"because the federal government doesn't hire construction crews."

Well that makes sense. You would think that if the responsibility for hiring construction crews, of which were uh, working on the bridge on signs, at the time of the collapse, wasn't happening, that the Fed's would do something.

I guess if they are responsible for miles of highway they should be doing the hiring for the construction.

"the navy deteremined that they needed 12 carriers to fight two wars at the same time. that way they could have two on station, two in port, two returning to port and two going to station. and i guess the other two for back up."

Yup, and it's a great idea if we are fighting two wars, but we are occupying two countries both of which we have land bases already in. So the need for operating all 12 carriers is not there. I'm not saying we should scrap them. I'm saying we could do with reducing the operating costs, mothballing a few. Do you see two wars being fought and by two wars, I mean major operational conflicts against conventional forces. No of course not, because we are fighting an insurgency in Iraq, and another in Afghanistan.

As somebody stated, AQ is not a government fighting force, nor do they have heavy conventional forces. They employ light infantry and suicide bombers. Not something that is effectively attacked or defeated by 12 nuclear carriers. One could conceive the necessity of having one carrier always on station, able to execute attacks on terror targets of opportunity of course, one carrier in the shop at home, and one out at sea en route to the forward station and on training. Rotating the three of them to provide the attack force capable of shutting down an enemy threat. What do you do with the other 9? Look big and scary to potential threats at a huge financial cost.

It didn't deter AQ in 1993, or 2001, and it wont in 2007...08 etc.

"North Korea is not messing with us they are playing games. Iran is just flexing some muscle but keeping their distance."

Iran is slipping IED's, into Iraq killing American troops, funneling foreign fighters as well, and threatening to develop nuclear weapons and nuke Israel. They also held captive British troops who were supposedly in their waters. Creating a world wide fiasco. You clearly have no frame of reference regarding Iran and what they are trying to accomplish. Should they develop a nuclear weapon, they may use it.

Meanwhile we were in Iraq chasing down WMD that wasn't there! What did the fucking North Koreans build and detonate? That's right a nuclear weapon. So the games they are playing, involve nuclear weapons. Last time they wanted our help to build power plants and we helped with the assurance that they would not build a nuke. Well they built it, and set it off to prove they can and did it. With all their neighbors pissed at them, they now have agreed to not build more, and allow inspectors, and disarm, but that's a lay low tactic, and in the future it's possible they may try to reunify SK and NK in a war that will involve us. So where will the troops come to stop that from happening? Iraq?

There clearly are other areas we need to be able to respond to but we cannot do that if we remain in Iraq, sapping our manpower, recruiting, and financial resources trying to setup a country that will thrive of fail of it's free will and choosing.

"But 2 wrongs don't make a right and we started this dilemma and we need to finish it."

I agree, we need to finish it by getting out of the way of the Iraqis and letting them fix their country without our meddling.

"Otherwise all the laziness and lack of motivation on the part of the Iraqi people will never cover the dishonor, disrespect and distrust we will place upon ourselves."


You are telling us, that by leaving we would disrespect ourselves, or dishonor ourselves, or lead the world to distrust us? How about when we decided to go in alone against the combined will of the world, to chase after a threat which the intelligence was not firm about, and non-existent WMD capability? How about after establishing that fact, we did't set up the Iraqi's with a government and then, leave?

We dishonored ourselves by mistreating detainees in the Iraq prisons, by allowing our soldiers to make revenge killings on civilians in their country. We also gave the world a huge lack of respect when we decided to do this on our own. It's not like in Gulf war I when we had two UN resolutions supported by the world calling for a specific mission of removing Iraq's military from Kuwait. It's not like when we had a million man coalition army able to deal with any contingency. We did this expecting to be greeted as liberators, and crossing our fingers that Iraqis would just love us and trust us like France did in WW2. Well that didn't happen and we didn't have a plan B. We didn't have any back up plans as evidenced by the gouging of the government by Haliburton, and we certainly don't have a fucking eject plan either. LOL Can't you see any of that or are you blinded by it all?

"But then what do you expect from a mostly Liberal leaning Media?"

Oh stop that, progress does not mean that the car bombs blowing up killing hundreds is not happening and that the country is not ready politically to compromise. The media is numb to the situation because we unfortunately we comfortable and safe civilians largely all are.

"Wooaaa, hold on a sec. Are you saying there is progress in Iraq? And how exactly do you know what the Iraqi people want? You just accepted my idea that they lack motivation. Now you say they don't want someone like Osama? You're making me feel like Flubber bouncing off of 2 walla going back and forth here."

You are unbelievable ignorant if you think they want AQ running the show, the guys blowing up the cars over there. Duh! They are sophisticated people in Iraq. The lack of motivation is with the political leaders, you don't see people on the street, civilians not hauling ass to help their friends and strangers when a bomb goes off. If we leave, things may get worse, that will force the compromises and alliances in the government that need to happen for this to be a war of Iraqis against chaos and AQ rather than Iraqis taking a back seat to occupation forces cleaning up after the carnage.

"You're saying that the majority of Muslims think we did 9/11 to ourselves?"

