okie wrote (in black): my response in green.
I give him credit for successfully fighting the war, beyond that his New Deal was not a great deal in my opinion
You're one who claims Obama doesn't have experience, but yet, you credit FDR for "successfully fighting the war." Do you understand your own contradiction?
, it may have some positive aspects, but Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, collect now, pay later, the money was spent, for us to pay later, and the 12% that every lower income working man pays now is a significant drag on those people, and if a private fund manager got the same returns on his money, he would be fired.
FYI, without social security, most Americans would not have "survived" their retirement years. That you would call it a "Ponzi scheme" doesn't make it any less valuable to those seniors who depend 100% for their retirement. I'm not sure you've noticed it, but the stock market has tanked over the past few weeks to the lowest level in two years. Are these the same fund managers who's doing a good job?
The war had more to do with getting us out of the doldrums than virtually anything else, I think.
It wasn't the war per se that got us out of the doldrums; it was the GI Bill that allowed the soldiers to attend college after the war.
The other thing, you know this, he rounded up tens of thousands of people simply by the virtue of the fact they had a Japanese, etc. heritage, and placed them in concentration camps.
Yes, I agree that was a huge mistake of our government, but that has been somewhat rectified after the fact. I'm probably better equipped to respond to this issue better than you are; I spent time in the US concentration camp during WWII. It was a failure of our government, but it was a time in our history when racial bigots were a majority in our country. However, in my generation, I have seen that turn-around for the betterment of all minorities in our country. I'm sure it's not necessary to repeat what I've often said about the number of race and cultures in our family today.
Also, I think he was asleep at the switch in 39 and 40, to what was going on in Europe. I don't know what all he knew, but I suspect it was more than he would have admitted later.
He was not "asleep at the switch in 39 and 40." We were well aware of the goings on in Europe, but we didn't want to get involved in that war. However, the US did provide the UK with lend-lease on military equipment.
There is speculation he knew about Pearl Harbor before it happened, I don't think so, but I think he was asleep at the switch at least, and as commander in chief, he should have been more aware and should have had our armed forces in more of a state of readiness.
Here again, your assumptions are wrong. It was the military officer staff in Hawaii who were asleep at the switch. They failed to recognize what they saw on their radar screens. As for the speculation, it was no wonder the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor; it was the closest American land and accessible, and the embargo that the US put against Japan was taking a toll on a country with very few raw materials of their own. That's not to say Japan was a good country; they raped/pillaged most of the far east.
So I suppose if McCain was a community organizer, that would have been more valuable experience, ci?
Actually, I think FDR flubbed up some by being asleep at the switch. Your arguments are not convincing in that regard. If he had military experience, perhaps he would not have done that? Maybe it cost many lives?
okie wrote:So I suppose if McCain was a community organizer, that would have been more valuable experience, ci?
Actually, I think FDR flubbed up some by being asleep at the switch. Your arguments are not convincing in that regard. If he had military experience, perhaps he would not have done that? Maybe it cost many lives?
okie, Now you're being ridiculous! No president can personally oversee all the security measures for a country; you're making impossible suppositions that are not realistic. When will you return to earth?
Bush really failed at the switch, didn't he? He was informed of the possible attack by the Taliban.
From msnbc (don't put the blame on Clinton; he was a private citizen when they attacked):
U.S. OK'd plan
to topple Taliban
a day before 9/11
Panel report faults intelligence, lack of will
WASHINGTON - After years of delay caused by inadequate intelligence, the U.S. government decided just one day before the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks that it would try to overthrow the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan if a diplomatic push to expel Osama bin Laden from the country failed, the independent panel investigating the attacks reported Tuesday.
The plans were reported in May 2002 by MSNBC.com and NBC News, but the details and precise timing were revealed for the first time in the new report released Tuesday by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.
The report alleges that the Clinton and Bush administrations moved slowly against the al-Qaida terror network in the years before the attacks, partly because they lacked detailed intelligence that would have allowed a military strike and partly because they preferred to explore diplomatic alternatives. As a result, bin Laden and other al-Qaida leaders were able to elude capture repeatedly.
