Democrats propose tax surcharge for war
petrym
Posts: 1,912
By ANDREW TAYLOR, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - Three senior House Democrats proposed an income tax surcharge Tuesday to finance the approximately $150 billion annual cost of operations in Iraq, saying it is unfair to pass the cost of the war onto future generations.
The plan, unveiled by Reps. David Obey, D-Wis., John Murtha, D-Pa., and Jim McGovern, D-Mass., would require low- and middle-income taxpayers to add 2 percent to their tax bill. Wealthier people would add a 12 to 15 percent surcharge, Obey said.
[snip]
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071002/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq_tax
WASHINGTON - Three senior House Democrats proposed an income tax surcharge Tuesday to finance the approximately $150 billion annual cost of operations in Iraq, saying it is unfair to pass the cost of the war onto future generations.
The plan, unveiled by Reps. David Obey, D-Wis., John Murtha, D-Pa., and Jim McGovern, D-Mass., would require low- and middle-income taxpayers to add 2 percent to their tax bill. Wealthier people would add a 12 to 15 percent surcharge, Obey said.
[snip]
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071002/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq_tax
Post edited by petrym on
Comments
-
UGH. Barring the rest of the discussion about why we are in Iraq and any other politically laced under-tones, I honestly hope this bill doesn't pass. I will agree that the war needs to be paid for.
However, given the current housing market being in the dumper, the current debate over whether Washington should bail out the greedy banks and mortgage companies over the whole sub-prime lending debacle and the fact that the war is driving inflation and national debt up, a 2% increase in taxes would drive this country into a recession that we haven't seen since the early 80's (thank you Jimmy Carter).
The bailout issue is the biggest reason not to create a flat tax hike across the board in a non-flat rate based system. 2% is a bigger deal to a family working with a $55K a year income than 12-15% is to a family working with $55M a year. Given that a bunch of those $55K a year families are currently struggling to fight off the foreclosure man while still trying to find a smidgen of equity in the plummeting housing values, a 2% increase in an already heavily taxed system could sound the death knell for many famillies problems.
That would in turn flood the market with houses that would be unsold for many years to come. On top of that, a house will lose a small percentage of it's value for every house within a certain distance that is foreclosed on. If this tax passes, we are looking at as many as 30-40% of current sub-prime borrowers being foreclosed on. With as much at 25% of new homes built in the last year remaining unsold, the open housing glut will cause home values to drop like a rock in the Grand Canyon. The equity lost in everyone's home that is still mortgaged would put a strain on any budget. The loss of equity and increase in inflation due to the devalued interest rates on most of the loans would drive interest rates through the roof just so the banks could stay afloat.
You think inflation is bad now, pass this bill and soon you'll be asking how many dollars in a peso? That bill is bad mojo. Troy D is right, the budget for the military is vastly larger than that. What alot of people fail to see also is that while there is cost, the military has been spending money to prepare for wartime for many years before this. The cost is not in waging the war as much as it is in replenishing stockpiles of weapons, armament, supplies and people after this war expends what we've already been maintaining for years.
Yeah, this costs money but raising taxes to cover the cost of the war is not the answer right now. It would damage way too much of the economy to do that. We should be eliminating waste in current operations and looking at other places were waste can be eliminated also. There are billions of dollars wasted every year on silly, nonsensical stuff. We also need to look at how much of our military budget is being eaten up through reconstruction and infrastructure building efforts in Iraq. They say they aren't spending military budget on reconstruction costs but we know its happening. Find out where that spending is occurring and why and then determine who SHOULD be fronting the bill and dig in their pockets for a while.
Pushing the cost burden on to people whose tax dollars already cover military efforts is not the answer. I'm not sure exactly what is, I have ideas but I can see nothing but bad things happening with a tax hike.Expert Moron Extraordinaire
You're just jealous 'cause the voices don't talk to you! -
TroyD, if the DOD budget is approaching 700B, I think you deserve a raise!
-
BZ: Is there any evidence of any money trail? Now you could use the above reasoning to show that the reason the US is staying is for oil, but certainly not the reason we went in the first place.
Oil is big money and going to get bigger as time passes.
The money in this war goes to the companies who supply the equipment (GE, lockheed, Shell, .... you can look them all up).
Close to a trillion $ has been spent. Not sure of the exact amount.
What companies get that money and how many lobbyists are involved?
That's what I meant by the money trail. The lobbyists/companies affect what the government does and how/where the government spends the money.
