[bigred875]

Originally posted by bnstruck2
The years of the recession in the United States actually occured during 2002 and 2003. The events of September 11th push the economic slowdown to a recession. So the fact is Clinton did not leave the country in a recession. So you are now free to comment on the rest of my post.

oh really



http://www.bls.gov/eag/eag.us.htm

[Doc]

The original article

"The New York Times wants Gitmo closed. The San Jose Mercury News claims that Gitmo nurtures a culture of death. The Cleveland Plain Dealer wants Gitmo closed. Journalists and editorial staffs are up in arms that there might possibly be some kind of torture occurring.

So what do they say when torture OBVIOUSLY occurs? How do they react when two U.S. servicemen — in Geneva Convention-approved uniforms — have their hearts cut out, their testicles cut off, their penises cut off and stuffed in their mouths, arms contorted and eyes gouged? THIS is torture.

But WHERE is the outrage? Where is the concern about the Geneva Convention being adhered to? Where is the outrage from the very people we are trying to help? How in the world could the Iraqi government have even contemplated pardoning terrorists who have killed U.S. military members?

Put yourself in the position of a young American serviceman or servicewoman overseas. How would you be able to distinguish in a split second between someone who doesn’t speak English and needs directions, from someone who is hiding a bomb belt and wants to blow you to bits?

(Story continues below)

ADVERTISEMENTSAdvertise Here



We just found out that two servicemen killed in 2004 were not killed in an ambush, as first thought. They were killed by two Iraqis who were supposedly working with us. Yes, our military must be held to high standards, but we also have to view their actions with the perspective of what has happened there. These young military volunteers are basing decisions of when to shoot and when not to shoot on their experience in this specific battlefield. I will give them every benefit of the doubt. It is their life on the line.

Well, my blood hasn't stopped boiling, but there is another interesting story: police across the country are thrilled by a new fashion. You know how some people are wearing those baggy pants which sometimes have waists that seem to be near their knees? Police report they have been able to catch a high number of criminals simply because they are getting tripped up by their pants or because the pants are so low they have trouble running away!

Finally, we interviewed a Pennsylvania mayor who is going after companies that employ illegal immigrants. He is tired of all the money his taxpayers spend on social services, education and health care for people who are not contributing to the local tax base. To see more about his new law, check out: www.smalltowndefenders.com.

[Doc]

Originally posted by chr|s sedition
I usually only respond to (inane) comments other people make in these threads, but I'll be a bit more proactive with this post.

The biggest problem with Iraq is that we have fostered and created exactlly what we were trying to avoid in the form of either / both; (a) a breeding ground for terrorism, or (b) the uneeded deaths of thousands of people.

(1) Osama and crew were responsible for 9/11.

(2) Sadam had nothing to do with it.

* True most likely not DIRECTLY but he had alot to do with being a dictator and using fear to have his minority run the government and Iraq. He also out lived his useful purpose for the United States, He got too big for his britches and didn't learn after we smacked his pee pee the first time. But that is the Arab way, stubborn as hell.

(3) Bush claimed Sadam had WMD's and was part of the anti-USA terror network. Sadam was no nice guy, but IRAQ posed *no threat* to the US.

No direct threat because we spanked em and had sanctions on them, but terrorism does not work in direct ways. Saddam was trying to secure his future in his lil corner by ANY means.

(meanwhile, Osama is still running around, and we never even bothered to check-out Saudi Arabia, where 15 of the 9/11 highjackers were from)

Alot of "terrorists" are form all over including the U.S. why go for the "tail"? And as for him still running around... He isn't running he is hiding and you go try to find a needle in a haystack.

(4) We invade IRAQ. The US thinks it is going to be a "quick war", a HUGE mistake.

Who in the US thought it was going to be a "quick war" Show of hands..... I know those of us in the military knew we were going to be there for a long time from the onset, It is what I have been telling everyone all along. If you thought different your are a deluded member of society and are listening to the wrong people. :grin:

(5) All hell breaks loose in IRAQ.

