Bush budget will add $1.3 trillion to deficits

[dennis_t]

And for those few fiscal conservatives out there who still have some scrap of conscience, here's more evidence that Bush is driving this country right off the cliff.

Note that in the article, the Repubs make no effort to argue the facts. Instead, they argue the Dems would be worse, conveniently ignoring the fact that Bush's campaign promises tally up to $1 trillion more than Kerry's.

http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/nation/9741711.htm

WASHINGTON - Responding to an election-season request by Democrats, the Congressional Budget Office estimated Thursday that some of President Bush's budget policies plus other costs would add $1.3 trillion to federal deficits over the next decade.

Republicans said the exercise was a blatantly political attempt by Democrats to use the nonpartisan budget office's projections to attack Bush and the GOP.

"Desperate times call for desperate measures," said Rich Meade, Republican staff director of the House Budget Committee, referring to Democrats' unlikely chances of capturing House control in the November elections.

White House budget office spokesman Chad Kolton said while Bush's fiscal blueprint addresses terrorism and economic growth, Democrats want "tax hikes and trillions in additional spending, and all the politicized reports in the world can't paper over that fact."

Democrats said the figures provided a telling depiction of how Bush's tax and spending plans - along with other looming costs - would drive huge projected deficits even higher.

"There is no credible way to dispute the fundamental conclusion that this administration's policies call for large deficits with no plan or prospect of bringing the budget back to balance," said Rep. John Spratt of South Carolina, top Democrat on the House Budget Committee, who requested the calculations.

The congressional analysts said they expect deficits to total $2.3 trillion in the decade ending in 2014 if current tax and spending laws continue unchanged. They have projected that the shortfall will hit a record $422 billion this year alone, with the government's budget year running through Sept. 30.

 

[OfHell'sFire]

Umm... this article is basically pure speculation - reading through it, I see no actual reliable facts that back this up... not to mention they are admittadly basing their predictions on assumptions - buying into political projects is somewhat foolish anyways.

If we've learned anything about how the economy works, it is that we cannot really predict what will happen. Spending shocks, consumer confidence levels, hell, consumer choices for that matter... even that being said, this article really doesn't back anything up.

 

[dennis_t]

Umm... this article is basically pure speculation - reading through it, I see no actual reliable facts that back this up... not to mention they are admittadly basing their predictions on assumptions - buying into political projects is somewhat foolish anyways.

If we've learned anything about how the economy works, it is that we cannot really predict what will happen. Spending shocks, consumer confidence levels, hell, consumer choices for that matter... even that being said, this article really doesn't back anything up.

The study was by the Congressional Budget Office....you know, the experts that Congress relies on for budget information. I think they provide info that's a little better than pure speculation.

And if you look at those assumptions, they all involve events that are either Bush campaign promises or inevitable consequences of a Bush re-election.

 

[OfHell'sFire]

Since when do campaign promises mean anything? Bush also promised tons of new jobs, and we are still net-loss for the Administration. Also, despite who the study is by, read it carefully, and notice there really is nothing of substance there... the only word I can use to describe it is "Squishy" - it's just not a solid argument in any way.

 

[Duo_Maxwell]

I have a question and it's seriuosly not meant to be offensive, but what is the difference between estimatment, assumption and specualtion. Aren't estimates and assumptions a type of specualtion?

 

[OfHell'sFire]

From an economic standpoint:

Estimate would be real numbers put to a theory. As in, the Budget will reach $____ by ____ time period.

Assumptions would be making a statement based on generalizations... as in, I assume you really are out of your league arguing politics if you don't know what these words mean... possibly not true, but me just making an assumption.

Speculation would basically be what this article is... and what really most economic predictions are... speculations on numbers, somewhat like an assumption, but more concrete. As in, an estimate based on assumptions would be pure speculation, as there really isn't enough proof to backup a claim.

 

[dennis_t]

So we should discount Bush when he complains that Kerry's promises would cost $2 trillion?

 

[OfHell'sFire]

[quote name='dennis_t']

So we should discount Bush when he complains that Kerry's promises would cost $2 trillion?[/quote]YES... If WE were smart, we would discount 90% of the crap that both sides feed us... it's all lines in the sand - they want us to not vote for them, but rather vote against the other candidate. Why should I believe Bush when he says that Kerry will cost us $2 trillion? And on the other side, why in god's name would I trust Kerry's claim about Bush's numbers?

