If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
"China buys all-American Hummer for $150 million"
"MoPar Man" > wrote in message
... > QX wrote: > >> This country is going down the road to hell, and Mr. Obama is >> yelling full steam ahead all the way. > > And Bush was different? > > What did he do in 8 years, besides send thousands of US troops to their > death at a price of a trillion dollars and counting? You might as well ask, what did FDR and Truman do besides sending thousands of US troops to their death at a price of <whatever number of current dollar-equivalents was spent in the execution of WW II>)? But I expect everyone gets your point, you believe it was a waste. Millions of now-free-from-Ba'ath-domination Iraqis, Iranians and Kuwaitis threatened by their formerly bellicode neighbor and Israelis would almost certainly disagree with you. |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"China buys all-American Hummer for $150 million"
On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 13:23:17 -0400, "SteveT"
> wrote: >"MoPar Man" > wrote in message ... >> QX wrote: >> >>> This country is going down the road to hell, and Mr. Obama is >>> yelling full steam ahead all the way. >> >> And Bush was different? >> >> What did he do in 8 years, besides send thousands of US troops to their >> death at a price of a trillion dollars and counting? > >You might as well ask, what did FDR and Truman do besides sending thousands >of US troops to their death at a price of <whatever number of current >dollar-equivalents was spent in the execution of WW II>)? But I expect >everyone gets your point, you believe it was a waste. Millions of >now-free-from-Ba'ath-domination Iraqis, Iranians and Kuwaitis threatened by >their formerly bellicode neighbor and Israelis would almost certainly >disagree with you. > Iraq hasn't been so much liberated as Bosniafied. Shiite and Sunni segregation is complete and the Christians have mostly fled. As soon as we leave, the bloodbath will commence. Iran certainly is pleased that Sunni control of Iraq is over. I can see a great friendship between the two nations as soon as Iraq has been ethnically cleansed of Sunnis. At least that is one possible outcome. On a bad day, Israel is as bad as anyone else in this godforsaken holy land. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"China buys all-American Hummer for $150 million"
satyr wrote:
> ...On a bad day, Israel is as bad as anyone else in this godforsaken holy > land. You are obviously devoid of judgement. -- Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"China buys all-American Hummer for $150 million"
On Oct 12, 1:23*pm, "SteveT" >
wrote: > "MoPar Man" > wrote in message > > ... > > > QX wrote: > > >> This country is going down the road to hell, and Mr. Obama is > >> yelling full steam ahead all the way. > > > And Bush was different? > > > What did he do in 8 years, besides send thousands of US troops to their > > death at a price of a trillion dollars and counting? > > You might as well ask, what did FDR and Truman do besides sending thousands > of US troops to their death at a price of <whatever number of current > dollar-equivalents was spent in the execution of WW II>)? You really think WW II was the same? Iraq was no threat to us, period, and Bush either knew it or should have known it. > But I expect > everyone gets your point, you believe it was a waste. Millions of > now-free-from-Ba'ath-domination Iraqis, Iranians and Kuwaitis threatened by > their formerly bellicode neighbor and Israelis would almost certainly > disagree with *you. Yet poll after poll shows the Iraqis resent our presence there and want us out. Explain why something that had no bearing on us was worth 4000 American lives, $1 trillion, and loss of US reputation the world over. Now the threat is Iran (which Iraq held in check) and terrorists recruited by American actions in Iraq. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"China buys all-American Hummer for $150 million"
> wrote in message
... On Oct 12, 1:23 pm, "SteveT" > wrote: >> "MoPar Man" > wrote in message >> >> ... >> >> > QX wrote: >> >> >> This country is going down the road to hell, and Mr. Obama is >> >> yelling full steam ahead all the way. >> >> > And Bush was different? >> >> > What did he do in 8 years, besides send thousands of US troops to their >> > death at a price of a trillion dollars and counting? >> >> You might as well ask, what did FDR and Truman do besides sending >> thousands >> of US troops to their death at a price of <whatever number of current >> dollar-equivalents was spent in the execution of WW II>)? > You really think WW II was the same? Iraq was no threat to us, > period, and Bush either knew it or should have known it. First: I wasn't trying to equate them, I was simply trying to point out that the question, as asked, was not sufficient to make the point I believed the poster was intending to make. And I certainly think that WW II in Europe *was* similar. Germany and Italy were no direct threat to the US but our allies were either overrun (happily avoided by allied intervention against Iraq by GHW Bush) or in danger of attack by mad despots who were killling and/ or