It's what Eisenhower called the "military industrial complex". It grows more powerful in our government each year. -
So your position is a bunch of lobyists were telling W to start a war with Iraq?There is no genuine justice in any scheme of feeding and coddling the loafer whose only ponderable energies are devoted wholly to reproduction. Nine-tenths of the rights he bellows for are really privileges and he does nothing to deserve them. We not only acquired a vast population of morons, we have inculcated all morons, old or young, with the doctrine that the decent and industrious people of the country are bound to support them for all time.-Menkin
-
War has ALWAYS been big business. The military requires gear, that gear has to come from somewhere....we just don't conjure it out of thin air.
Now, here comes the bit about the contractors...KBR et al. Want to blame someone for the contractors? Blame Bill Clinton. Anyone remember the drawdown about 15 years ago? Uh huh. There you go. We still need people to do provide any number of services from running dining facilities to civil engineering etc etc. There was a time where the military would do that. Well, in the end we found that it's CHEAPER to contract these things out for a certain period of time than it is to keep GI's in uniform for 20-30 years plus benefits, plus retirement....ad nausem. Now, yes, those contractors are paid well, however, in the end it's financially advantageous in the long run.
It somewhat irks me that on the one hand people **** that (with some justification), how could George Bush send these kids into battle without the latest in protection. Mon Dieu, there is nothing too good for the troops. Okay, fine, here is the bill. WHAT? You mean we can't just take that cost out of hide? Sure, it's ok to whack on the military budget.
Turn that same logic on wanting to trim back benefits on some crack ho that keeps getting pregnant to keep her benefits coming in and you are compared to Hitler. My God, you want to put innocent people in the streets and see them starve.
For the life of me, I dont understand that.
BTW, james's assesment of the Middle East is spot on.
HUA!
BDTI plan for the future. - F1Nut -
Do you really want Saudi Arabia and Iran in a full out war? How about if it means the war bringing in the rest of the middle Eastern countries, including Isreal....???
And you people think the price of gas is high now, you'd be walking to work if that happened ^^
People also fail to realize, that putting money into a war does not go entire wasted. Who makes the equipment for our troops? The government? A little, but mostly done by private businesses/corporations in America...Where do the troops spend their income? America...Our economy is booming.
GDP from 99-06
http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=us&v=67
-CodyMusic is like candy, you have to get rid of the rappers to enjoy it -
Oil is big money and going to get bigger as time passes.
The money in this war goes to the companies who supply the equipment (GE, lockheed, Shell, .... you can look them all up).
Close to a trillion $ has been spent. Not sure of the exact amount.
What companies get that money and how many lobbyists are involved?
That's what I meant by the money trail. The lobbyists/companies affect what the government does and how/where the government spends the money.
It's what Eisenhower called the "military industrial complex". It grows more powerful in our government each year.
The biggest and best companies are going to get the biggest and best contracts. It's a no brainer. Do you think that GE, Lockheed-Martin, and Shell have little elves they hatched from eggs working for them? No, they have human beings who filled out an application or submitted a resume to work for them.
This means they get paid to do a task and they bring that money home just like the rest of us. Not to mention the BILLIONS of dollars they spend in the private economy to buy equipment.
They make a lot, they spend a lot. -
You can fight it ( terrorism ) there, or you can fight it here ... This would seem to be a simple choice to make ...Honestly, I don't think I fully understand why we are still there -
A lot of you hit some extremely important and real issues about Iraq from both sides. I think most intelligent people who are for or against the war can agree that there are some really lame arss reasons why we are there yet there are some extremely important reasons why we are there. It’s not one issue like some people would say "oil". Sure that’s a little part of it but there’s a hundred different reasons... some said in the past 4-5 posts here that are great.
I've always been mixed about Iraq. But my patients and trust in THEM helping THEMSELVES is wearing thin. If it takes us backing off a bit (but being around enough to keep IRAN out) and let them kill each other off for a few years... so be it... eventually they may think... maybe if we get along people won’t stop dying. Hell, if they are busy killing each other, our boys casualties can be minimized.
I think I’m against the curve here since I started out absolutely hating the Iraq war and what it stood for and have moved to more middle ground. Not bad for a liberal. Then again, my party has move to liberal on the matter “get everyone out now” is not a solution and would end up with millions dead and many more serious issues (Iran).Testing
Testing
Testing -
Now, here comes the bit about the contractors...KBR et al. Want to blame someone for the contractors? Blame Bill Clinton. Anyone remember the drawdown about 15 years ago? Uh huh. There you go. We still need people to do provide any number of services from running dining facilities to civil engineering etc etc. There was a time where the military would do that. Well, in the end we found that it's CHEAPER to contract these things out for a certain period of time than it is to keep GI's in uniform for 20-30 years plus benefits, plus retirement....ad nausem. Now, yes, those contractors are paid well, however, in the end it's financially advantageous in the long run.