Conclusion, the CIA flunked the test, big time. Thats what alot of the controversy around WMD, Joseph Wilson, Valerie Plame, and related stuff should be about, it should be about the failure of an agency, and why. I think it is due to years of moving away from intelligence on the ground in favor of looking at satellite photos, and just a general de-emphasis of intelligence, mainly by Democrats. Yes, Bush did not catch it, but he had not been in office long enough, and he was beginning to move on things that the Clintonistas had ignored or downplayed. After all, we all know what Clinton was interested in spending his days at, don't we? It certainly was not the security of the country.
Concerning FDR. that is ancient history, ci, so maybe we should let a sleeping dog lie. It is too big of a subject, and one that some people have spend their entire lives researching, but still don't have all the answers, such as Pearl Harbor, should we have known or not, or did we, etc. etc. Truth is we were caught with our pants down, and we shouldn't have made that mistake, the handwriting was on the wall.
Okie, I understand that you have to purge your head of all the crap inside it lest the waste pile up and your ears start leaking, but please, could you do it somewhere else? It's starting to stink up the place.
Thanks.
Why are you thanking me? For being the brunt of your insults? Don't you have somebody more convenient than coming on this forum to spout your insults?
okie wrote:Conclusion, the CIA flunked the test, big time. Thats what alot of the controversy around WMD, Joseph Wilson, Valerie Plame, and related stuff should be about, it should be about the failure of an agency, and why. I think it is due to years of moving away from intelligence on the ground in favor of looking at satellite photos, and just a general de-emphasis of intelligence, mainly by Democrats. Yes, Bush did not catch it, but he had not been in office long enough, and he was beginning to move on things that the Clintonistas had ignored or downplayed. After all, we all know what Clinton was interested in spending his days at, don't we? It certainly was not the security of the country.
Concerning FDR. that is ancient history, ci, so maybe we should let a sleeping dog lie. It is too big of a subject, and one that some people have spend their entire lives researching, but still don't have all the answers, such as Pearl Harbor, should we have known or not, or did we, etc. etc. Truth is we were caught with our pants down, and we shouldn't have made that mistake, the handwriting was on the wall.
So, when Bush was briefed on August 11th, 2001, on the subject 'Bin Laden Plans to strike US using airplanes,' and told the briefer:
Quote: okay, you've covered your ass. Next
Yeah, that was him just then getting around to the things that Clinton had ignored or downplayed. Not his
fault, right? He just didn't have time to address it.
What is it going to take, for you Conservatives to accept that Bush is a f*ck-up through and through? He slept through the biggest attack on America in forever, botched the Afghanistan war and didn't catch Bin Laden, started a stupid war in Iraq, gave gigantic tax cuts to the rich, let inflation go way out of control, deregulated the financial markets to their extreme detriment, and basically made a dog's dinner of everything he touched?
Cycloptichorn
One simple question, if Obama says 16 months, but then says I will go talk to the commanders on the ground and take their advice, what if their advice is 16 months is not even close to practical. What then? And how come he didn't figure out to ask them first before spouting out 16 months off the top of his head? Simple logic is not for politicians, thats for sure.
okie wrote:One simple question, if Obama says 16 months, but then says I will go talk to the commanders on the ground and take their advice, what if their advice is 16 months is not even close to practical. What then? And how come he didn't figure out to ask them first before spouting out 16 months off the top of his head? Simple logic is not for politicians, thats for sure.
He tells them, 'get as close to 16 months as you possibly can.'
He didn't ask them, because military leaders don't set policy, they carry out orders made by those who do. You can question the wisdom of those orders, Okie, but the command structure will remain exactly the same.
Cycloptichorn
Be very thankful that Obama is in no position to issue orders.
H2O_MAN wrote:Be very thankful that Obama is in no position to issue orders.
You'll be disappointed this November.
Yes, but McCain will be less of a disappointment.