A majority at one time did, I'm not sure what the consensus is now with AQ admitting to it. As for 9/11 being cowardly, of course it was. So is sending Juniors to their death, while UBL and all these guys at the top live. That's hypocrisy but it is what it is. If they had the ability to engage us with a nuke in a city they would have. This was the best they could do, and it worked, they exploited our free society to attack us and kill people, destroy economic infrastructure, attack a military center, tarnish the symbol of strength of America, the plan was also to attack our leadership at the capitol or white house. At one time it was for as many as 10 planes. AQ likes a big news attack when they do strike and thats what they got.
There is no bigger news story than a nuclear bomb going off in a city because of a terror attack.

Thats what they would do if given the opportunity. The reason is not Islamic it's insanity.

Iran wants Iraq to fail they are scared that if Iraq succeeds. they will lose control of their population.

"Iran wants Iraq to fail they are scared that if Iraq succeeds. they will lose control of their population."

Its a very real fear as well, they have a serious drug and economy problem that they should be focused on. Iraq on the other hand, has a serious security problem. Iraq isn't going to succeed or fail just because we will it too though.

true but they have a chance if we stay.

"true but they have a chance if we stay."

They also have a chance if we leave. I fail to understand why everyone seems to think that if we leave, the world ends. If we aren't in Iraq making sure there are a few less violent acts, the world ends. It just isn't fact or rational though it's propaganda.

Sure it would be better for Iraq if they were fully capable to defending themselves or if we had another million troops to help garrison the country.

The facts are that they are off to a pretty good start building an army and police force, in areas where AQ has been active, the local population have had enough of their shit.

The primary problem on the ground is slow political progress, because groups who aren't getting a fair representation keep boycotting cooperation with the government and nothing can get done without everybody there to make a democracy work.

Our own civil war didn't allow for much nation unity of much progress, until after it was decided to unite or divide. Once the war was settled, and reconstruction was underway, reconstruction in large part drove an accelerating effort to make our nation strong.

If we leave, Iraq could collapse into chaos, or it could be forced to arm wrestle the problems. Nobody in either government wants the chaos option, and effective as AQ is in Iraq it is not likely even without us there they could effect a chaotic collapse. Iran maybe, but Iran could try more heavy handed efforts like an invasion, but not if we leave a carrier in the gulf which we will probably be doing anyway. Still we could dramatically down shift our role from occupier to assistant manager, or a role where we have maybe 10,000 troops in country working on aid and other roles than security.

There is no clear solution, but pouring in all the troops of free nations in the world won't solve this until the Iraqis figure out how to make it work for Iraq.

What isn't helping is Hillary Clinton or anybody else, calling for a removal of Iraqi PM Malaki. He is Iraq's democratically elected president and trying to take a heavy handed role meddling in Iraqi politics is only going to reinforce the idea that we are occupying rather than assisting Iraqis. It also is going to strengthen enemies by giving them more support against us in other areas of the world.

if we leave then iran will attack them.

"if we leave then iran will attack them."

Iran is already attacking them via IED's and subversive efforts. Explain what more Iran could or would do than they are already. Are you talking about a conventional war where they invade?

If they did attempt to invade by conventional means, a carrier in the gulf would get involved in short order and I don't think Iran would want to risk the United States declaring war on Iran and performing regime change in Iran. Your conclusion that they would attack is probably right but, that doesn't mean Iran would gain anything at all in doing so.

They want stability, power, and influence in the region not the United States breathing down their neck. One thing we would be in a better position to do should we leave Iraq is invade Iran if they provoked us. It would be very messy though and probably make Iraq look like a cakewalk comparatively. I could see us attacking from the skies like we did in Bosnia rather than launching a ground invasion. Maybe some special forces.

I think it is time we stop policing the world though and if Iran invades Iraq that is a sure way for the UN to step into a role as peacemaker.

of course this is what i mean.




would this be the same un that allows isreal to be rocketed by hezbollah

"would this be the same un that allows isreal to be rocketed by hezbollah"

Israel doesn't have oil or Muslims. I think if we said fuck it and let Iraq succeed or fail on its own, if it started to look like they were going to fail or be overrun by Iran the Europeans of the UN might actually do something.

If not, then so what? It's not like we haven't invested half a trillion dollars, committed the lives of our troops to 5 years of chaotic misery already. We have, and for an Iraqi congress that is not grateful, for an Iraqi prime minister who would see us go and let Iran help them out if we chose.

I say why not, so what if Iran gets an upper hand in Iraq? It doesn't benefit us to continue on a path with the plan to be involved in Iraq forever.

danielostAugust 18, 2007 07:44:56Reply #157
I'm pretty sure Bush's policy of lowering taxes has succeeded in growing the economy. Or maybe that's just a myth too.


of course it is a myth. anything good that bush has done wasn't bush ask gene boy.


The economy has grown the problem is that the growth has NOT shown up in hands of the low and most of the middle income people who keep the economy going by spending money. Most of the benefits from the Bush Fiscal and Tax policy has ended up in the pockets of the wealthy, top executives and corporate profits which only the wealthy own and benefit from. 90% of the stocks are owned by 10% of the population and thus increased corporate earnings and higher stock prices benefit the wealthy and do nothing for the low and most middle income Americans. That is the problem with the Bush tax and spend policies!

how do you grow a national economy that only effects 10% of the people.

It grows itself when there are more people. Are per capita incomes up? How about in China? I see rapid and major growth in areas in China. They will have paved the equal of our entire interstate system in a decade, and still have the bulk of their resources for other projects.

I think we have identified one of the problems being the lack of discipline on spending and earmarks, and the root of that the way in which we elect people to congress.