BDT
Working for one of the largest defense contractors in the world, I can attest to the validity of these statements. You will never get a better appreciation of how money is spent in the government until you work for a government contractor.
As far as contractors being the source of waste, that is a complicated issue. Waste in the government/contractor relationships comes from mis-management. On top of that, much of the money spent is spent on development of new ideas, processes, technologies and other improvements. Such efforts always have slipping deadlines and budget over-runs because you just can't plan completely when you are treading in to the unknown. The government ends with a gigantic benefit of having some new whiz-bang technology or some new process to save them money. It came at a large cost but the benefit far outweighs it. The government may not see it directly but the benefit gets passed on to the private sectors around the world and even to other governments through government sanctioned sales of the technology your tax dollars paid to develop. You can bet your entire paycheck that your tax dollars have paid for some real impressive stuff! This boosts economic values in companies because it helps make them more efficient. That value increases revenue which not only increases tax revenue but also increases important global factors like GDP. That in turn strengthens the economy and value of the dollar. It also bolsters trade relationships with other countries which in turn strengthens diplomatic ties. So yes, the cost is high for technology but the value is even higher and not readily apparent.
The waste comes from mis-management. When Congress tries to wage war, they louse it up, cause bottlenecks and propagate waste by going on needless investigations and fact-finding missions. Sometimes the military screws up, mismanages a project and it ends up reflecting badly on the contractors. Sometimes the contractors screw it up too. But there are so many projects happening all at once that don't get screwed up. You only hear about the ones that went horribly wrong. Most of those get fixed anyhow and you won't hear about them getting fixed or what the end result was. You won't hear about the others either. We have national secrets and advantages that come from them to protect. So when something is going good, you won't hear about it.
Yeah, companies like Haliburton are out there. I think that the biggest reason everyone points to them as waste is because Cheney was involved with them and still is to an extent. You know what though? Troy is right about the outsourcing. Is Haliburton's business practices suspect? Yeah sure. There is always room for scrutiny in any company or governmental body for that matter. Are they wasteful? Quite possibly. The company is HUGE. There is always going to be a certain amount of waste that happens due to the overhead needed to maintain the bureaucracy that is modern corporate America. Are they mismanaged? Not necessarily but there is always room for improvement in any company. But what is Haliburton's biggest crime? Seeing the need for cheaper outsourcing that Troy already mentioned and capitalizing on it before everyone else. They're not wrong in that. That's the spirit of the USA. Bill Gates did it, look where he is. He didn't take advantage of people through the government though, he just went straight for your pocket. He found a need, addressed it when everyone else was looking the other way and by the time they all turned around, he was already in their back pocket. Haliburton did a similar thing. They are under a greater scrutiny because they did it with the government. But when you're the ONLY company out there offering the service when the need arises, you don't exactly have any competition to keep things "fair".
As a better example of what I'm talking about concerning wasteful projects, look at the U.S. Postal Service. They got a whole new system, courtesy of Lockheed Martin. It was under speculation for waste for a little while. The findings ended up being wrong and the project had some budget overruns but overall met the budgetary goals. When the system got put in place, the post office caught up to every other postal company like FedEx or UPS overnight. In some cases, surpassed them. The United States Postal Service still handles more mail and packages than any other single country or private company out there. Yet they still are charging you less than 50 cents to mail a letter. Why? Because they were able to streamline the process for the Postal Service so much and eliminate so much overhead. The project was a doozie! It was quite expensive and ate up so much of the budget that Congress had to put together a separate fund to pay for it. Was it wasteful? At the time it seemed so. But is it wasteful now? Most people would likely vote no as they mail their Christmas cards all over the country for a few dollars.
Another giant budget sucker was updating the census system in 2000. Again, some big budgets there but the value in the most accurate census ever taken in the country is so high that you can't put a numerical value on it. Just think about all the info that is collected in the census and how it is used. That should give you an idea of how much waste is in inaccurate numbers.
Just because one guy on Capitol Hill has some of his facts wrong or is spinning things to put his own agenda to the forefront doesn't mean that things are how this one person is saying they are.
There is more to all of this than meets the eye. Contractors are held to pretty high standards and they are audited regularly enough. Trust me, every year I have at least 3 audits that occur for various things that I have to send information to the gubment for. They are gone over with a fine tooth comb and we are expected to answer for it. If there is an issue, trust me, it is investigated and resolved very quickly and if there is wrong-doing, punishment is dealt accordingly.
