72)This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.
Not a member? Sign-up today!
About Propeller | Frequently Asked Questions | Help
© 2003-2008 Propeller. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
Title is somewhat inaccurate. The Senate did not vote to block funds, they failed to pass a bill that would grant funds. Title should read: "Senate continues to accomplish nothing."
Yeah misleading at best,,,,, the anti war bill of the day,,,, I wonder whom they will blame once our millitary runs out of money to by ammo and they get killed in large numbers because of this tactic?
Even if you don't agree with the war, this is over the top to play this sort of game
Presumably the supplies of war material are not so closely inventoried that an orderly withdrawal could not be effected before running out of ammo. If the president insisted that the troops remained in theater until their supplies dwindled, I think he would have to accept part of the blame for any ensuing calamity.
It strikes me as odd that proponents of this war down play its dangers or its costs but at the same time ask that we, the tax payers, continue to offer a blank check for its continuance on the theory that all hell will break lose if we leave. If the world's more powerful military is running this operation so close to a margin of failure, I think this would tend to belie the assertion that this war is small potatoes or the dangers minimal.
We should continue to press for victory now that the enemy is in decline and the security is improving, but, unfortunately, this wars execution was so badly bungled in the beginning, politically, its all but lost.
It is a frequent refrain among war defenders that only 3800 troops have been lost in this conflict over the last four years and compared to other wars this is minimal.
I disagree about Iraq supporting terrorism. Compared to whom? Saudi Arabia attacked us on 9/11. That is an unequivocal fact. They supplied the hijackers, the training, and the funding and continue to be the biggest financiers of Islamic extremism and terrorism around the world. Saddam Hussein made postmortem payments to survivors of Palestinian suicide bombers in Israel but compared to other nations, his contributions to terrorism in were small. He was more interested in promoting his own agenda than one which was not of his own making. Al Qaeda was not founded by Saddam Hussein and he would not have been subservient to even sympathetic with their agenda. He was a Pan Arabist and fancied himself to be the reincarnation of the Assyrian King Nebuchadnezzar. His was a secular vision of Arab nationalism, however.
Saudi Arabia might crack down on extremist within their nation, at least those not in the royal family, but its no secret that there are plenty of sympathizers within the royal family and Saudi oil money promotes Islamic extremism around the world in Madras schools as well as direct contributions through Islamic charities. This is their Faustian bargain with the extremist groups like the Muslim brother hood. Its a form of payola so they can be left alone to enjoy their high living relative in peace. They even dwarf Iran in supporting terrorism around the world and within in Iraq. The Saudis don't like to see the ascendancy of Shia Islam and the Iranians which is what the "liberation" of Iraq has done. But you don't have to take my word for it. There is plenty of info about the Saudi connection to terrorism on the internet and print media. But we depend upon their oil so we would never have the balls to stand up to them and every effort is made to spare them embarrasment.
Had we as a nation headed the warning issued to us by the oil crisis in the 70's and reduced our dependence on oil in general we would not be in this situation.
You can drill all you want, there isn't enough oil in this country to satisfy our need.
That is nonsense. America's thirst for oil exceeds our reserves period. No amount of drilling will ween us off of foreign oil. Conservation is and was the key. The Alaskan wildlife refuge reserves are estimated at 1% of our domestic needs. The cafe standards were not raised since 1985. I don't blame Republicans for this. Democrats and Republicans share equally in the blame by not being earnest brokers with the American people. Clinton did not raise cafe standards during his tenure as president either. But the American people themselves deserve a share of the blame because we tend to chose leaders who tell us what we want to hear and not what we need to hear. Our per capita consumption of resources makes us the biggest pigs on the planet. At the root of the problem is a culture which is not sustainable. If the 7 billion inhabitants of this world consumed on the same scale as we do, we'd strip this planet bare in a week. Conservation doesn't sell. Its not sexy but it is important.
not 50% of our current consumption which is how much we import. Besides, those reserves must be in international waters or within our own territory or we can't very well call them ours, can we? The key to the future is conservation and developing alternative resources. For that, we need long term planning and government involvement. Energy security should be a bipartisan mandate. The current war in the gulf and all the saber rattling about Iran are directly related to our dependence on Mid East oil. As long as we are dependent on their oil, we will be embroiled in their archaic struggles which we little understand and will never be able to control. When your struggles revolve around he irrational imperatives of religion, there is no fix to that. The peoples of the Mid East will not set aside their beliefs or their feuds for democracy and consumer culture. This is prefaced on the myth that our way of life is perfect and has universal appeal.