imprisoning thousands or millions of their own people. World powers don't necessarily react only to direct threats to themselves (which is the point of organizations like NATO, although NATO itself is not otherwise relevant to my point). And, still, your blanket statement that Iraq under Hussein was not a threat to the US is not universally accepted (WMD and the possibility of their falling into the hands of terrorists, Iraqi interference with US attempts to verify and enforce the conditions that ended the first Gulf war). >> But I expect >> everyone gets your point, you believe it was a waste. Millions of >> now-free-from-Ba'ath-domination Iraqis, Iranians and Kuwaitis threatened >> by >> their formerly bellicode neighbor and Israelis would almost certainly >> disagree with you. > Yet poll after poll shows the Iraqis resent our presence there and > want us out. > <snip> Sure, now that the real work, getting rid of the Ba'athists, is done. Many knowledgeable Iraqis who do not viscerally oppose allied presence just because we are us and who understand the current state of Iraqi readiness to defend itself and its people are happy we're there. As are a significant number of Kuwaitis, Israelis and no doubt other members of the governments, militaries and general population of Iraq's neighbors. > Now the threat is Iran (which Iraq held in check) and terrorists > recruited by American actions in Iraq. Terrorists existed and were acting against Americans and allies well before we were embroiled in Iraq. And I disagree with the notion that the US should necessarily ignore the evils of one despot to hold another in check, that is just one more element to include among those bearing on the decision. Also, you forgot to mention Afghanistan; I assume you deliberately excluded North Korea because of geography. <grin> |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"China buys all-American Hummer for $150 million"
On Oct 14, 1:12*pm, "SteveT" >
wrote: > > wrote in message > > ... > On Oct 12, 1:23 pm, "SteveT" > > wrote: > > > > >> "MoPar Man" > wrote in message > > ... > > >> > QX wrote: > > >> >> This country is going down the road to hell, and Mr. Obama is > >> >> yelling full steam ahead all the way. > > >> > And Bush was different? > > >> > What did he do in 8 years, besides send thousands of US troops to their > >> > death at a price of a trillion dollars and counting? > > >> You might as well ask, what did FDR and Truman do besides sending > >> thousands > >> of US troops to their death at a price of <whatever number of current > >> dollar-equivalents was spent in the execution of WW II>)? > > You really think WW II was the same? *Iraq was no threat to us, > > period, and Bush either knew it or should have known it. > > * * First: I wasn't trying to equate them, I was simply trying to point out > that the question, as asked, was not sufficient to make the point I believed > the poster was intending to make. And I certainly think that WW II in Europe > *was* similar. Germany and Italy were no direct threat to the US but our When the US declared war on Japan after Pearl Harbor, Germany declared war on the US. > allies were either overrun (happily avoided by allied intervention against > Iraq by GHW Bush) or in danger of attack by mad despots who were killling > and/ or imprisoning thousands or millions of their own people. World powers > don't necessarily react only to direct threats to themselves (which is the > point of organizations like NATO, although NATO itself is not otherwise > relevant to my point). And, still, your blanket statement that Iraq under > Hussein was not a threat to the US is not universally accepted So what was the threat >(WMD and the > possibility of their falling into the hands of terrorists, But there was no clear evidence Saddam had WMD (all the evidence he didn't was dismissed) and the inspectors were there doing their job. >Iraqi > interference with US attempts to verify and enforce the conditions that > ended the first Gulf war). Meaning they didn't take kindly to being denied 2/3 of their country's airspace? > > >> But I expect > >> everyone gets your point, you believe it was a waste. Millions of > >> now-free-from-Ba'ath-domination Iraqis, Iranians and Kuwaitis threatened > >> by > >> their formerly bellicode neighbor and Israelis would almost certainly > >> disagree with you. > > Yet poll after poll shows the Iraqis resent our presence there and > > want us out. > > <snip> > > * * Sure, now that the real work, getting rid of the Ba'athists, is done. And with it, the ones who knew how to make a gov't work and who knew how to make a military work; then we had 5+ years of Amateur Hour. > Many knowledgeable Iraqis who do not viscerally oppose allied presence just > because we are us and who understand the current state of Iraqi readiness to > defend itself and its people are happy we're there. Polls say it's a tiny number. You might also note Iraq has lost a huge portion of its population since we invaded to people simply leaving. >As are a significant > number of Kuwaitis, Israelis and no doubt other members of the governments, > militaries and general population of Iraq's neighbors. Oh great, 4000 American lives and a