There is waste in the U.S. Government but trust me, not nearly as much as it seems happens with contractors. Contractors are a very large benefit to the U.S. Government and we would not be as advanced in technology as we are today without them. Believe it or not, we also have probably the most efficient military in the world and that's also due to the enormous effort put in by contractors. We can put something like 300,000 troops into a crisis area and fully support them in less than 2 weeks. That is impressive. It doesn't always go as smoothly as we would like but our fightin' arm is long and it's strong. It's guys like Troy D and the job his unit does that make stuff like that happen. Without contractors, they would have a hell of alot more work to do. It'd no doubt still get done but the cost would be drastically higher.Expert Moron Extraordinaire
You're just jealous 'cause the voices don't talk to you! -
PolkWannabie wrote: »You can fight it ( terrorism ) there, or you can fight it here ... This would seem to be a simple choice to make ...
I would still have preferred to fight terrorism inside Afgan instead of creating the artificial situation in IRAQ.
Interesting enough, watch the Discovery channels history on Osama... Its amazing that we have done exactly what he wanted us to do in Iraq in short commit our wealth and bodies into a religion conflict in their region to a scale that would bankrupt the nation. Strait up good stuff. His plan has not gone as well as he thought because he thought it would have escalated a LOT bigger then it has.Testing
Testing
Testing -
They make a lot, they spend a lot.
That is an understatement!
Contractor employees get taken care of quite well. Yes, big contracts cost big money. But, the government gets big benefit without big cost. The government doesn't cover all of the overhead in the development of such projects. they just pay for the cost of making it happen. The contractor swallows the overhead out of it's profit. Yes, there is profit, we all gotta eat too ya know.
That profit is still smaller than the cost the government would incur trying to go it alone though. However, the government sees its big contractors as a national resource. They do their best to take care of them and make sure they have work to stay in business. The big guys outsource alot of projects to smaller companies and that also supports the economy. The big guys have armies of intelligent people that make the impossible happen and produce what the world dreams of having. Then the government says "That's a secret!" and squirrels it away for their use. The contractor's benefit does not come from the government. The government allows the contractors to have certain rights to the technology they developed and they make their money by building that technology for other customers and applying what they already know. It drastically reduces R&D time and cuts overhead costs like crazy. So while we might build a plane for the U.S.A.F., we'll make maybe 30 cents on the dollar as an example, not a real number. We can turn around and sell that plane to a friendly like say Great Britain and make 60 cents on the dollar. That's foreign money coming in to a U.S. company coffers folks. That's called GDP. That's income and alot of it!
In turn, to support these projects and make this work happen, we buy equipment. For example, again, not real numbers, if a contract gets bid out for $50 mil to build a satellite, in order to do the work, you need people, equipment, money, office space and so on. We will take that 50 mill and drop 5 mil on equipment alone. That's everything from lab equipment to one hell of a order from say Dell Inc for 400 laptops and desktops added to the equipment the company already owns to do the work with. We'll take 5 mil of the that and hire a building contractor to put up a new building to house the 400 new employees we had to hire to cover the contract. Somebody's gotta do the work and use all that new equipment, right? Oh yeah, gotta pay those people too. Yeah, they use utilities. There's revenue there. Oh, there's the tax dollars for state, county and federal benefit too. And so on.
Yeah, big contractors seem like they waste money in the spending but unless you really look at the spending, you won't see how much waste there isn't. Big contractors are a good thing all around. Trust me on this. I work for one, I have been for almost 12 years now. I know first hand how this works.Expert Moron Extraordinaire
You're just jealous 'cause the voices don't talk to you! -
let them kill each other off for a few years... so be it... eventually they may think... maybe if we get along people wont stop dying. Hell, if they are busy killing each other, our boys casualties can be minimized.
Stuff like this has been happening since the beginning of written history, and probably before. Not very many people have learned from it yet, and I doubt this would be an exception.
-CodyMusic is like candy, you have to get rid of the rappers to enjoy it -
Cody, you are smarter than the average bear. I'm not kidding either.
~ In search of accurate reproduction of music. Real sound is my reference and while perfection may not be attainable? If I chase it, I might just catch excellence. ~ -
I keep telling myself that.
-CodyMusic is like candy, you have to get rid of the rappers to enjoy it -
I'd like to address the Iraqis taking care of themselves thing because this is important and something I didn't really comprehend until I came here and have to work with the IA and the IP on a daily basis.