Hit the nail right on the head.
http://www.ericblumrich.com/thanks.html
For all the reasons we attack Saddam Hussein, Saudi Arabia is ten times more guilty that Iraq. OBL was a Wahabist Sunni Al Qeada is a Wahabist extremist group. There is only one Wahabist government in the Mid East. Guess which one? Saudi Arabia. What was the nationality of 15 of the hijackers? Saudis. How many were Iraqis? 0. Where did OBL come from? Saudi Arabia. Where did he get his money from to attack the US on 9/11? Saudi Arabia. Which country got away with raping the US on 9/11? Saudi Arabia. We depend on their oil so people will bend over backwards to deny their connection lest it demonstrate our complicity in the worst terror attack on our nation next to the right wing extremist Timothy McVeigh. But once you ****** yourself it gets easier each time.
I followed the link which indirectly connected Saddam Hussein with Al Qaeda sort of possibly. By the standards of this article, the US supports Al Qaeda. Oil purchased from the Mid East supports terror period. Saddam was no friend to Al Qaeda and he was no hero to them. Saddam was a secular leader and more in the vain of Nasser than a religious Zealot like OBL or the Ayatolah Khomeini. Why do you think Reagan liked him so much? Even Bush one sent Saddam Hussein a telegram expressing the US desire to improve relations with Iraq 4 days before he August invasion of Kuwait. Saddam was our counterweight to Iran and as long as he was our bitch, he was immune to political pressure from us. Saddam went from ally to Hitler incarnate over night.
"When a foreign nation is no longer funding, at the highest levels, foreign terrorists to murder domestic nationals - there is less danger in the world."
You are right. The violence is down because Iran has blocked the flow of its explosives into Iraq.
You say a blank check as if we've spent all the money we have on this war
Did you know that as percentage of its GDP, the United States spends 4.06% on military? That's 4 %,,,,, doing exactly what the government is supposed to do,,,, protect us,,,, yes you have the right to say they aren't that's an old argument,,,, what I'm refering to is the government spend 96% of the funds on 'other' things that aren't put forth in the Constitution,,,, I'm not saying anything of whether it's a good or bad thing,,,, just letting you know
slate: "Did you know that as percentage of its GDP, the United States spends 4.06% on military?"
Does that include the civilian contractors and the construction of the bases in Iraq?
Slate, you are mixing apples and oranges here. GDP is our gross domestic product. That is, the valuation of all goods and services produced annually in the United States. Heaven help us all if the federal government ever decides that it has the right to spend all of the monies earned from the goods and services produced in the US. So to say that 'the government spends 96% of the funds on other things that aren't put forth in the Constitution' is grossly inaccurate.
At 4.06% of GDP, U.S. military spending ranked 27th out of 172 nations.[49] The official Department of Defense budget in 2006, $419.3 billion, was a 5% increase over 2005.[50]
2.8 trillion dollars for the Fed gov. they spend 419.3 Billion that leaves 2,380,700,000,000,,,,,, I know I went to the Jethro Bodine Skool of math but it seems there is still a bunch of money left after the DOD gets their share of it,,,,, but hey apples and oranges are expensive these days
As a percentage of discretionary funds (i.e. minus the trust funds of social Security and medicare)war funding (DOD) is more like HALF. Add in small items such as the DOD's share of the debt service (yes, Bush's war is being paid for by DEBT), VA costs Military housing and it is WAY OVER HALF of the discretionary funds.
Also, the U.S. government does not have control of "the other 96% of the G.D.P"
Now hold on Quack,,, the numbers are right above you,,,, debt loans are debt loans,,,, yes we have a huge debt,,,, this nation has had debt in the past, especially during expensive wars. Whether you agree with the war is moot in what I'm talking about. The GDP of the US is roughly 10 trillion and we give the government almost a third of that right now. How much do you think they deserve?
I know the government doesn't control the GDP 'yet', but I've heard of at least one candidate that thinks that taking what is perceived by one party as evil profits to be redistributed. But we know what that means, you and I won't see a dime of it and said party will use it as play money to wield power and buy votes. You know like the last administration promising to give the middle class a tax break, yet after 'working as hard as they have in their life' decided that the only way is to raise taxes. Don't you find it funny that the same thing is being said by them right now? Do you believe them this time too?