We know this... both of these men are rich, and money to them is not money to you and I... meaning we don't think the same - politicians really do not represent us anymore. They have in the past much more than now, but the gigantic economy now allows the rich to get ridiculously rich, and since when does a multi-billionare (both Bush and Kerry mind you) truly give a flying crap about the middle-class? The middle-class, otherwise known as most of us, take it up the ass while the poor get the few (VERY few) benefits there are to get out of this government, and the rich continue to get uber-rich. We cannot trust these people, they are not us, they don't represent us. No politicians will ever again, and things are only going to get worse. The government should be about security and infascrutcure - nothing more - capitalism will take care of the rest... But yeah, let's all choose sides and bicker about who's worse than the other - the real enemy is our system, not the people running it.

 

[Quackzilla]

I think if we (the voters) made it so that politicians never serve a second term, maybe they would take the hint.

 

[David85]

Will?

I thought he already had added 1.3 trillion.

 

[CTLesq]

I detest Bush. I truly do.

But before the anti-Bush people say we need to vote him out, just consider Kerry would be JUST as bad AND he would nationalize health care at a cost he estimates to be around 760B.

Think that number will go up or down when it actually happens?

CTL

 

[David85]

I hate Keery too. Bush would be voted out of office on his ass faster than he can say "Dubya", but somehow the dumbass from here in Mass won the primies. It's amazing.

 

[dennis_t]

[quote name='CTLesq']I detest Bush. I truly do.

But before the anti-Bush people say we need to vote him out, just consider Kerry would be JUST as bad AND he would nationalize health care at a cost he estimates to be around 760B.

Think that number will go up or down when it actually happens?

CTL[/quote]

I have to disagree Kerry would be as bad. There are many reasons, but two that are crucial in my mind:

(1) Kerry isn't fooling himself about the reality of the situation in Iraq. At this point I don't know if Bush has the first clue what's going on there, and thus would be incapable of coming up with any realistic plan.

(2) Kerry has the intelligence to change course if something's not working. The Repubs will try and tell you this is flip-flopping, but Bush is driving us right off the cliff with his "stay the course" obstinance.

I don't believe we should pull out of Iraq, as that would create a power vacuum that would cause the disintegration of the Middle East, but we sure need a plan better than shoving our soldiers in there and hoping for the best. I think Kerry has the smarts to come up with that plan, and already has outlined its broad details. Bush has had the chance to create such a plan, and hasn't.

 

[dennis_t]

[quote name='CTLesq']I detest Bush. I truly do.

But before the anti-Bush people say we need to vote him out, just consider Kerry would be JUST as bad AND he would nationalize health care at a cost he estimates to be around 760B.

Think that number will go up or down when it actually happens?

CTL[/quote]

Oh, and one other thought -- remember that Bush's campaign promises tally up to $3 billion, while Kerry's only tally up to $2 billion.

 

[OfHell'sFire]

(2) Kerry has the intelligence to change course if something's not working. The Repubs will try and tell you this is flip-flopping, but Bush is driving us right off the cliff with his "stay the course" obstinance.

Histroy suggests that progress is not gained through constant change, rather sticking with an implimented plan - Example: Everyone that makes stable money in the market will tell you that it's not timing in the market, rather time in the market. I may lose 2k in a day with investments, however over the course of 20 years, it will all equal out and I will make money. On otp of that, this comment is nothing but completely speculation, you really aren't stating any solid fact that suggests Kerry will be any better than Bush.

(1) Kerry isn't fooling himself about the reality of the situation in Iraq.

Oh isn't he? What, praytell, is he offerring as an alternative... meaning what is his actual plan of action in dealing with Iraq? And don't tell me "Getting the International Community involved" because he in no way can back that up at all... I'm asking for a detailed plan that will "Fix" the problem in Iraq he accusses Bush of creating.

 

[AlbinoNinja]

I actually had a small hunch this was happening, ever since the Tax Rebate crap. Buch could have very easily taken that money and built some new factories/stores/houses, etc, almost like Roosevelt (i think) did after the Great Depression. Instead he gives everyone $300, tells them to go nuts.

The annoying thing is that ill be paying for the $300 splurge when im a tax payer.
(one of the many reasons why i hate bush)

 

[dennis_t]

[quote="OfHell'sFire]Histroy suggests that progress is not gained through constant change, rather sticking with an implimented plan - Example: Everyone that makes stable money in the market will tell you that it's not timing in the market, rather time in the market. I may lose 2k in a day with investments, however over the course of 20 years, it will all equal out and I will make money. On otp of that, this comment is nothing but completely speculation, you really aren't stating any solid fact that suggests Kerry will be any better than Bush.

