Quote:think we should spend money on the military and wars but I don't think we go on war of choices which cost tax payers billions of dollars.
Name one war in our history that WASNT a "war of choice"!
mysteryman wrote:Quote:think we should spend money on the military and wars but I don't think we go on war of choices which cost tax payers billions of dollars.
Name one war in our history that WASNT a "war of choice"!
War World 11 there was a need; the first gulf war there was a need; the Kosovo war there was a need; Afghnaistan there was a need; the Iraq war there was no need so it was a war of choice.
Foxfyre wrote:Mostly nonresponsive to my questions, Revel. But that's okay. I have read your posts repeating the same mantra over and over and over again without ever giving consideration to the other points raised. Your sources are mostly wrong on those funding issues too and/or wrong headed that most of those things should be a federal responsibility at all, but that's something we can discuss as conservative values separately.
I agree that unfunded federal mandates are not a conservative concept. The question I have is how many social programs are appropriate for the federal government to mandate or fund at all?
I answered each and every question; the sources are not wrong in their assessments and each under funded program are programs we need s they involve education; senior citizens health care and infrastructure.
revel wrote:mysteryman wrote:Quote:think we should spend money on the military and wars but I don't think we go on war of choices which cost tax payers billions of dollars.
Name one war in our history that WASNT a "war of choice"!
War World 11 there was a need; the first gulf war there was a need; the Kosovo war there was a need; Afghnaistan there was a need; the Iraq war there was no need so it was a war of choice.
I assume you mean WW2 and not WW11.
What "need" was there for the US to get involved?
Yes, we were attacked by Japan, but there was no "need" for us to get involved in Europe.
Germany never did attack us, and by all accounts they went out of their way to avoid damage to any US embassy, consulate, or interest in Europe.
So, what "need" was there to go to war in Europe?
And, we didnt "need" to respond to Japans attack either.
They claim it was a defensive measure, beause they knew we would block their plans, and because we had stopped shipping them oil, steel, and other war material.
What threats were there to the US in the middle east for us to go to the aid of Kuwait?
What threats were there in Kosovo?
mysteryman wrote:revel wrote:mysteryman wrote:Quote:think we should spend money on the military and wars but I don't think we go on war of choices which cost tax payers billions of dollars.
Name one war in our history that WASNT a "war of choice"!
War World 11 there was a need; the first gulf war there was a need; the Kosovo war there was a need; Afghnaistan there was a need; the Iraq war there was no need so it was a war of choice.
I assume you mean WW2 and not WW11.
What "need" was there for the US to get involved?
Yes, we were attacked by Japan, but there was no "need" for us to get involved in Europe.
Germany never did attack us, and by all accounts they went out of their way to avoid damage to any US embassy, consulate, or interest in Europe.
So, what "need" was there to go to war in Europe?
And, we didnt "need" to respond to Japans attack either.
They claim it was a defensive measure, beause they knew we would block their plans, and because we had stopped shipping them oil, steel, and other war material.
What threats were there to the US in the middle east for us to go to the aid of Kuwait?
What threats were there in Kosovo?
Don't forget Haiti and Somalia.
The Radical Islamic Movement "declared war" on the West, especially the United States way back in the last decade of the 20th century. They high-jacked and blew up aircraft, bombed military bases, kidnapped and executed civilians, and set off bombs in public places. Their message of hate was old even then. During WWII the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem supported The Axis Powers and preached the killing of Jews wherever found. Threats against the West for founding the State of Israel began before Israel even existed. Mostly we didn't take much note of Islamic hatreds. After all, they were a defeated enemy and the Soviet Union was drawing an Iron Curtain across the face of Europe. Soviet Third Columns were active in Greece, Turkey, Armenia, Syria, Egypt, Iraq, Iran, India, and in the "refugee camps" of Palestine. The new nation of Pakistan turned to the U.S., and became a steadfast client because its dictator had better sense than his constituency.
TeAll of that messy violence and hatred were far away, and most Americans barely noticed the escalation of violence as the Soviet grip loosened. Intelligence services weren't asleep at the wheel, its just that their masters tended to have higher priorities and didn't really believe that the Radical Islamic Terrorists posed a significant threat outside the region.