These people have, one, little to no education and two, are used to having someone tell them what to do, where to go, when to piss etc etc. Personal freedom, initiative...concepts that we take for granted even if we don't quite understand why or how...are as foreign to them as, I dunno, buying Bose is to us. You can't just expect these people to pick it up just like that (snaps fingers)...we are talking about a cultural change that's going to take a generation or more to really take hold.
Here is a true story told to be by a guy who witnessed it first hand. Last winter there was a small IA unit in a small FOB. Well, there was a cold snap for a few days. REALLY cold, snow the whole enchilada. The IA dismantled thier buildings and burned the wood, burned thier beds, blankets and was starting in on thier clothes. The officers horded all the food and were ordering the enlisted to burn thier clothes first. See where I'm going with this? The assumption was that someone would take care of them as opposed to thinking things out logically.
BDTI plan for the future. - F1Nut -
I would still have preferred to fight terrorism inside Afgan instead of creating the artificial situation in IRAQ.
Interesting enough, watch the Discovery channels history on Osama... Its amazing that we have done exactly what he wanted us to do in Iraq in short commit our wealth and bodies into a religion conflict in their region to a scale that would bankrupt the nation. Strait up good stuff. His plan has not gone as well as he thought because he thought it would have escalated a LOT bigger then it has.
We did fight the terrorists and for the most part the either fled or were killed. Those **** were going somewhere and if you think that Saddam would have turned them away on principle, you are dead wrong. But, whatever, think what you wish.
Yes, this war is expensive but as I have suggested.....look at the damn federal budget. What we are spending here is a literal drop in the bucket. 150B out of a total of close to 3 TRILLION in spending. Do the math.
That's like me plunking down 20K on an audio rig and then saying that it's the subscription to Stereophile that's bankrupting me. It just doesn't make sense.
You could also flip that around and say that the more personnel and resources (of which they have less resources) that they invest against the US in Iraq, that's less that they have to come after us at home. Think about that. Gen. Franks was right when he said that he would rather fight them over there (here for me) that at home.
Believe what you want, think what you want.....just apply facts and independant logic to make your decisions, not what some politician or group wants you to believe.
BDTI plan for the future. - F1Nut -
I'd like to just add one point: Whether or not you agreed with the reasons for going or you belive W lied and this is all one big conspiracy, we are in Iraq.
Given the fact that we are already there, the reasons for going and using them as an excuse to come home is idiotic. We are there and by any objective standard we should stay and stay for quite a while to ensure the stability in the region (regardless of whether we caused the instability or not). Since we are there, let's go ahead and make the sacrifices needed to give our military what it needs to succeed and win this thing quickly so we can bring our people home the correct way.
Hope that makes sense...There is no genuine justice in any scheme of feeding and coddling the loafer whose only ponderable energies are devoted wholly to reproduction. Nine-tenths of the rights he bellows for are really privileges and he does nothing to deserve them. We not only acquired a vast population of morons, we have inculcated all morons, old or young, with the doctrine that the decent and industrious people of the country are bound to support them for all time.-Menkin -
I'd like to just add one point: Whether or not you agreed with the reasons for going or you belive W lied and this is all one big conspiracy, we are in Iraq.
Given the fact that we are already there, the reasons for going and using them as an excuse to come home is idiotic. We are there and by any objective standard we should stay and stay for quite a while to ensure the stability in the region (regardless of whether we caused the instability or not). Since we are there, let's go ahead and make the sacrifices needed to give our military what it needs to succeed and win this thing quickly so we can bring our people home the correct way.
Hope that makes sense...
He focused on what he wanted to believe. Different than a lie. We all do it to some extent.
The president did what he thought was right. It was based on information from a
faulty source. The guy was the former head of Iraq's nuclear progam.
We are stuck. I don't think anything but a strong arm can keep control over
Iraq. The U.S will have to hang around a very long time. And even then,
the result could very well be another Viet Nam. As soon as the last chopper leaves,
the government there will slowly unravel.
Democracy has to be earned. You can't establish it with an army.
The people of Iraq didn't want democracy. We just created one.
The outcome of us leaving is as you described. The fight for the scraps
of Iraq would tear the region apart.
What a mess. And very expensive."The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." --Thomas Jefferson -
sucks2beme wrote: »He focused on what he wanted to believe. Different than a lie. We all do it to some extent.
The president did what he thought was right. It was based on information from a
faulty source. The guy was the former head of Iraq's nuclear progam.