trillion dollars so the royal family of Kuwait can be happy. The country where women cannot vote or drive. > > > Now the threat is Iran (which Iraq held in check) and terrorists > > recruited by American actions in Iraq. > > * * Terrorists existed and were acting against Americans and allies well > before we were embroiled in Iraq. Iraq was a great recruiting ground. >And I disagree with the notion that the US > should necessarily ignore the evils of one despot to hold another in check, So I assume you advocate invading North Korea, China, Russia, Somalia, Sudan, ... > that is just one more element to include among those bearing on the > decision. Also, you forgot to mention Afghanistan; I assume you deliberately > excluded North Korea because of geography. <grin> |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"China buys all-American Hummer for $150 million"
> wrote in message ... On Oct 14, 1:12 pm, "SteveT" > wrote: > > wrote in message > > ... > On Oct 12, 1:23 pm, "SteveT" > > wrote: > > > > >> "MoPar Man" > wrote in message > > ... > > >> > QX wrote: > > >> >> This country is going down the road to hell, and Mr. Obama is > >> >> yelling full steam ahead all the way. > > >> > And Bush was different? > > >> > What did he do in 8 years, besides send thousands of US troops to > >> > their > >> > death at a price of a trillion dollars and counting? > > >> You might as well ask, what did FDR and Truman do besides sending > >> thousands > >> of US troops to their death at a price of <whatever number of current > >> dollar-equivalents was spent in the execution of WW II>)? > > You really think WW II was the same? Iraq was no threat to us, > > period, and Bush either knew it or should have known it. > > First: I wasn't trying to equate them, I was simply trying to point out > that the question, as asked, was not sufficient to make the point I > believed > the poster was intending to make. And I certainly think that WW II in > Europe > *was* similar. Germany and Italy were no direct threat to the US but our When the US declared war on Japan after Pearl Harbor, Germany declared war on the US. > allies were either overrun (happily avoided by allied intervention against > Iraq by GHW Bush) or in danger of attack by mad despots who were killling > and/ or imprisoning thousands or millions of their own people. World > powers > don't necessarily react only to direct threats to themselves (which is the > point of organizations like NATO, although NATO itself is not otherwise > relevant to my point). And, still, your blanket statement that Iraq under > Hussein was not a threat to the US is not universally accepted So what was the threat >(WMD and the > possibility of their falling into the hands of terrorists, But there was no clear evidence Saddam had WMD (all the evidence he didn't was dismissed) and the inspectors were there doing their job. >Iraqi > interference with US attempts to verify and enforce the conditions that > ended the first Gulf war). Meaning they didn't take kindly to being denied 2/3 of their country's airspace? the first war never really ended....cease fire only. restrictions from that war were still in place. > > >> But I expect > >> everyone gets your point, you believe it was a waste. Millions of > >> now-free-from-Ba'ath-domination Iraqis, Iranians and Kuwaitis > >> threatened > >> by > >> their formerly bellicode neighbor and Israelis would almost certainly > >> disagree with you. > > Yet poll after poll shows the Iraqis resent our presence there and > > want us out. > > <snip> > > Sure, now that the real work, getting rid of the Ba'athists, is done. And with it, the ones who knew how to make a gov't work and who knew how to make a military work; then we had 5+ years of Amateur Hour. > Many knowledgeable Iraqis who do not viscerally oppose allied presence > just > because we are us and who understand the current state of Iraqi readiness > to > defend itself and its people are happy we're there. Polls say it's a tiny number. You might also note Iraq has lost a huge portion of its population since we invaded to people simply leaving. >As are a significant > number of Kuwaitis, Israelis and no doubt other members of the > governments, > militaries and general population of Iraq's neighbors. Oh great, 4000 American lives and a trillion dollars so the royal family of Kuwait can be happy. The country where women cannot vote or drive. > > > Now the threat is Iran (which Iraq held in check) and terrorists > > recruited by American actions in Iraq. > > Terrorists existed and were acting against Americans and allies well > before we were embroiled in Iraq. Iraq was a great recruiting ground. >And I disagree with the notion that the US > should necessarily ignore the evils of one despot to hold another in > check, So I assume you advocate invading North Korea, China, Russia, Somalia, Sudan, ... > that is just one more element to include among those bearing on the > decision. Also, you forgot to mention Afghanistan; I assume you > deliberately > excluded North Korea because of geography. <grin> |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"China buys all-American Hummer for $150 million"
well that didnt reply correctly. oops!