[/quote]

You're using a poor analogy. Long-term gain in the stock market can generally be assumed over decades because the market, despite fluctuations, goes up. However, the stock market in four years can completely tank, as we've seen in the past.

I think a better analogy would be the battlefield, given the situation we're in. Are you better off with a commander who can think on his feet, or one who plods forward even though his plan is clearly not working?

Oh isn't he? What, praytell, is he offerring as an alternative... meaning what is his actual plan of action in dealing with Iraq? And don't tell me "Getting the International Community involved" because he in no way can back that up at all... I'm asking for a detailed plan that will "Fix" the problem in Iraq he accusses Bush of creating.

Quite frankly, given how Bush has alienated the international community, I think you're rather cavalierly brushing off the positive impact that a change at the top might have in getting help from our allies.

Beyond that, Kerry has given the broad brush strokes of a four-point plan: Get more help from other nations, provide better training for Iraqi security forces, provide benefits to the Iraqi people, and ensure that democratic elections can be held next year as promised.

Now, let me flip this around on you a bit: Can you tell me, either specifically or in detail, what Bush's plan for Iraq is? His administration requests and receives large sums of money for dealing with the situation, but as far as I can tell he's never clearly laid out to the American public how it would be spent or when it would be spent. As you know, recent news stories have pointed out that vast billions for reconstruction haven't been used, and in fact are being re-routed into security.

So you tell me: What is Bush's Iraq plan, and can you support it?

 

[David85]

So you tell me: Does Bush have an Iraqi plan?

 

[CTLesq]

[quote name='David85']So you tell me: Does Bush have an Iraqi plan?[/quote]

The better question is what is Kerry's plan.

Answer: Bush's plan from a year ago.

I will respond to the other comments later. I have scotch to drink.

 

[dennis_t]

[quote name='CTLesq'][quote name='David85']So you tell me: Does Bush have an Iraqi plan?[/quote]

The better question is what is Kerry's plan.

Answer: Bush's plan from a year ago.

I will respond to the other comments later. I have scotch to drink.[/quote]

Except that Kerry's plan doesn't involve one crucial aspect of Bush's plan: alienating the international community so we have to go it alone in one of the most unstable parts of the globe.

When you get back from that sweet, sweet scotch, be sure to tell me what Bush's plan for Iraq is. Please include as much detail as possible, since he does hold the reins of power and thus should be in the middle of executing this plan, rather than making campaign promises.

 

[David85]

Bush's plan was, go in as fast as we could and win the "war" in 3 weeks. Nice plan but since that MAy there has been no ing plan.

Let's make peace treaties with the terrorists, then when they back out of it 5 times go "We are going in, no more treaties" and what the do we do? Try more treaties, it's a joke.

So once again what is Bush's plan? Because so far it looks like it's just kill US soldiers for no reason.

 

[OfHell'sFire]

[quote name='"dennis_t"']

You're using a poor analogy. Long-term gain in the stock market can generally be assumed over decades because the market, despite fluctuations, goes up. However, the stock market in four years can completely tank, as we've seen in the past.

I think a better analogy would be the battlefield, given the situation we're in. Are you better off with a commander who can think on his feet, or one who plods forward even though his plan is clearly not working?

No, you've just shown that the analogy isn't as shakey as I had originally thought... you say we are plodding through while the plan is "Clearly not working", but like you said, sure, in 4 years the market can tank so in a somewhat-short term it would seem our economic plan isn't working - but, in the long term, over decades you will make money in the market... we don't know that the plan isn't working, just that it hasn't worked up to now.

Beyond that, Kerry has given the broad brush strokes of a four-point plan: Get more help from other nations, provide better training for Iraqi security forces, provide benefits to the Iraqi people, and ensure that democratic elections can be held next year as promised.

First off, getting help from other nations clearly is not going to work - we were unable to get minimal support going in, what in god's name makes us think that with Kerry everyone will suddenly open up? I feel a Kerry-administration will be weak on Iraq, as was the last Dem administration (read Clinton's numerous quotes about how dangerous of a problem Iraq was becoming, and maybe like me, you'll wonder why the hell we were randomly chucking missiles into the country to take out strategic locations (Asprin factories?) instead of just freaking going in. On military issues, this is the difference for me between Rep's and Dem's - Republican Administrations are not afraid to go in and take care of a problem, and the Dems beat around the bush, no pun intended, despite the fact that a country is becoming a serious threat to its people and bordering countries

So you tell me: What is Bush's Iraq plan, and can you support it?