WAR broke loose in Iraq

(5)(a) If we *do* fail to "nation build" in IRAQ, we are in *big trouble*. IRAQ will become what it was not, but what we thought that it actually was; a tremendous breeding ground and training camp for Al Quieda and their ilk. Moreover, Iraq will have made that transformation only from our actions. Sadam's government was in place, and we took it out. As bad as that government was, it will be a far better and less hostile government than the one that replaces it if we fail to "nation build". Thus, by our actions, we will have enabled a terrorist country to come into existence that would not have been there provided that we did not invade Iraq in the first place. Meanwhile, the main person behind 9/11 (Osama) is still running around free, and thousands of people are dead with NOTHING to show for it. This is the worst possible outcome.

Umm I agree with the concept of the above. Yes Al Quieda are using Iraq as a staging area, it is in turmoil and they are opportunists. (The area was quietly a staging area before all this) ... Saddams government was a piss poor minority ruling the majority through death squads and the like, do not fool yourself into believing the majority was happy with what was going on.
Yes we need to "nation build" we have a conscience, we shoould take care of our mess. I will not be suprised when we put down permanent bases like we did in Germany after WWII.



(5)(b) If we do *not* fail to nation build in Iraq, what will the net gain be? Prolly some other fucked-up government that is not an active threat to the USA (hmm...sounds like Sadam's government), yet we will have lost thousands of US lives, thousands of Iraqi civillans lives, and caused greater animosity than that which was previouslly there (applies to both middle eastern countries, and the rest of th world). Meanwhile, the main person behind 9/11 is still running around free, and thousands of people are dead, and we end up in about the same posistion as we were when we went into Iraq (arguably worse, b/c now more the middle east and the rest of the world hates us more than before). As sad as this sounds, it is most likely the best possibile out come.
Agreed

(6) Clinton: if you are going to attribute the fault of 9/11 and current war to the previous administration's policies, please follow that line of reasoning to its bitter end: Republican abministrations put both Sadam and Osama into power. Logic hurts.

I fault 9/11 to Osama. Nothing we could have done short of waking up early from our drunken rich slumbering would have stopped 9/11. I too was not surprised that fateful morning and told my coworkers that it was Osama who did it. I was not surprised when they had never heard of him (druken rich slumber).
Enough poking into this rant I am going to write my own.



-sedition

[Doc]

And on to my own...

Where do I start?

Forget all the politics and for a bit will ya.

1. Lets start WAY back and remember the US uses governments and people how they see fit. BOTH OSAMA and SADDAM were allies of ours at one point. They both stopped being useful got too big for there britches and we severed ties.

2. Osama has been on the terrorist watch list since before "terrorist" was such an over used word. Why didn't we go hunt him down and kill him before? you ask? You ever hear the term keep your freinds close but your ememies closer? He and Saddam were both more useful to us Alive than Dead.

3. Why didn't we "finish the job" the first time we went to Iraq? See above.

4. Why did we go back into Iraq? Saddam was becoming a pain in the ass. plain and simple, NO WMD's (although I think we sure as hell thought he was capable. Do you know how easy it is too make some of this shit?) Not because of oil, (although he was gathering support to put the squeeze on that, remember him crying that the sanctions should be lifted off his poor country? I do.)

5. "The poor soldiers should come home" "suppport our troops, bring them home" and the like.
There are not many soldiers who are asking to go home, I do not see them on the evening news, I do not even see them blogging on my space. Why? Because We know what needs to be done, we know what we got into when we signed up, We know because it says so in the oath "to defend our country from enemies both foreign and domestic". We want to finsh the job.

Sure it sucks, it is hot, it smells, and getting shot at is not all that much fun. BUT I would rather fight them over there then over here.

6. "Terrorists are cruel, they chop off heads and penises and burn flags!"
Yep they are, and I bet you thought that us GI's say a prayer for them everytime we kill one. WAKE UP! We cheer when we blow shit up! It means there is one less bastard that is going to try to shoot me in the back!
They have been chopping off heads and hands and penises for years! It is in their culture. We put people in a box and gas them to death or iject them to death and call in humane! It is just the way they do things. It appals us because we are not used to it. WELL GET USED TO IT and maybe it won't be so shocking. It is already not as shocking as the first time it happend!!!