"rob" > wrote in message g.com... > > > wrote in message > ... > On Oct 14, 1:12 pm, "SteveT" > > wrote: >> > wrote in message >> >> ... >> On Oct 12, 1:23 pm, "SteveT" > >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> "MoPar Man" > wrote in message >> >> ... >> >> >> > QX wrote: >> >> >> >> This country is going down the road to hell, and Mr. Obama is >> >> >> yelling full steam ahead all the way. >> >> >> > And Bush was different? >> >> >> > What did he do in 8 years, besides send thousands of US troops to >> >> > their >> >> > death at a price of a trillion dollars and counting? >> >> >> You might as well ask, what did FDR and Truman do besides sending >> >> thousands >> >> of US troops to their death at a price of <whatever number of current >> >> dollar-equivalents was spent in the execution of WW II>)? >> > You really think WW II was the same? Iraq was no threat to us, >> > period, and Bush either knew it or should have known it. >> >> First: I wasn't trying to equate them, I was simply trying to point out >> that the question, as asked, was not sufficient to make the point I >> believed >> the poster was intending to make. And I certainly think that WW II in >> Europe >> *was* similar. Germany and Italy were no direct threat to the US but our > > When the US declared war on Japan after Pearl Harbor, Germany declared > war on the US. > > >> allies were either overrun (happily avoided by allied intervention >> against >> Iraq by GHW Bush) or in danger of attack by mad despots who were killling >> and/ or imprisoning thousands or millions of their own people. World >> powers >> don't necessarily react only to direct threats to themselves (which is >> the >> point of organizations like NATO, although NATO itself is not otherwise >> relevant to my point). And, still, your blanket statement that Iraq under >> Hussein was not a threat to the US is not universally accepted > > So what was the threat > > >>(WMD and the >> possibility of their falling into the hands of terrorists, > > But there was no clear evidence Saddam had WMD (all the evidence he > didn't was dismissed) and the inspectors were there doing their job. > > >>Iraqi >> interference with US attempts to verify and enforce the conditions that >> ended the first Gulf war). > > Meaning they didn't take kindly to being denied 2/3 of their country's > airspace? > > > > the first war never really ended....cease fire only. restrictions from > that war were still in place. > > > > >> >> >> But I expect >> >> everyone gets your point, you believe it was a waste. Millions of >> >> now-free-from-Ba'ath-domination Iraqis, Iranians and Kuwaitis >> >> threatened >> >> by >> >> their formerly bellicode neighbor and Israelis would almost certainly >> >> disagree with you. >> > Yet poll after poll shows the Iraqis resent our presence there and >> > want us out. >> > <snip> >> >> Sure, now that the real work, getting rid of the Ba'athists, is done. > > And with it, the ones who knew how to make a gov't work and who knew > how to make a military work; then we had 5+ years of Amateur Hour. > > >> Many knowledgeable Iraqis who do not viscerally oppose allied presence >> just >> because we are us and who understand the current state of Iraqi readiness >> to >> defend itself and its people are happy we're there. > > Polls say it's a tiny number. You might also note Iraq has lost a > huge portion of its population since we invaded to people simply > leaving. > > >>As are a significant >> number of Kuwaitis, Israelis and no doubt other members of the >> governments, >> militaries and general population of Iraq's neighbors. > > Oh great, 4000 American lives and a trillion dollars so the royal > family of Kuwait can be happy. The country where women cannot vote or > drive. > > >> >> > Now the threat is Iran (which Iraq held in check) and terrorists >> > recruited by American actions in Iraq. >> >> Terrorists existed and were acting against Americans and allies well >> before we were embroiled in Iraq. > > Iraq was a great recruiting ground. > > >>And I disagree with the notion that the US >> should necessarily ignore the evils of one despot to hold another in >> check, > > So I assume you advocate invading North Korea, China, Russia, Somalia, > Sudan, ... > > >> that is just one more element to include among those bearing on the >> decision. Also, you forgot to mention Afghanistan; I assume you >> deliberately >> excluded North Korea because of geography. <grin> > > |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"China buys all-American Hummer for $150 million"