LMAO - Yes, it's the exact same crap Kerry is feeding us - See how different they are?? He wants to gradually give control to Iraq by getting Iraq cititzens more involved, training of Iraqi forces, and wants to help get more of the international communities involved - so yeah, how are these guys not just feeding both of us garbage for the sake of voting?? How ANYONE can strongly support EITHER of these lying pricks is beyond comprehension to me.

 

[David85]

How ANYONE can strongly support EITHER of these lying pricks is beyond comprehension to me.


Exactly. If anyone else was running against Bush they would win, but we have Kerry.

 

[Drocket]

No, you've just shown that the analogy isn't as shakey as I had originally thought... you say we are plodding through while the plan is "Clearly not working", but like you said, sure, in 4 years the market can tank so in a somewhat-short term it would seem our economic plan isn't working - but, in the long term, over decades you will make money in the market... we don't know that the plan isn't working, just that it hasn't worked up to now.

Three comments/questions:
1) How long exactly before you feel its reasonably to say that the current plan isn't working? A year? 2 years? 5 years? 10 years?
2) This isn't the stock market, where we have 80+ years of historical data to extrapolate from. What historical data there is, though (outside forces occupying hostile regions, and ESPECIALLY outside forces in the middle east) doesn't really bode well for a good outcome.
3) We're not talking about some extra cash that you've stuffed into a stock market account because you don't need it for another 20 or 30 years. We're talking about US soldiers who are getting their heads blown off. You don't get those people back if and when the war starts to go your way.

 

[Quackzilla]

[quote name='David85']How ANYONE can strongly support EITHER of these lying pricks is beyond comprehension to me.


Exactly. If anyone else was running against Bush they would win, but we have Kerry.[/quote]

Actually, I support the economic and foreign policy plans that Kerry has laid out. Very good.

Of course you are still stuck in the 2000 'lesser of two evils' mode, which unfortunately you will be stuck with for the rest of your life, and subcontiously refuse to even consider that one candidate might represent good.

Andy Rooney encourages people to talk stupid people out of voting so they don't pollute the system.

So please, don't vote.

 

[sblymnlcrymnl]

It's better not to tell them straight out not to vote, this will just piss them off.

Instead, tell them that election day is now Nov. 4th.

 

[Quackzilla]

Good idea.

I know a LOT of stupid people, I will start calling them and reminding them to show up on November 4th because "their vote counts".

I consider diehard liberals and conservatives too dumb to vote because they NEVER know what either candidates agenda is.

[edit]

Just remembered, in the Florida 2000 elections a racist group put up signs announcing the November 4th election in many predominately liberal black communities. Didn't make it in the news much because of the chads, but it should have.

While I support discrimination by intelligence level (it's justified), I detest racial discrimination (it's wrrong).

 

[OfHell'sFire]

[quote name='Drocket']

Three comments/questions:
1) How long exactly before you feel its reasonably to say that the current plan isn't working? A year? 2 years? 5 years? 10 years?
2) This isn't the stock market, where we have 80+ years of historical data to extrapolate from. What historical data there is, though (outside forces occupying hostile regions, and ESPECIALLY outside forces in the middle east) doesn't really bode well for a good outcome.
3) We're not talking about some extra cash that you've stuffed into a stock market account because you don't need it for another 20 or 30 years. We're talking about US soldiers who are getting their heads blown off. You don't get those people back if and when the war starts to go your way.[/quote]

1) I haven't the answer to such questions, nobody does - no matter what choice was made on Iraq, it's apparent force would have eventually been used, and there's no way of telling if it will EVER be stable - so, in answer to your question, I'm in no position to say how long, nor are any of our "leaders"

2) Umm, well, I'd agree that the analogy can be broken down, however using the not enough history argument is pretty thin... we have 80+ years of stock market data - we have a MUCH longer period of history in the middle east to study - It's not as if Iraq and other mid-eastern countries just suddenly became an unstable region :?

3) US soldiers will die regardless of Iraq, as we will always be somewhere... I mean, it's the nature of not only the US, but humans - If not Iraq, then Iran, if not Iran then Syria... etc... also, I don't feel bad for our soldiers at all - I'm obviously a supporter of our military, however it is a volunteer only military... and it's a job where you put your life on the line every day - they know this going in, so saying we should pull out because soldiers are getting hurt and dying is kind of absurd - Isn't that a soldiers job? I have the utmost respect for our soldiers, and thank god they are out there fighting whatever we are involved in, regardless of the politics behind it, but they chose to be in that position.