We are stuck. I don't think anything but a strong arm can keep control over
Iraq. The U.S will have to hang around a very long time. And even then,
the result could very well be another Viet Nam. As soon as the last chopper leaves,
the government there will slowly unravel.
Democracy has to be earned. You can't establish it with an army.
The people of Iraq didn't want democracy. We just created one.
The outcome of us leaving is as you described. The fight for the scraps
of Iraq would tear the region apart.
What a mess. And very expensive.
1.) No, he focussed on the same intelligence Bill Clinton and all those before him had.
2.) He did do what he thought was right, along with pretty much every member of Congress and the Senate. The President can declare war, but cannot act unequivocally. Cut the funding, could have done that from day 1.
3.) We are still in Germany, and have been since May of 1945 when the **** surrendered. We have been in Japan for about the same time period. The United States military being a stabilizing force is nothing new. Perspective is key.
4.) Vietnam was lost politically here at home, not militarily. The troops were not given the tools that they needed to get the job done. In that way, this is very similar. You have a group of people doing everything they can to demonize our troops and our leadership in the middle of a conflict.
5.) The government in Germany and Japan didn't slowly unravel. Japan is a fantastic country as is Germany. Any American can travel to either country and feel extremely safe. I'm sure many people said the same things back then about them.
6.) Well, no, it can't be solely created by an army, but it can be established by an army. It has been done before and it's being done again. Nobody said it would be an easy road, but it can definitely be done.
7.) The people of Iraq didn't want a democracy? Do you have any idea how you sound making that statement? Who are you to say that human beings don't want freedom? They've been conditioned for generations to bow to the hand of a dictator, that stuff doesn't just flip overnight and will take many years to undo, possibly even an entire generation.
8.) I wasn't aware that war was clean. Expensive? Yeah, it is, and as Troy said it's a drop in the bucket in reality. I also believe it's far cheaper fighting a regional war than fighting the same war all around the world.
We ignored terrorism for years and years and the attacks kept getting larger and more and more bold. So many forget the U.S.S. Cole, Khobar Towers, The World Trade Center attack in 1993.
Did you want to keep ignoring it? Please answer the question, and don't just say "Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11." It's just a slogan line that's meaningless. This is about sustained terrorist attacks in the world, not about one attack on our country, although a huge part of it.
Most of us don't want to live in a world where 9/11 type attacks are normal. Eliminating states that sponsor terrorism is in our best interest. -
1.) No, he focussed on the same intelligence Bill Clinton and all those before him had.
2.) He did do what he thought was right, along with pretty much every member of Congress and the Senate. The President can declare war, but cannot act unequivocally. Cut the funding, could have done that from day 1.
3.) We are still in Germany, and have been since May of 1945 when the **** surrendered. We have been in Japan for about the same time period. The United States military being a stabilizing force is nothing new. Perspective is key.
4.) Vietnam was lost politically here at home, not militarily. The troops were not given the tools that they needed to get the job done. In that way, this is very similar. You have a group of people doing everything they can to demonize our troops and our leadership in the middle of a conflict.
5.) The government in Germany and Japan didn't slowly unravel. Japan is a fantastic country as is Germany. Any American can travel to either country and feel extremely safe. I'm sure many people said the same things back then about them.
6.) Well, no, it can't be solely created by an army, but it can be established by an army. It has been done before and it's being done again. Nobody said it would be an easy road, but it can definitely be done.
7.) The people of Iraq didn't want a democracy? Do you have any idea how you sound making that statement? Who are you to say that human beings don't want freedom? They've been conditioned for generations to bow to the hand of a dictator, that stuff doesn't just flip overnight and will take many years to undo, possibly even an entire generation.
8.) I wasn't aware that war was clean. Expensive? Yeah, it is, and as Troy said it's a drop in the bucket in reality. I also believe it's far cheaper fighting a regional war than fighting the same war all around the world.
We ignored terrorism for years and years and the attacks kept getting larger and more and more bold. So many forget the U.S.S. Cole, Khobar Towers, The World Trade Center attack in 1993.
Did you want to keep ignoring it? Please answer the question, and don't just say "Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11." It's just a slogan line that's meaningless. This is about sustained terrorist attacks in the world, not about one attack on our country, although a huge part of it.
Most of us don't want to live in a world where 9/11 type attacks are normal. Eliminating states that sponsor terrorism is in our best interest.
Sounds like Rush on AM radio. -
-
Sounds like Rush on AM radio.