"rob" > wrote in message
g.com... > > > wrote in message > ... > On Oct 14, 1:12 pm, "SteveT" > > wrote: >> > wrote in message >> >> ... >> On Oct 12, 1:23 pm, "SteveT" > >> wrote: >> >> >> "MoPar Man" > wrote in message >> >> ... >> >> >> > QX wrote: >> >> >> >> This country is going down the road to hell, and Mr. Obama is >> >> >> yelling full steam ahead all the way. >> >> >> > And Bush was different? >> >> >> > What did he do in 8 years, besides send thousands of US troops to >> >> > their >> >> > death at a price of a trillion dollars and counting? >> >> >> You might as well ask, what did FDR and Truman do besides sending >> >> thousands >> >> of US troops to their death at a price of <whatever number of current >> >> dollar-equivalents was spent in the execution of WW II>)? >> > You really think WW II was the same? Iraq was no threat to us, >> > period, and Bush either knew it or should have known it. >> >> First: I wasn't trying to equate them, I was simply trying to point out >> that the question, as asked, was not sufficient to make the point I >> believed >> the poster was intending to make. And I certainly think that WW II in >> Europe >> *was* similar. Germany and Italy were no direct threat to the US but our > > When the US declared war on Japan after Pearl Harbor, Germany declared > war on the US. If your point is that we should only ever engage in military hostilities against countries that formally declare war on us, that would seem consistent with a (very, very) strict Constructionalist view of the "declaration of war" provision of the US Constitution. I personally consider what the US Congress did just prior to the invasion to be sufficient. Back to the original question: "What did he [Bush] do in 8 years, besides send thousands of US troops to their death at a price of a trillion dollars and counting?" I am asserting that, as asked, that same accusation could be thrown at FDR and Truman with respect to WW II in Europe. Thousands of US troops went to their deaths and a lot of money was spent, both before and after the war. The missing point in the original question is that the Iraq war was unjustified (in the mind of the person asking). I don't see the point in pursuing this any further in this context -- the rest of our exchange addresses this question (how justified, if at all, was the Iraq war that overthrew the Ba'athist government) well. >> allies were either overrun (happily avoided by allied intervention >> against >> Iraq by GHW Bush) or in danger of attack by mad despots who were killling >> and/ or imprisoning thousands or millions of their own people. World >> powers >> don't necessarily react only to direct threats to themselves (which is >> the >> point of organizations like NATO, although NATO itself is not otherwise >> relevant to my point). And, still, your blanket statement that Iraq under >> Hussein was not a threat to the US is not universally accepted > > So what was the threat Interference with our overflights, financial support of terrorists in Israel (a country visited frequently by Americans), the danger of proliferation of WMD to terrorists, to name a few. >>(WMD and the >> possibility of their falling into the hands of terrorists, > > But there was no clear evidence Saddam had WMD (all the evidence he > didn't was dismissed) and the inspectors were there doing their job. Not so! WMD is more than just nuclear weapons. >>Iraqi >> interference with US attempts to verify and enforce the conditions that >> ended the first Gulf war). > > Meaning they didn't take kindly to being denied 2/3 of their country's > airspace? To which they had earlier agreed. > the first war never really ended....cease fire only. restrictions from > that war were still in place. >> >> But I expect >> >> everyone gets your point, you believe it was a waste. Millions of >> >> now-free-from-Ba'ath-domination Iraqis, Iranians and Kuwaitis >> >> threatened by >> >> their formerly bellicode neighbor and Israelis would almost certainly >> >> disagree with you. >> > Yet poll after poll shows the Iraqis resent our presence there and >> > want us out. >> > <snip> >> >> Sure, now