Of course you are still stuck in the 2000 'lesser of two evils' mode, which unfortunately you will be stuck with for the rest of your life, and subcontiously refuse to even consider that one candidate might represent good.

LMFAO - ok, 2 things at this ridiuclous statement.

A) You have no idea who I'm voting for, as I've never really specifically stated it on any board, and have not even decided myself - so how in god's green earth would you jump to the conclusion I'm stuck in the lesser of two evils mode? They are both worthless liars... it's just a fact. I'm happy for you that you may or may not strongly support one of these sacks of crap, but I can't take any pride in putting either of these idiots into power.

B) You are attacking me, so I'm making an assumption you're a Kerry supporter as that seems to be the norm for Kerry supporters, and if this is the case, you should not be saying much - Kerry's entire campaign is based on an "Anyone but Bush" stand - talk about voting for lesser of two evils

So yeah... what are you talking about and how did you come to such magical conclusions on who I am or am not voting for?

I consider diehard liberals and conservatives too dumb to vote because they NEVER know what either candidates agenda is.

It's pretty difficult to take opinions seriously when they come from someone who calls ideals he doesn't agree with "dumb" :? By your logic here, you are also "too dumb to vote", as I don't agree with your statement here... But yeah, you really study both sides I'm sure

 

[ZarathosNY]

[quote name='Drocket']

Three comments/questions:
1) How long exactly before you feel its reasonably to say that the current plan isn't working? A year? 2 years? 5 years? 10 years?
2) This isn't the stock market, where we have 80+ years of historical data to extrapolate from. What historical data there is, though (outside forces occupying hostile regions, and ESPECIALLY outside forces in the middle east) doesn't really bode well for a good outcome.
3) We're not talking about some extra cash that you've stuffed into a stock market account because you don't need it for another 20 or 30 years. We're talking about US soldiers who are getting their heads blown off. You don't get those people back if and when the war starts to go your way.

1) I haven't the answer to such questions, nobody does - no matter what choice was made on Iraq, it's apparent force would have eventually been used, and there's no way of telling if it will EVER be stable - so, in answer to your question, I'm in no position to say how long, nor are any of our "leaders"

:[/quote]

I have a question. Why do you thing it's apparent that force would have eventually been used? We now know that Saddam was a threat to no one, except his own people, and the the sanctions were working. Since Bush's reason for going into Iraq was WMD's, and Saddam had none, why do you think force would have been used anyway if the inspections continued and they declared Iraq WMD free?

 

[OfHell'sFire]

[quote name='ZarathosNY']


I have a question. Why do you thing it's apparent that force would have eventually been used? We now know that Saddam was a threat to no one, except his own people, and the the sanctions were working. Since Bush's reason for going into Iraq was WMD's, and Saddam had none, why do you think force would have been used anyway if the inspections continued and they declared Iraq WMD free?[/quote]The Iraq threat was well documented before Bush ever took office... again, Clinton and his administration stated numerous times what a danger Saddamm was, and really, the international community never denied the obvious threat. Denying that Iraq WAS a problem is a bit short-sighted, as most world leaders themselves agreed that Iraq was a threat. The question was never "is Iraq a problem", everyone agreed that Saddam's regime was a threat, it was simply a debate on "Is it time to use military force".

That being said... I think force would have eventually been used, because it's lunacy to think that Saddam would have ever followed UN resolutions - I have a question to you: What makes you think that after 25+ years of ignoring resolutions, attacking his neighbors, being a threat to his own people, and blatantly defying world opinion and direction, that Saddam would just suddenly see the light after a few more years of diplomacy? This regime never indicated in any way that they were willing to work with the UN, they blatantly ignored and defied UN resolutions (of course the UN did nothing but put more sanctions on him), and the world community realized the threat was there.

Was it the correct choice to go in at that time? I don't think anyone could EVER know the answer to this question... presenting an answer is purely speculation and opinion - It is also opinion on my part that it was going to go to force either way, however based on the history of that particular regime, I make the assumption that Saddam would have continued to defy the sanctions put on him, as he already had for years prior to the 2nd US invasion of his country.

 

[dennis_t]

I don't think anyone ever denied Iraq was a problem. That's why the sanctions stayed in place for 10 years -- because Saddam remained defiant even though we had his nuts in a vise, pardon my language.

But he was a contained threat. As we have found, he could not get WMDs because of the sanctions, and thus could not threaten his neighbors. He was horrible to his own people, true, but there are many dictators in the world whom we do nothing about.