Sounds more like someone who grasps reality and has some historical perspective.There is no genuine justice in any scheme of feeding and coddling the loafer whose only ponderable energies are devoted wholly to reproduction. Nine-tenths of the rights he bellows for are really privileges and he does nothing to deserve them. We not only acquired a vast population of morons, we have inculcated all morons, old or young, with the doctrine that the decent and industrious people of the country are bound to support them for all time.-Menkin -
1.) No, he focussed on the same intelligence Bill Clinton and all those before him had.
2.) He did do what he thought was right, along with pretty much every member of Congress and the Senate. The President can declare war, but cannot act unequivocally. Cut the funding, could have done that from day 1.
3.) We are still in Germany, and have been since May of 1945 when the **** surrendered. We have been in Japan for about the same time period. The United States military being a stabilizing force is nothing new. Perspective is key.
4.) Vietnam was lost politically here at home, not militarily. The troops were not given the tools that they needed to get the job done. In that way, this is very similar. You have a group of people doing everything they can to demonize our troops and our leadership in the middle of a conflict.
5.) The government in Germany and Japan didn't slowly unravel. Japan is a fantastic country as is Germany. Any American can travel to either country and feel extremely safe. I'm sure many people said the same things back then about them.
6.) Well, no, it can't be solely created by an army, but it can be established by an army. It has been done before and it's being done again. Nobody said it would be an easy road, but it can definitely be done.
7.) The people of Iraq didn't want a democracy? Do you have any idea how you sound making that statement? Who are you to say that human beings don't want freedom? They've been conditioned for generations to bow to the hand of a dictator, that stuff doesn't just flip overnight and will take many years to undo, possibly even an entire generation.
8.) I wasn't aware that war was clean. Expensive? Yeah, it is, and as Troy said it's a drop in the bucket in reality. I also believe it's far cheaper fighting a regional war than fighting the same war all around the world.
We ignored terrorism for years and years and the attacks kept getting larger and more and more bold. So many forget the U.S.S. Cole, Khobar Towers, The World Trade Center attack in 1993.
Did you want to keep ignoring it? Please answer the question, and don't just say "Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11." It's just a slogan line that's meaningless. This is about sustained terrorist attacks in the world, not about one attack on our country, although a huge part of it.
Most of us don't want to live in a world where 9/11 type attacks are normal. Eliminating states that sponsor terrorism is in our best interest.
Iraq was a dictatorship, NOT a Islamic state. He didn't tolerate the challege to his power. He supported religion only to the point it suited him.
Iraq was neutralized. Not much of a threat.
Iran, on the other hand was very active. Very supportive of terror, and
Jihad. This should of been our target.
We have bases in Germany and Japan to protect our interests. NOT TO
CONTROL Japan and Germany. Big difference. Japan and Germany were able to
put a workable government in place rather quickly. Not gonna happen here
anytime soon.
I'm NOT a friggin dove. 4 years in the Marine Corps. I am all for taking out targets of interest. I'm saying, Iraq was a poor target. It's sapping our ability to get the job done other places."The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." --Thomas Jefferson -
The bases in Japan and Germany were orignally put in place to provide stability and control same as Iraq....There is no genuine justice in any scheme of feeding and coddling the loafer whose only ponderable energies are devoted wholly to reproduction. Nine-tenths of the rights he bellows for are really privileges and he does nothing to deserve them. We not only acquired a vast population of morons, we have inculcated all morons, old or young, with the doctrine that the decent and industrious people of the country are bound to support them for all time.-Menkin
-
1.)
4.) Vietnam was lost politically here at home, not militarily. The troops were not given the tools that they needed to get the job done. In that way, this is very similar. You have a group of people doing everything they can to demonize our troops and our leadership in the middle of a conflict. .
This is crap.
Neither the South Vietnam or the North Vietnam wanted the US or French or USSR or China in their country. No Vietnam people wanted us there. I think the same is true in Iraq. They also don't want us there. Would you want Iraq in Vermont telling us what to do?
What tools were the US troups missing?
This group of people doing every thing they can is called Democarcy.
The longer we stay in Iraq with a broken policy the more lives will be lost and money wasted. Yes there will be a continued civil as there is now but I doubt Iran or any other country will control them if we can't.
Admit we made a tragic error like Vietnam and find a better solution.
Ask all the president candidates what they would do about Iraq. Not how much money they have raised. -
sucks2beme wrote: »Iraq was a dictatorship, NOT a Islamic state. He didn't tolerate the challege to his power. He supported religion only to the point it suited him.
Iraq was neutralized. Not much of a threat.
Iran, on the other hand was very active. Very supportive of terror, and
Jihad. This should of been our target.