As for the soldiers killed... I have a few friends that have died over there, it sucks and it makes me mad. Not that they died, but that someone didn't get the fucker that shot them first. Our hands get tied over their because of all the liberal bastards that don't understand war. Give us what we want and the thing would be over in another 2-3 years tops.

.... I digress... If you have specific question, one at a time I will give you MY opinion.

Thanks for listening.

SSG Michael Lemire
2/172 MP
US Army
Deployed Dec 04 to Dec 05

[benVFR]

You have a conservative presidental administration, a conservative majority legislature, and a conservative supreme court.

If anyone is to blame for the military not having the Rules of engagement you need over in Iraq it's them. They know giving you guys the right ROEs would result in them losing elections. Gotta keep everything in control. Presidents have been doing that forever. Bush's behavior is just like the Presidents during the Vietnam war. No one wanted to pull out because it would make them look like wimps politically. If Bush just pulled out of Iraq right now it would make the Republicans look weak. So it probably won't happen.

As to who told us the war was going to be quick and easy. We heard the military saying it would not be quick and easy loud and clear all along. But Bush and Rumsfeld were certainly telling us a different story.

About the only thing you can blame liberals for is the democrats in congress being such pussies that they voted for the war rather then stand up for what their constituents believe. While there is plenty of "Anybody but Bush" sentiment out there... believe me no one is happy with the Democratic party's behavior.

I suspect we will still be in Iraq 2 years from now. If the Republicans lose the White House you will either see a very fast withdrawl from Iraq (6 months?) or you will see another 4 years of Iraq. As soon as the Democratic President got far enough into his term to have to worry about re-election, he will decide not to pull out of Iraq so he will not look weak on defense.

You can complain about liberals all you want but bottom line is liberals have very little power in government right now so it is very hard for anything to be blamed on them. Anything the Republicans are united on, they can do. Anything the Democrats want to do requires convincing some Republicans to help them.

[Doc]

Not complaining about liberals... Just the whiners.

You know what I mean?

If it wasn't for the liberal voice where would we be?

"It is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us the freedom of the press.
It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us the freedom of speech.
It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who gives us the freedom to demonstrate.
It is the soldier who salutes the flag, who serves beneath the flag, and whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protester to burn the flag."
—Father Dennis Edward O'Brien

[bnstruck2]

Originally posted by bigred875
oh really



http://www.bls.gov/eag/eag.us.htm

I cannot read your graphs because the pictures don't work. I am guessing they said something along the lines that the recession started in March 2001 which is correct. The affects of the recession were felt more in 2002 and 2003 in this country as opposed to the EU which was more 200-2001. I do stand by my statement that the recession never would have occured if 9/11 would never have happened. That pushed the slowdown to a recession.

I find it ironic that the right classifies the 1991-1992 recession as simply the end of a business cycle that was inevitable. Where the 2001 recession is a result of Clinton running the economy into the ground even though it was at the end of the longest expansion on record at the NBER.

http://www.nber.org/cycles/november2001/

[bigred875]

nope click in the link i provided for all the detail on the US economy from around 96 to today...

i am really not into arguing over what has is proven by documented facts...lol

[bnstruck2]

Originally posted by Doc
Not complaining about liberals... Just the whiners.

You know what I mean?

If it wasn't for the liberal voice where would we be?

"It is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us the freedom of the press.
It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us the freedom of speech.
It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who gives us the freedom to demonstrate.
It is the soldier who salutes the flag, who serves beneath the flag, and whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protester to burn the flag."
—Father Dennis Edward O'Brien

This is very true. Then why don't we elect someone who has been a soldier to be our President. Since 1980 the only president who was a soldier was Bush Sr. I don't think service in the Texas Air National Guard qualifies in this instance. Someone who has seen war will have a much better perspective on it than someone who has never seen it.

[bnstruck2]

Originally posted by bigred875
nope click in the link i provided for all the detail on the US economy from around 96 to today...

i am really not into arguing over what has is proven by documented facts...lol

Considering NBER's paper that I linked was in part written by Ben Bernanke our current Fed Chairman you might want to just take a look at it. I have a feeling that his and his colleagues interpritation of that data is more advanced than anyone on this forum.