About the UN resolutions, two thoughts: (1) So what if he defied them? We had him boxed in. He wasn't going anywhere, and he wasn't causing trouble to anyone else in the international community. He could stand on his front porch, shake his fist and yell "You damned kids!" all he wanted, and it wouldn't change the security of the world. We know this because, as we now know, he had no capability whatsoever of launching an attack on us or anyone else.

And point (2): Right before the invasion, Saddam WAS complying with the UN. We had weapons inspectors in Iraq, and they were combing the country. Bush -- not Saddam -- pulled the inspectors before they were finished with their work so he could proceed with his invations.

Now, because we indulged in an unprovoked invasion, Iraq is an uncontrolled mess and the entire Middle East is less stable because of it. Because we have to spend so much time on Iraq, we're ignoring more pressing world threats (North Korea, Iran, al Queda, Osama bin Laden). And we have less money available to spend on making our homeland more secure (increasing port and airport security, better patrolling our borders, more people working in counterterrorism, etc.)

 

[OfHell'sFire]

Iraq was an uncontrolled mess before the invasion... and when you say "So what if he defied them?" - that just scares me. The UN is supposed to be an international force not only for diplomacy, but for military action if it comes to that. If we tell the world that UN sanctions mean nothing by allowing them to blatantly violate them, what good is the UN at all? It then becomes a group of nations that has no power and is no threat to terrorist nations, this would obviously not be a good thing.

My bottom line is Saddam broke laws placed on him for years, stole money from his people and their economy, and laughed at the UN knowing they were too weak to do anything - how can you justify what he was doing because he was boxed in? There are civilians in Iraq that were also boxed in with him were there not?

Also, pulling inspectors... what's the difference? They were also a weak show of force... Saddam kicked him out once, and nobody did anything? The UN basically let all of this happen by ingoring their own laws and sanctions - if they claim they are a force of any kind, should they not enforce their own laws? If we have the only real world-wide police force being walked all over by a dictator like Saddam, why even have the UN?

This was in no way an unprovoked attack - we gave Saddam a choice... step out of power for breaking countless laws and sanctions placed on you, or we will come in and remove you from power. The fact that he never cared for his people made it painfully obvious force would have to be used. I'm sorry, the UN is a great idea, but so was the LoN, but there still has to be a nation to backup the laws - slaps on the wrist to a madman like Saddam just aren't enough.

So, like I said, the only question is the timing in my mind - was it a bad time to go in? Who knows? We do know that Saddam was breaking laws, and the UN was too weak to do anything about it, sending a pretty scary message to other terrorist nations in my opinion - Do what you want, the UN is a useless force - this is not what the all united power in the world should be saying, and the US had a Republican President. As we know, the Rep's will always go to war before the Dem's, not that I'm arguing one over the other in any way, it's just the difference - I agree with it still... lobbing random missiles in there like Clinton's administration did was as non-impactful as the UN placing more sanctions on Iraq for breaking the FIRST sanctions.

 

[ZarathosNY]

Saddam never kicked out the inspectors. We pulled them out. Again, Saddam was only a threat to his own people. He wasn't even a threat to his neighbors. He WAS complying more and more with the inspectors. He let them bulldoze his Al-samood missles when the UN said they were 15 or 5 miles over their allowed limit.

 

[OfHell'sFire]

[quote name='ZarathosNY']Saddam never kicked out the inspectors. We pulled them out. Again, Saddam was only a threat to his own people. He wasn't even a threat to his neighbors. He WAS complying more and more with the inspectors. He let them bulldoze his Al-samood missles when the UN said they were 15 or 5 miles over their allowed limit.[/quote]He refused access to numerous sites and essentially stopped all progress... this was of course before the period leading up to the 2nd invasion.

Just for the record, saying that he was complying with ANYTHING is beyond ridiculous... even the mindless Bush-hating zombies know this.

 

[ZarathosNY]

He refused access to numerous sites and essentially stopped all progress... this was of course before the period leading up to the 2nd invasion.

Just for the record, saying that he was complying with ANYTHING is beyond ridiculous... even the mindless Bush-hating zombies know this.

Sorry, but you are wrong. Just before the invasion he was allowing access to anywhere the inspectors wanted to go. He WAS complying more.

 

[OfHell'sFire]

[quote name='ZarathosNY']

Sorry, but you are wrong. Just before the invasion he was allowing access to anywhere the inspectors wanted to go. He WAS complying more.[/quote]Did you not read where I stated this was of course before the time leading up to the 2nd invasion... although he was still not complying to any resolutions leading up to the current invasion either - why do you think it even became an issue?