Repeated warning that eventually Radical Islamic Terrorists would execute an operation in CONUS were ignored. After the first attempt to bring down the towers, the threat began to be taken more seriously, but not enough to tighten security. If the Government had tried to tighten security to the point where it is today, it would have failed. An attack was expected, but no one knew where or when or even what form the attack would take. On the eve of 9/11, I was in Washington discussing the vulnerability of public building/monuments from rocket firing boats in the Potomac with a naval officers. The next morning, as my son was leaving Bolling AFB he could see the clouds of smoke rising from the Pentagon. The feeling later that day among some in the Intelligence Community was that Iraq was probably behind the attack. Iraq was suspect because of its own actions, threats and behavior since the First Gulf War. As it turned out, the attack was conducted by a Terrorist organization unaffiliated with most sovereign States. Only Afghanistan boasted of their support for Al Quida, though Bin Ladin was a wealthy Saudi with ardent supporters in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, East Africa. More tenous ties were strongly suspected between Al Quida, Syria, Iraq, and the general population of Pakistan. Ties between Pakistani ISI and the Taliban were close and undeniable.
Almost indiscriminately throwing a few cruise missiles around ala Clinton wasn't an option. The U.S. public demanded retribution for 9/11, the Pearl Harbor of the 21st century. Al Quida was clearly deeply rooted in Afghanistan, and was believed to have close ties with Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Syria. Yemen was a sideshow. The Saudi government was embarrassed by the number of its citizens involved in 9/11. The Saudi's were as embarrassed and as horrified by the 9/11 attack as our own government was... and if we were to strike the Terrorists in the mountain fastness of Afghanistan we would need bases inside the region. The Saudi government provided those bases, at the risk of further alienating Radically conservative Islamic sects. Iraq was already in violation of its Cease Fire Agreements, Saddam was openly preaching violence and giving financial support to Terrorists, Saddam denied rebuilding his WMD on one hand and other other fostered the notion that he would soon have nuclear weapons and a complete arsenal of other forbidden weapons. Saddam didn't believe that the U.S. would attack, afterall Saddam had a close financial relationship with Russia, France and U.N. officials to exchange blackmarket oil for military weapons and technology. Saddam could have avoided the invasion by "coming clean" and removing all of the obstacles he place before inspection teams. He didn't do that, a serious error of judgment.
The result of Saddam's arrogance is that today Iraq actually has a chance to become an open democratic society. Efforts to bring stability, peace and prosperity to Iraq is still being contested by Radical Islamic forces, but they are being steadily marginalized. The struggle appears to be evolving away from the Radical Islamic Movement toward the more traditional distrust and chauvinism between Islamic leaders and sects. The U.S. military has performed its mission well under difficult circumstances, and our military doctrine for this sort of conflict (against international gangsters) has become much more sophisticated. There struggle isn't over yet, and U.S. forces will be an important element in Iraqi stability and security for years to come. Iran will continue to instigate turmoil in hope of extending its own reach. It is important to world peace that Iraq remains a buffer state between Iran and Israel. U.S. forces are a bulwark against the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan, and just across the border in Pakistan Radical Islam continues to fester and threaten.
Removal of U.S. forces from the region would encourage Iran's expansionist dreams, return the Taliban to control over Afghanistan, bring down the pro-American government of Pakistan (thus increasing the risk of nuclear war with India). Supporters of Radical Islamic Terrorism would celebrate a great victory over the infidel, and use our departure as proof that God is on their Side. Support for Radical Islam would swell, and the West would be further threatened. It would be Munich all over again, and the threat for a larger, more destructive war would hang over all our heads.
revel wrote:Foxfyre wrote:Mostly nonresponsive to my questions, Revel. But that's okay. I have read your posts repeating the same mantra over and over and over again without ever giving consideration to the other points raised. Your sources are mostly wrong on those funding issues too and/or wrong headed that most of those things should be a federal responsibility at all, but that's something we can discuss as conservative values separately.
I agree that unfunded federal mandates are not a conservative concept. The question I have is how many social programs are appropriate for the federal government to mandate or fund at all?
I answered each and every question; the sources are not wrong in their assessments and each under funded program are programs we need s they involve education; senior citizens health care and infrastructure.