[Doc]

Originally posted by bnstruck2
This is very true. Then why don't we elect someone who has been a soldier to be our President. Since 1980 the only president who was a soldier was Bush Sr. I don't think service in the Texas Air National Guard qualifies in this instance. Someone who has seen war will have a much better perspective on it than someone who has never seen it.

You won't get that because all of the bleeding hearts don't want a warrior for a president. "Too violent" (bunch of pussies).

Bring back Reagan. Clone him or whatever. He had Balls!

I would have voted for Colin Powell if he would have ran back in the day. Now he is too political.

[bigred875]

Originally posted by bnstruck2
Considering NBER's paper that I linked was in part written by Ben Bernanke our current Fed Chairman you might want to just take a look at it. I have a feeling that his and his colleagues interpritation of that data is more advanced than anyone on this forum.

my link is from the U.S. Department of Labor
Bureau of Labor Statistics...you are making my hair hurt...i'm done

[TheIglu]

Originally posted by Doc

I would have voted for Colin Powell if he would have ran back in the day. Now he is too political.

Then why hasn't he run for office?

He hasn't changed his tune. He simply disagreed with the administration. I guess that means he is "too political".

I'd be all over this republican for president like stink on shit. He is a prime example of a candidate that can bring fairness to both parties.

[Doc]

I guess what I meant by "too political" is that he has sold out somewhat.

He was never very vocal but it also seems he has dropped off the earth. I guess he doesn't want to run and has simply shyed away from the political spotlight.

[Joe_ZX7R]

Originally posted by benVFR


As to who told us the war was going to be quick and easy. We heard the military saying it would not be quick and easy loud and clear all along. But Bush and Rumsfeld were certainly telling us a different story.

Dude, you're CRAAAAAZZZZAAAYYY!

Bush was right out of the box telling us not to expect any form of quick victory, that it was going to, essentially, be a long haul!

[Joe_ZX7R]

Originally posted by bentbryan
Two of our guys are butchered like animals . Where's all these great organizations like Amnesty International?

Oh that's right! They're still worried about how we treat prisoners down in Gitmo!

Where do I sign up to go kill goat-herding rag heads for six months?

Yup! If an 18 year old private tossed a prisoner's Q'ran across the cell, and it ended up in the toilet, it would be an international incident with more calls for a jihad against the great satan...

f'in liberal influence... it's hard to tell sometimes who the REAL terrorists are: destructive liberals, or the terrorists themselves... truthfully, i have an ouce more of respect for the terrorists than most ardent bandwagon Bush hatas....

[Nikon]

Originally posted by Doc
And on to my own...

Where do I start?

Thanks for listening.

SSG Michael Lemire
2/172 MP
US Army
Deployed Dec 04 to Dec 05

[not gonna clog the board with quoting all of it.....]

well put Doc.


ETA: I think it's funny that a soldier that hated being over there is 'backing' the war; by backing I'm referring to not bashing it and believing in the cause and the people bashing it are the ones that haven't been there.

I know the typical response is that "they joined up so they have to believe in it, they joined up so they are in a different mindset"..blah blah blah but a LOT of people that are over there signed up LONG before this war started. They may complain about being there but the complaints that I have heard from soldiers that are there (and I heard from a lot because of other boards I am on and I know several personally that have been and come back) is about the heat and lack of funding - personal body armor and vehicle armor mostly. I haven't heard a single soldier complain about the cause. Osama and Saddam are bad people. PERIOD. They are a threat to us. Sure the justification was wrong (WMD) but they could have been there and maybe still are.

I am not a supporter of the war but I certainly believe in supporting our troops there. Do I think we should 'bringour troops home"? Not right now. I think that if we pull out now we're fucked. Have we solved anything? I think so.

I haven't been over and hopefully never have to go to war but I think we are doing some good. Personally I think we should bomb the piss outta em. I hate seeing what they do to our people there and how we treat them fairly well when they are in our custody. I see the stuff about the "torture" to some of the prisoners in our custody - good. Fuck em up. They chop their captures heads off, we give 3 square and clothing. Fuck them. Using children, IED and shit - fuckin assholes.