Cycloptichorn wrote:okie wrote:One simple question, if Obama says 16 months, but then says I will go talk to the commanders on the ground and take their advice, what if their advice is 16 months is not even close to practical. What then? And how come he didn't figure out to ask them first before spouting out 16 months off the top of his head? Simple logic is not for politicians, thats for sure.
He tells them, 'get as close to 16 months as you possibly can.'
He didn't ask them, because military leaders don't set policy, they carry out orders made by those who do. You can question the wisdom of those orders, Okie, but the command structure will remain exactly the same.
Cycloptichorn
What if they tell him if we pull all combat troops out within 5 years, the entire country will sink into chaos again? Does he then tell them do it in 16 months or 20 months, or?
If he only leaves once we can leave safely, which he has also said, how is this any different than the policy of Bush or McCain?
okie wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:okie wrote:One simple question, if Obama says 16 months, but then says I will go talk to the commanders on the ground and take their advice, what if their advice is 16 months is not even close to practical. What then? And how come he didn't figure out to ask them first before spouting out 16 months off the top of his head? Simple logic is not for politicians, thats for sure.
He tells them, 'get as close to 16 months as you possibly can.'
He didn't ask them, because military leaders don't set policy, they carry out orders made by those who do. You can question the wisdom of those orders, Okie, but the command structure will remain exactly the same.
Cycloptichorn
What if they tell him if we pull all combat troops out within 5 years, the entire country will sink into chaos again? Does he then tell them do it in 16 months or 20 months, or?
If he only leaves once we can leave safely, which he has also said, how is this any different than the policy of Bush or McCain?
Yes, we pull out in 16 or 20 months, even if it means chaos. Because we can't afford to stay any longer, it's costing us an insane amount of money and lots of lives to do so.
I highly doubt anyone will tell him anything of the sort, b/c the fact is that the military commanders don't have a clue WHAT will happen if we pull out...
Cycloptichorn
no matter who sits in the oval office, as long as there is a profit in real cash, political donations or influence.... we will have a presence, including military, permanently. That's that.
I would venture to say that violence will increase, but that's for the Iraqis to handle; not any outsider - especially the US, because we just can't afford it in lives or treasure. Our country is already bankrupt.
cicerone imposter wrote:I would venture to say that violence will increase, but that's for the Iraqis to handle; not any outsider - especially the US, because we just can't afford it in lives or treasure. Our country is already bankrupt.
Gloom & Doom
The US needs to push forward with the war against terrorists, Iraq & Afghanistan are great battlefields to do this.
cicerone imposter wrote:okie wrote:So I suppose if McCain was a community organizer, that would have been more valuable experience, ci?
Actually, I think FDR flubbed up some by being asleep at the switch. Your arguments are not convincing in that regard. If he had military experience, perhaps he would not have done that? Maybe it cost many lives?
okie, Now you're being ridiculous! No president can personally oversee all the security measures for a country; you're making impossible suppositions that are not realistic. When will you return to earth?
Bush really failed at the switch, didn't he? He was informed of the possible attack by the Taliban.
Thats why he has the FBI, CIA, DoD,Homeland Security, etc.
But are you now saying that he cant know what those other depts are doing and therefore isnt responsible for them?
Quote:Here again, your assumptions are wrong. It was the military officer staff in Hawaii who were asleep at the switch. They failed to recognize what they saw on their radar screens. As for the speculation, it was no wonder the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor; it was the closest American land and accessible, and the embargo that the US put against Japan was taking a toll on a country with very few raw materials of their own. That's not to say Japan was a good country; they raped/pillaged most of the far east.
You need to check your history.
Did a radar operator fail to recognize what he saw that morning?
Yes, he did.
But there was a flight if B-17s due in from the mainland at the same time, and they actually did arrive during the attack and had to divert.
BTW, none of the commanders were informed of the radar sighting, so they didnt "fail to recognize", they never knew.
As for the embargo against Japan, that was the excuse Japan used,but it doesnt hold water.
The US was never obligated to sell raw materials to Japan, and after Japan had seized much of Asia they had the raw materials to use.
BTW, there were several American territories closer to Japan then Hawaii, but none that would have had the impact that an attack on Pearl had.