I asked
Quote:please answer whether you think we benefit by admitting defeat, tucking tail, and running in Afghanistan and Iraq. You don't think that al Qaida and other terrorist groups won't see that as a huge victory and incentive to step up their activities?
You responded that the mission has been completed Iraqis are fighting each other and want us to leave and we don't want a large force fighting there for another 30 or 40 years and we wouldn't be abandoning anybody but Maliki (speaking of red herrings). You didn't answer the question.
Asherman did by the way, and did so quite eloquently and, in my opinion, accurately.
I asked
Quote:Please answer my question whether other US military installations should also be dismantled and brought home.
I think you said no to this one based on the idea that keeping all other installations doesn't cost as much as Iraq is costing. I wonder if you have any idea how much of our defense budget does go to maintain those installations? I should have asked that if you think our other foreign bases have value, would not a permanent base in Iraq be equally beneficial?
I asked
Quote:Please answer my question whether you want to pay higher taxes to fund those programs you think are underfunded.
You responded
Quote:As for raising taxes; never said that. What I want is fairer tax that don't just benefit the very rich or the coporations which send their in offshore accounts. (can go and get a lot of information on this if you want; but would rather not as i know you will dismiss it)
To save time I am going to condense all three so I won't be going into all three in detail.
Ashermen is too long winded to read through in my opinion an not worth the effort when you get through if you bother to read through them. Sometimes I bother; most times I don't. Of course you will agree if anything anybody sys agrees with you.
As for mysteryman; yes we needed to respond to WW2; Hitler was destroying the world and the Jewish population in particular and it was about time we got involved.
In the first gulf war; saddam invaded Kuwait; there was an urgent need as it was something which was happening at the time and not twelve years later.
As for Kosovo; the Serbs were killing and removing the Albanian population; it was something which was happening then and we needed to intervene for them.
Afghanistan; the Taliban refused to hand over Bin Laden who was behind the attack on 9/11; so we needed to respond.
On the other hand; Saddam was contained at the time of the invasion; inspections were going on to determine the WMD issue and most of the AQ issue was already in doubt before the invasion by own intelligence as well as the nuclear issue ("mushroom cloud"); so it was a war of choice.
As for Foxfrye; one source was a democratic source but it was backed up with sources for the statements if you bothered to look. The rest were not democratic sources.
All of your questions were answered, your refusal to accept my answers or rewording my responses don't make a difference.
But the difference in other bases and permanent bases on Iraq is simple; we are seen as an occupational force in Iraq by a lot of the Iraqis themselves and other Muslims which is why they don't want permanent bases and to keep bases there only reinforces that belief.
In any case; I have stated and backed up my statements; I agree to disagree that I have proved my case.
I guess we're never going to know whether Revel is willing to pay more taxes to fix all the problems she sees.
Anyhow, thanks for trying Revel. You come from your own, leftwing perspective, complete with the ad hominem swipes. I'll admit I didn't look past your first link which was straight to the Democratic Party website as I am well aware of the complaints re all the issues you cited. And I understand that you will probably not want to have a discussion on whether it should be the Federal government's responsibility to address those issues and you don't care what the level of funding actually is or the dynamics that factor into the funding 'not being enough' or that none of these things are not being funded because of the Iraq War.
It is also obvious that as long as a Democrat president sees a 'need' to go to war, it is going to be okay with you, but you don't want to acknowledge all the Democrats who pushed Bill Clinton to do what George Bush finally did, nor the huge financial benefits Saddam Hussein was enjoying during the sanctions and the enormous suffering of the Iraqi people during those sanctions which by some estimates caused some 50,000 Iraqi deaths, many or most of whom were chlidren. Those are just some of the things to consider when assessing a 'need' to go to war.
Also, it is much easier to cast blame for what has already occurred instead of spending any time actually reasoning out the ramifications of what is the best thing to do now in the situation that we have now.
Finally too bad that you found it too difficult to read Asherman's post on the ramifications of pulling out of Iraq prematurely. There's important stuff there to know for those willing to know it.
revel wrote:
As for mysteryman; yes we needed to respond to WW2; Hitler was destroying the world and the Jewish population in particular and it was about time we got involved.