We have bases in Germany and Japan to protect our interests. NOT TO
CONTROL Japan and Germany. Big difference. Japan and Germany were able to
put a workable government in place rather quickly. Not gonna happen here
anytime soon.
I'm NOT a friggin dove. 4 years in the Marine Corps. I am all for taking out targets of interest. I'm saying, Iraq was a poor target. It's sapping our ability to get the job done other places.
1.) It was a dictatorship, just as I said it was.
2.) Obviously the U.N. didn't believe that, or they wouldn't have imposed so many resolutions for Iraq with stiff stipulations -- stipulations Saddam Hussein didn't adhere to.
3.) Iran is part of the War of Terror, as is Syria and North Korea.
4.) Look at a map -- the largest sections of Iran are surrounded by Iraq, Afganistan, Pakistan. 4 other countries surround Iran with smaller borders. Afganistan & Iraq are the two largest, each opposite of one another and Iran sandwiched in the middle. Syra is cut off from Iran by Iraq, saved for the southern border of Turkey.
Point is, there is strategic staging involved in how we did things. Attacking Iran first would have been absolutely moronic, especially given we may not even have to step foot in there with a revolution looming.
5.) No, the bases in Germany and Japan were placed there to create stability in the region and to prevent similar governments to those that were just disolved from setting up shop. Both countries remained stable due to our continued presence. Bases in Japan and Germany are now used mostly as staging grounds now for other conflicts that arise around the world.
6.) You may want to read up on how the new governments of Japan and Germany were created. There was a whole lot of U.S. involvement. At the end of the day, the people of any country need to make it work for themselves, however this has always taken time. Iraq is no different. In fact, it will likely take longer due to the generational struggle at hand with having to dismantle a mentality that has been in place for decades.
7.) I didn't say you were, I'm just responding to what you said. -
It's been quite enjoyable that this non-political topic hasn't turned into a flame-fest; nice work.
Here's a link for one interesting viewpoint of why we're in Iraq.
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html
You can, of course, deduce from the site address that this isn't the home page for the Republican National Committee, nor is it the home page for the Democratic National Committee.
Sources are cited so it isn't an Abbie Hoffman/Barbara Boxer "Let's Impeach Bush" rant site.
Even though sources are cited, one should always keep in mind that even the Devil can quote Scripture. (mean that in a non-religious way )
It's an interesting read, even if one doesn't agree with all/any of the views expressed.
Short, it ain't.
This isn't offered as a Rosetta Stone to "explain all" of "What the Hell happened ?".
Just an interesting little read.Sal Palooza -
This is crap.
Neither the South Vietnam or the North Vietnam wanted the US or French or USSR or China in their country. No Vietnam people wanted us there. I think the same is true in Iraq. They also don't want us there. Would you want Iraq in Vermont telling us what to do?
What tools were the US troups missing?
This group of people doing every thing they can is called Democarcy.
The longer we stay in Iraq with a broken policy the more lives will be lost and money wasted. Yes there will be a continued civil as there is now but I doubt Iran or any other country will control them if we can't.
Admit we made a tragic error like Vietnam and find a better solution.
Ask all the president candidates what they would do about Iraq. Not how much money they have raised.
Probably explains all of the hmong that migrated to the United States after the Vietnam war, huh?
Guess what Bikezappa, you're my personal **** now. You'll do what I want when I want. Would you like that? Probably not, how on earth are you going to sit here and tell me people want that type of treatment?
I know we have a few people who have been to Iraq/Middle East on this board. Some in the military and some who have been contractors. They will tell you a different story. Are they liars? Is that what you'd call them? Sorry man, but you don't have a leg to stand on. You've just convinced yourself of something that's not true because it's what you want to believe.
It is true many Iraqis are still very afraid. Afraid that Saddam, while dead, will come back and get them. They don't want to speak out. The troop surge in Iraq has made Iraqis a lot more comfortable and willing cooperate from what I have heard from people who were on the ground there.
All of the Presidential candidates were asked about Iraq -- none of the leading Democrat candidates would comment on it because they aren't going to do a damn thing different. Just like the democratic congress hasn't done dick. It's all words and no action. -
[QUOTE=Guess what Bikezappa, you're my personal **** now. You'll do what I want when I want. Would you like that? Probably not, how on earth are you going to sit here and tell me people want that type of treatment?
.[/QUOTE]
What are you talking about?
Do you read? I was talking about Nam. And your summary of Nam is crap.
You must have a wonderful imagination when you read.
This discussion has been closed.