that the real work, getting rid of the Ba'athists, is done. > > And with it, the ones who knew how to make a gov't work and who knew > how to make a military work; then we had 5+ years of Amateur Hour. Insufficient, IMHO. The Nazis and the Italian Fascist government knew how to make a government and military (well, at least the Nazis did! <grin>) work. I'd MUCH rather have an amateur government than an efficient, brutal immoral one, wouldn't you? >> Many knowledgeable Iraqis who do not viscerally oppose allied presence >> just >> because we are us and who understand the current state of Iraqi readiness >> to >> defend itself and its people are happy we're there. > > Polls say it's a tiny number. You might also note Iraq has lost a > huge portion of its population since we invaded to people simply > leaving. Of course, only those both willing to give the US and allies the benefit of the doubt AND who are fully cognizant of the sad (although improving, or so we are told) state of the Iraqi police and military, are happy with our presence (and very likely not everyone in that class, as we've simply messed things up too much in many ways). >>As are a significant >> number of Kuwaitis, Israelis and no doubt other members of the >> governments, >> militaries and general population of Iraq's neighbors. > > Oh great, 4000 American lives and a trillion dollars so the royal > family of Kuwait can be happy. The country where women cannot vote or > drive. What makes you think this point has anything to do with mine? The fact that our intervention made the royal family of Kuwait happy is not particularly relevant. I think it's fair to assume that, as a whole, the Kuwaiti people feel fortunate that Hussein did not succeed, whatever their feelings are towards their royal family. Clearly, the US intent is NOT to suppress women's right to vote or to education, otherwise we'd be on the other side of the fight in Afghanistan. >> > Now the threat is Iran (which Iraq held in check) and terrorists >> > recruited by American actions in Iraq. >> >> Terrorists existed and were acting against Americans and allies well >> before we were embroiled in Iraq. > > Iraq was a great recruiting ground. So are nearly all other countries in the region. So is the US support of Israel. So is our power, both military and economic. So, no doubt, is the behavior of our fellow citizens when they visit other countries, or interact with visitors of other countries who come here. During the Tehran hostage crisis, I overheard a discussion between an Iranaian woman and an American couple at Detroit Metro airport. No doubt finding her accent intriguing, they asked her from whence she had come. "Iran" she replied (with a short "a" and a slightly trilled "r"). "Where?" they asked. She repeated the name of her country a couple more times, then added "you know, Tehran, where the Ayatollah is?" "Oh," one of the Americans replied, "you mean I-RAN!" As if she didn't properly pronounce the name of her native country! >>And I disagree with the notion that the US >> should necessarily ignore the evils of one despot to hold another in >> check, > > So I assume you advocate invading North Korea, China, Russia, Somalia, > Sudan, ... <snip> Um, I think you missed the word "necessarily" that I used. I don't know whether we should invade North Korea, China, Russia, Somalia, Sudan, because I don't have access to the necessary intelligence. But I wouldnt automatically be against the suggestion, just because "those countries are no threat to us." I think it might have been Ayn Rand who said something like "Moral countries have the right, but not the obligation, to overthrow despots in other countries." I'm not sure I *quite* agree with that statement but I'm inclined to be at least somewhat sympathetic to the morality that it suggests. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
"China buys all-American Hummer for $150 million" | News | Chrysler | 3 | October 16th 09 12:13 AM |
"China buys all-American Hummer for $150 million" | CF[_3_] | Chrysler | 0 | October 12th 09 08:47 PM |
"China buys all-American Hummer for $150 million" | Michel | 4x4 | 1 | October 12th 09 02:55 AM |
NEW - 11-14-08 - "U.S. unemployment claims hit 7-year high" yetwe "need" 25+ million illegals????? | [email protected] | Driving | 203 | November 21st 08 10:35 PM |