In the first gulf war; saddam invaded Kuwait; there was an urgent need as it was something which was happening at the time and not twelve years later.
As for Kosovo; the Serbs were killing and removing the Albanian population; it was something which was happening then and we needed to intervene for them.
Afghanistan; the Taliban refused to hand over Bin Laden who was behind the attack on 9/11; so we needed to respond.
Yet you have said beefore that there was no need to invade Iraq because they were no threat to us.
So, in WW2, what imminent threat to us was Hitler?
What threat was Iraq to us in the first gulf war?
What threat was Kosovo to us?
If the justification for war is an imminent threat to the US, what was the imminent threat in ANY war the US has ever fought?
Mystery Man - Do you seriously not see the difference?
Hitler posed a threat because unlike other madmen with deludions of taking over the world, he acted to take over the world.
I think that Saddam posed a threat in the Gulf War because he began using his weapons on both his civilians and in Kuwait.
Slobodan Miloević was also going for land grab in terms of power by revoking the autonomy of Kosovo and Vojvodina and replaced locally chosen leaders with his sympathizers.
The difference is between talk and action.
2003 Iraq had made no action to validate itself as a threat.
T
K
O
who is this he's kissing?
Diest TKO wrote:Mystery Man - Do you seriously not see the difference?
Hitler posed a threat because unlike other madmen with deludions of taking over the world, he acted to take over the world.
I think that Saddam posed a threat in the Gulf War because he began using his weapons on both his civilians and in Kuwait.
Slobodan Miloević was also going for land grab in terms of power by revoking the autonomy of Kosovo and Vojvodina and replaced locally chosen leaders with his sympathizers.
The difference is between talk and action.
2003 Iraq had made no action to validate itself as a threat.
T
K
O
So why do you think almost every member of the Clinton administration went public to condemn Saddam Hussein's obvious intent and why did Congrssional Democrats send letters both to President Clinton and President Bush urging them to do something about him? The 50 million Iraqis who died from malnitrition and lack of medical care during the 12 years of sanctions because Hussein was pocketing the Oil for Food monies shouldn't be a factor? The fact that Saddam was taking potshots at the peacekeepers aircraft in the no fly zone doesn't count for anything? The fact that he had thrown out the inspectors and, even when he let them back in, he thwarted their efforts to inspect when and where they requested shouldn't be considered? The rape rooms and torture chambers we knew about were not important? Do you think the dozen or so guys who had their right hands chopped off without benefit of anesthesia or follow up medical care thought the status quo was okay? And why did dozens upon dozens of people from the Clinton administration and UN nations go public with their conviction that Saddam Hussein had WMD and he would certainly use them?
The argument that Saddam was 'contained' and was 'no threat' to anybody can be alleged after the fact. But practically nobody believed that at the time of the invasion.
And regardless of the initial invasion or even how badly the first years of the war were bungled, the important thing now is to know what is in our best interest now with the situation that now exists? Once accomplished the historians will sort out the mistakes and errors in judgment and/or any illegalities that may have been committed so that we perhaps can learn to avoid them next time.
A defeat in Iraq because we don't have the stomach to finish what we started does not serve our interests well.
Here's Hillary's remarks to Code Pink, an anti-war group, in 2003 defending her vote to go after Saddam Hussein - she starts speaking about halfway into the tape:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=DfdhWi5MILo
Foxfyre wrote:The argument that Saddam was 'contained' and was 'no threat' to anybody can be alleged after the fact. But practically nobody believed that at the time of the invasion.
That's probably true. Apart from the European Parliament, which passed a nonbinding resolution opposing unilateral military action against Iraq. And apart from France, Germany and Russia. And Greece, Switzerland, Austria, Sweden, Norway and Liechtenstein, who all condemned US efforts to go to war with Iraq. And millions of people, who demonstrated on the streets of Britain, Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey, Austria, France, Switzerland, Greece, Germany, Sweden, Norway, Belgium, Denmark, Iceland, the Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Romania, Cyprus, Russia, Belarus, and the Ukraine.