[TheIglu]

Originally posted by Joe_ZX7R
Yup! If an 18 year old private tossed a prisoner's Q'ran across the cell, and it ended up in the toilet, it would be an international incident with more calls for a jihad against the great satan...

f'in liberal influence... it's hard to tell sometimes who the REAL terrorists are: destructive liberals, or the terrorists themselves... truthfully, i have an ouce more of respect for the terrorists than most ardent bandwagon Bush hatas....

I'm a terrorist. We should make all the liberals wear golden L's sewn to their shirts.

Liberals make porn legal. Remember that people.

[TheIglu]

Originally posted by Nikon
[not gonna clog the board with quoting all of it.....]


I haven't been over and hopefully never have to go to war but I think we are doing some good. Personally I think we should bomb the piss outta em. I hate seeing what they do to our people there and how we treat them fairly well when they are in our custody. I see the stuff about the "torture" to some of the prisoners in our custody - good. Fuck em up. They chop their captures heads off, we give 3 square and clothing. Fuck them. Using children, IED and shit - fuckin assholes.

If they stood out, we could bomb them. But they blend into a civilian population that is frustrated with the insurgents. Sure, they have some supporters, but shit, you can't just go bombing an entire population just because .004% of them are fighting back. At least in Afganistan we turned the country against them so they fled to the mountains where we CAN bomb the shit out of them. So far it's been working pretty damn well.

[Nikon]

Originally posted by TheIglu
If they stood out, we could bomb them. But they blend into a civilian population that is frustrated with the insurgents. Sure, they have some supporters, but shit, you can't just go bombing an entire population just because .004% of them are fighting back. At least in Afganistan we turned the country against them so they fled to the mountains where we CAN bomb the shit out of them. So far it's been working pretty damn well.

I may disagree to an extent with the first part of that but for bombing the shit out of stuff

[Doc]

I read a great interview with Colin Powell today.

He basically said (about the WMD thing) that the intelligence was wrong, how they all thought it was right but it was wrong.
Although everyone knows that there was the ability and capability and the pure want to have/make them, and that Saddam had gassed his people before....

Oh and Nikon... I never said I hated being over there. It was not pleasant and I missed my wife and home, but it was something I had to do. I did it to the best of my ability so hopefully others don't have to.

[ultraTwist]

Quote:

Actually, we wouldn't have a recruiting problem if Clinton hadn't gutted the military during his stay.

At this point in my life I wouldn't join. But if I was drafted I'd go.

End quote:

I'm not sure I'm going to read this whole thread but this is just wrong, I have no idea where you got that. The military was first gutted in 89 with the falling of the wall. Bush #1 wanted to do it over night as well as stop procurement. Cooler heads prevailed and they decided to cut is slowly over many years in order to give the commercial economy time to absorb the loses. The initial recession of 90-91 was bad enough.

Second Rummy's whole point of being is cutting the military. It's his doctrine way back from Vietnam. He still believes we can get by with a minimal army. Clinton advoacated two major conflicts. Rummy began reducing it two one major conflict and one "acton" even before 9-11. And he's still cutting numbers.

[ultraTwist]

Qoute:

Thats not true, Bosnia, Somalia,Sudan, Hati.

End quote:

Bosnia we were on the wrong side, the "deal" was we help the nice muslims out there and they stop blowing things up over the rest of the world, see how well that worked out.

Somalia was a gift from Bush #1 to Clinton. He went in as a lame duck with the intent on making Clinton have to clean up. Simple politics there. If Bush 1 were relelected he would have ignored the whole thing.

[WildBill]

Originally posted by ultraTwist
Qoute:

Thats not true, Bosnia, Somalia,Sudan, Hati.

End quote:

Bosnia we were on the wrong side, the "deal" was we help the nice muslims out there and they stop blowing things up over the rest of the world, see how well that worked out.

Somalia was a gift from Bush #1 to Clinton. He went in as a lame duck with the intent on making Clinton have to clean up. Simple politics there. If Bush 1 were relelected he would have ignored the whole thing.

Well, if you bothered to read the posts above mine that I was commenting on, you would see your statement on my post is irrelevant.

[Stoneman]

You're gonna hafta wait 'til Rush gets back from the Dominican before WildBill can post another 'opinion'...