Please, just read my posts closely before responding.

 

[ZarathosNY]

[quote name='ZarathosNY']

Sorry, but you are wrong. Just before the invasion he was allowing access to anywhere the inspectors wanted to go. He WAS complying more.

Did you not read where I stated this was of course before the time leading up to the 2nd invasion... although he was still not complying to any resolutions leading up to the current invasion either - why do you think it even became an issue?

Please, just read my posts closely before responding.[/quote]

If you agree then he was complying more, then there was no reason to invade when we did. There was no reason to stop the inspectors and let them finish their job.

 

[CTLesq]

[quote name='dennis_t']
Except that Kerry's plan doesn't involve one crucial aspect of Bush's plan: alienating the international community so we have to go it alone in one of the most unstable parts of the globe.
[/quote]

Well it would appear Kerry can claim he will involve the international community all he wants....and he still won't get troops.

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/36048bf8-0ff7-11d9-ba62-00000e2511c8.html

It would be worth noting that Bush has obtained two UN Sec C Res after the invasion, just like the previous 17 UN Sec C Res....

 

[OfHell'sFire]

[quote name='ZarathosNY']

If you agree then he was complying more, then there was no reason to invade when we did. There was no reason to stop the inspectors and let them finish their job.[/quote]Geez... I've already written well over 4 paragraphs detailing why I feel we would have gone in regardless... go back and read those particular posts, and if you disagree, please state where and why like Dennis_t did... I'm going to need more substance to debate this issue than a random assumption.

 

[CTLesq]

[quote name='ZarathosNY']
Sorry, but you are wrong. Just before the invasion he was allowing access to anywhere the inspectors wanted to go. He WAS complying more.[/quote]

And I am sorry. This ceased to become a game after 9/11.

That you have to qualify your statement with he was complying "more" illustrates my point.

It was time to fish or cut bait, not to dick around for another 12 years.

CTL

 

[dennis_t]

[quote name='CTLesq'][quote name='dennis_t']
Except that Kerry's plan doesn't involve one crucial aspect of Bush's plan: alienating the international community so we have to go it alone in one of the most unstable parts of the globe.
[/quote]

Well it would appear Kerry can claim he will involve the international community all he wants....and he still won't get troops.

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/36048bf8-0ff7-11d9-ba62-00000e2511c8.html

It would be worth noting that Bush has obtained two UN Sec C Res after the invasion, just like the previous 17 UN Sec C Res....[/quote]

I'm still waiting for you to tell me Bush's plan on Iraq....if you've explicated it on another thread, my apologies, but otherwise I want to hear what his plan is.

 

[dennis_t]

[quote name='CTLesq'][quote name='ZarathosNY']
Sorry, but you are wrong. Just before the invasion he was allowing access to anywhere the inspectors wanted to go. He WAS complying more.[/quote]

And I am sorry. This ceased to become a game after 9/11.

That you have to qualify your statement with he was complying "more" illustrates my point.

It was time to fish or cut bait, not to dick around for another 12 years.

CTL[/quote]

I love the way you folks need to bring 9/11 into the argument for invading Iraq.

Once more, with feeling:

Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. No link whatsoever.

 

[David85]

Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. No link whatsoever.....


That we know of.

 

[OfHell'sFire]

[quote name='dennis_t']
I'm still waiting for you to tell me Bush's plan on Iraq....if you've explicated it on another thread, my apologies, but otherwise I want to hear what his plan is.[/quote]I stated it for you when you asked me earlier (in this thread I believe)... it was basically the same lines Kerry is feeding to us - again, they are really way different

 

[Drocket]

1) I haven't the answer to such questions, nobody does - no matter what choice was made on Iraq, it's apparent force would have eventually been used, and there's no way of telling if it will EVER be stable - so, in answer to your question, I'm in no position to say how long, nor are any of our "leaders"

Way to avoid the question

For reference, the question is/was: The current mode of operation in Iraq is clearly not working (unless, of course, you call giving more and more of the country over to violent, murderous insurgents, while the US military gets blown up by one car bomb after another, 'working'...) Given the fact that so far, the 'plan' is rather constently not working, how long will it be before you feel its OK to call the plan a failure?

2) Umm, well, I'd agree that the analogy can be broken down, however using the not enough history argument is pretty thin... we have 80+ years of stock market data - we have a MUCH longer period of history in the middle east to study - It's not as if Iraq and other mid-eastern countries just suddenly became an unstable region :?

