nation building and resolving sectarian conflicts which in this case involved a real civil war. Its rather contradictory to be supporting US policy in Bosnia and Kosovo yet challenging the same methods being used and looking at the some of the similar problems of nation building and claiming it can't be done or that its not in the US interest to do it. I NEVER stated that the numbers of troops involved or the money spent was the same.

Then your Iraq military strength BS-- would only fly if the rest of the middle eastern militaries consisted of speed boats and handguns. You make Saddam out to be the next Alexander the great, he was far from that and you are crazy for putting forth Iraq as a even a regional, never mind a global military threat.
If you were to actually objectively look at Iraqi military strength consider not only the types of equipment they have, but their numbers, training, combat experience, geographic location, close proximity to the world energy supplies, you might begin to understand what I'm talking about. Everyone in the US military and intelligence community recognized Saddam as both a regional threat, and a global threat do to his potential ability to sieze or sabotage where the world gets the majority of its energy supplies from. You don't have to have a continent conquering military to be able to threaten the planet, when your military is more than large enough to overrun a few hundred miles of flat sand that possess the vital energy reserves that the world depends on for the global economy.

Iraq's number of 430,000 men, 2,800 tanks, 2,100 artillery pieces and 120 Helicopters exceed any single Persian Gulf country south of Iraq in the Gulf Cooperation Council or even when you combine the military forces of Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emarites.

[QUOTE]I will not be entering this thread again or responding to your posts, because you obviously are so blinded by your love for Bush that you can not see facts and have to turn factual rebuttals offered by others into 'liberal fantasy.' In your world, speculation is fact and facts are liberal conspiracies. QUOTE]

I've listed plenty of facts and have explained how they are relevent to the conclusions that the US military and many in the intelligence community as well as the President have made about Saddam, the threat from Saddam, and the need to remove him from power. Unfortunately, you do not appear in acknowledging these facts, and your above qoute seems to show your more interested in wild speculation about another member of the forum rather than a thoughtful discussion on the thread topic.

The FACTS, as have been verified by our own intelligence are that Bush has not made us safer, Al Qaeda is stronger and we are bogged down in a quagmire in Iraq.
Few people are claiming that the world would be safer with Saddam still in power. The intelligence and facts show that Kuwait and Saudi Arabia no longer face the larged armed threat from Iraq that they did prior to the March 2003 invasion. They no longer face a dicator who had invaded and attacked four different countries, used WMD more times than any leader in history and threatened the planets key oil reserves with siezure and sabotage. Al Quada had its main base destroyed in Afghanistan, has had thousands of its followers either killed or captured around the world. The Taliban is out of power in Afghanistan, and Al Quada's resurgence in Iraq has been rolled back by the US military surge of 2007-2008. US military intervention in both Iraq and Afghanistan has made the United States, the region and the world safer, but removing two violent and threatening regimes who were bent on either dominating their neighbors and causing problems to the rest of the world.

Economically, our own executive office of budget and management confirms the numbers I have spoke of. You can have your own opinion but not your own facts.
If you look at those numbers, you would find my statements about the average debt as a percentage of GDP during the Clinton administration was higher than during the Bush administration. Bush also had better average numbers on poverty, unemployment, and similar numbers on GDP growth and inflation.
Strongbow is offline  
Old 05-07-2008, 02:58 PM   #82
you are what you is
Salome's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: last fm
Posts: 21,854
Local Time: 01:04 PM
I thought even the people who voted for Bush thought he was an idiot with a group of smart people around him

don't know about which bit they were wrong
“Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe.”
~Frank Zappa
Salome is offline  
Old 05-07-2008, 05:12 PM   #83
Bluer White's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Maine
Posts: 1,718
Local Time: 07:04 AM
Strongbow, your analysis in this thread has been very interesting and informative. Thanks for taking the time to post.
Bluer White is online now  
Old 05-14-2008, 02:54 AM   #84
Blue Crack Addict
deep's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,014
Local Time: 04:04 AM
Bush: I quit golf over Iraq war

WASHINGTON (AFP) — US President George W. Bush said in an interview out Tuesday that he quit playing golf in 2003 out of respect for the families of US soldiers killed in the conflict in Iraq, now in its sixth year.

"I think playing golf during a war just sends the wrong signal," he said in an interview for Yahoo! News and Politico magazine.

"I don't want some mom whose son may have recently died to see the commander-in-chief playing golf," he said. "I feel I owe it to the families to be in solidarity as best as I can with them."
If the average American knew how much he sacrificed for some mom whose son may have recently died
his poll numbers would be much higher.
deep is online now  
Old 05-14-2008, 08:13 PM   #85
MadelynIris's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Craggy Island
Posts: 1,501
Local Time: 05:04 AM
I plan to play lots of golf while Im in Iraq.
MadelynIris is offline  
Old 05-14-2008, 10:21 PM   #86
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ntalwar's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,838
Local Time: 07:04 AM
Originally posted by Strongbow

The Average National Federal Debt as a percentage of GDP:

Clinton Years 64.5%

Bush Years 61.9%
That's really misleading - Reagan/Bush #s spiked after Carter, and Clinton was flat to down.

ntalwar is offline  
Old 05-15-2008, 01:31 PM   #87
Blue Crack Addict
Irvine511's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 29,453
Local Time: 07:04 AM
i suppose that when you're totally deranged, then all those who take an even slightly different approach than you are all knock-kneed, simpering Nevil Chamberlins?

Bush at the Knesset:

[q]Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is – the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.[/q]

it's always 1939, isn't it? everyone bad is Hitler. the only solution is to kill them before they can start.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 05-15-2008, 01:45 PM   #88
Blue Crack Addict
deep's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,014
Local Time: 04:04 AM
Obama loses big here
when he says he wants to meet with this guy.

Wipe Israel 'off the map' Iranian says

New leader revives an old rhetorical tack
By Nazila Fathi

TEHRAN: Iran's conservative new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, said Wednesdaythat Israel must be "wiped off the map" and that attacks by Palestinians would destroy it, the ISNA press agency reported.

Ahmadinejad was speaking to an audience of about 4,000 students at a program called "The World Without Zionism," in preparation for an annual anti-Israel demonstration on the last Friday of the holy month of Ramadan.
deep is online now  
Old 05-15-2008, 02:39 PM   #89
Blue Crack Supplier
BVS's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 38,061
Local Time: 06:04 AM
It's pretty sad when anti-Obama left leaning folks are jumping on this and even Tucker Carlson said Bush was out of line and that talks with leaders like this have been done in the past by both liberals and conservatives.

This election is getting pathetic.
BVS is online now  
Old 05-15-2008, 02:47 PM   #90
love, blood, life
financeguy's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 12:04 PM
Originally posted by ntalwar

That's really misleading - Reagan/Bush #s spiked after Carter, and Clinton was flat to down.

Strongbow caught out bullshitting again, quel surprise.

financeguy is offline  

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:04 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com