But there's probably a remote possibility that all of those really didn't believe that Saddam was 'contained' and was 'no threat', and did all that merely because of all the money they made from abusing the Oil For Food program.
old europe wrote:Foxfyre wrote:The argument that Saddam was 'contained' and was 'no threat' to anybody can be alleged after the fact. But practically nobody believed that at the time of the invasion.
That's probably true. Apart from the European Parliament, which passed a nonbinding resolution opposing unilateral military action against Iraq. And apart from France, Germany and Russia. And Greece, Switzerland, Austria, Sweden, Norway and Liechtenstein, who all condemned US efforts to go to war with Iraq. And millions of people, who demonstrated on the streets of Britain, Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey, Austria, France, Switzerland, Greece, Germany, Sweden, Norway, Belgium, Denmark, Iceland, the Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Romania, Cyprus, Russia, Belarus, and the Ukraine.
But there's probably a remote possibility that all of those really didn't believe that Saddam was 'contained' and was 'no threat', and did all that merely because of all the money they made from abusing the Oil For Food program.
Is there a remote possibility that you'll ever be able to present an argument honestly as it was given? I don't believe I said anything remotely like all those people were in favor of going to war. I named the ones who were, however. Perhaps you can name the specific heads of state who said Saddam was a good guy and a threat to nobody?
As I recall , the UN Security Council backed the US position, until some of the members realized that George Bush was not Bill Clinton and Bush really meant[/u] what he said.
Then a severe case of cold feet rapidly developed.
'French feet', I think it was known as.
real life wrote:As I recall , the UN Security Council backed the US position, until some of the members realized that George Bush was not Bill Clinton and Bush really meant[/u] what he said.
Then a severe case of cold feet rapidly developed.
'French feet', I think it was known as.
It's a certainty that the UN Security Council believed Saddam had the WMD though because they kept those sanctions on year after year after year, kept funding the inspectors to go in there but the inspectors weren't allowed to do their jobs, much less finish it, and you have resolution after resolution after resolution dealing with the OFF monies that were enriching Saddam year after year after year. Even after Saddam was toppled, the Iraq Study Group was convinced that Saddam fully intended to resume his WMD programs as soon as the sanctions were lifted. Meanwhile he didn't have a whole lot of incentive to cooperate so that they would be lifted did he.
Foxfyre wrote:Is there a remote possibility that you'll ever be able to present an argument honestly as it was given?
If an argument is presented honestly - yes. But saying that "practically nobody" believed that Saddam was contained and not a threat ('immediate threat', I believe was the term used back then...) is not just bending the truth, it's really in the face of the facts.
And what annoys me even more is that you know it. You know about the weapons inspectors on the ground in Iraq, you know about the report by Hans Blix to the UN Security Council, you know about the numerous speeches and statements by several heads of state.
And still, you're making the same old claims again and again and again...
Foxfyre wrote:I don't believe I said anything remotely like all those people were in favor of going to war.
No, you didn't. I agree.
Foxfyre wrote:I named the ones who were, however.
Ah. But aren't you mixing up statement from 1998 with statements from 2002/03?
I mean, 1998 was a situation where Saddam had just kicked out the UNSCOM inspectors, and people were really concerned that the reason was that he was hiding something. In 2003, on the other hand, UNMOVIC inspectors reported that they could travel virtually free all over Iraq, and that they had virtually unhindered access to all sites.
Apples and oranges.
Foxfyre wrote:Perhaps you can name the specific heads of state who said Saddam was a good guy and a threat to nobody?
Strawman.
I don't think anybody said that "Saddam was a good guy". Yet, realizing that he was dictator and a disaster for the country, being in favour of measures like UNMOVIC and even favouring sanctions is still a far cry from bombing, invading and occupying the country.
real life wrote:As I recall , the UN Security Council backed the US position, until some of the members realized that George Bush was not Bill Clinton and Bush really meant[/u] what he said.
Then a severe case of cold feet rapidly developed.
'French feet', I think it was known as.
It's certainly convenient to think that only France was opposed to the American invasion of Iraq.
Fact is that the US/UK never even presented the resolution to the UN Security Council - not just because France threatened to veto it, but also because Russia and China were not really
convinced.
Not to mention all those other countries.
The so called 'Coalition of the Willing' was a big joke. Really.