I don't think there's even QUITE been a situation like the current one (with outside forces going into the middle east not as conquerers, but as 'liberators', 'democracy bringers', whatever you want to call it...), but as I said, the history of outside forces going into the middle east isn't exactly a good one. If you're saying that that history IS relevant, then actually, you're probably providing pretty good evidence that we should get our asses out of the area ASAP.

3) US soldiers will die regardless of Iraq, as we will always be somewhere... I mean, it's the nature of not only the US, but humans - If not Iraq, then Iran, if not Iran then Syria... etc... also, I don't feel bad for our soldiers at all - I'm obviously a supporter of our military, however it is a volunteer only military... and it's a job where you put your life on the line every day - they know this going in, so saying we should pull out because soldiers are getting hurt and dying is kind of absurd - Isn't that a soldiers job? I have the utmost respect for our soldiers, and thank god they are out there fighting whatever we are involved in, regardless of the politics behind it, but they chose to be in that position.

Not to say that either one of these is necessarily the case: they volunteered to defend our country, not to get their heads blown off so the presidents buddies can make money. What YOU'VE just said is that it doesn't matter why they get their heads blown off, just that its their job to die. Apparently its just fine to waste lives on wrong causes, as long as the people getting killed are paid for it (even if they've been mislead into doing so.)

 

[CTLesq]

[quote name='dennis_t'][quote name='CTLesq'][quote name='dennis_t']
Except that Kerry's plan doesn't involve one crucial aspect of Bush's plan: alienating the international community so we have to go it alone in one of the most unstable parts of the globe.
[/quote]

Well it would appear Kerry can claim he will involve the international community all he wants....and he still won't get troops.

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/36048bf8-0ff7-11d9-ba62-00000e2511c8.html

It would be worth noting that Bush has obtained two UN Sec C Res after the invasion, just like the previous 17 UN Sec C Res....[/quote]

I'm still waiting for you to tell me Bush's plan on Iraq....if you've explicated it on another thread, my apologies, but otherwise I want to hear what his plan is.[/quote]

Bush's plan is the following: maintain the alliance he has built, restore order to the country, have elections and leave when asked by the Iraqi government.

Let me address yet again the comments people about 9/11.

I didn't claim Iraq had anything to do with the attacks on the WTC.

I defy any of you to find where I make that connection.

What I do claim is the events of 9/11 changed American foreign policy and how we deal with other nations. To Wit, Iraq was to become an object lesson the Arab world. Support terrorism, or turn a blind eye to terrorism and this will happen to you. Afghanistan was not enough. It could be casually written off as not having a military or being a hardened government. Despite the realities of Iraq, the opinion of the Arab street was that Iraq was a powerful nation which could stand up to the US.

I conceed Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. I don't offer 9/11 for the purpose of laying blame at the feet of Iraq.

I presume you are all capable of making this jump.

CTL

 

[sblymnlcrymnl]

[quote name='sblymnlcrymnl']It's better not to tell them straight out not to vote, this will just piss them off.

Instead, tell them that election day is now Nov. 4th.[/quote]

[quote name='Quackzilla']Good idea.

I know a LOT of stupid people, I will start calling them and reminding them to show up on November 4th because "their vote counts".

I consider diehard liberals and conservatives too dumb to vote because they NEVER know what either candidates agenda is.

[edit]

Just remembered, in the Florida 2000 elections a racist group put up signs announcing the November 4th election in many predominately liberal black communities. Didn't make it in the news much because of the chads, but it should have.

While I support discrimination by intelligence level (it's justified), I detest racial discrimination (it's wrrong).[/quote]

I never heard about that, that's just wrong.

 

[dennis_t]

[quote name='CTLesq']
Bush's plan is the following: maintain the alliance he has built, restore order to the country, have elections and leave when asked by the Iraqi government.

CTL[/quote]

So, Bush is failing on just about all fronts, isn't he?

(1) Countries are steadily dropping out of the alliance.
(2) The U.S. has ceded huge portions of Iraq to control by insurgents, and has started bleeding reconstruction funds to pay for more security.
(3) It's becoming more and more doubtful that Iraqi elections will come off on schedule. The voter canvassing hasn't been done, and the state and defense departments can't even agree on whether the election will go forward if insurgents still hold large portions of Iraq.
(4) The only Iraqi government in place is a puppet democracy whose leader can take time out of his busy schedule to come to America and campaign for Bush.

Given all of this -- along with Bush's proclivity for never admitting a mistake -- how can you possibly assume that a change at the top would be a bad thing?

 

[dennis_t]

BUMP while I wait for a Republican to defend Bush's Iraq plan.....