Ahh its only money except if its a democrat spending it it is a different story. This administration has gotten us so piss broke but i see DTB never seems to acknowledge it. Must be an incredible set of blinders he wears. He should be a Jockey.
Russian leak, Iran sneak attack Apr 6th
- Thread starter Dead Money
- Start date
Ahh its only money except if its a democrat spending it it is a different story. This administration has gotten us so piss broke but i see DTB never seems to acknowledge it. Must be an incredible set of blinders he wears. He should be a Jockey.
This post got me so worked up because it is the absolute truth and the Bush-backers act like it's a non-issue. We're not even broke! We effin WISH we were broke! We're so bad off it's bordering on unbelievable. Seriously, it is unbelievable how much money the US is in debt and this brilliant administration IGNORES it! Maybe Bush will pray for our debt to go away.
Maybe I look at things in diff perspective--I consider the cost (911 and trillion hit to economy in a single day) as result of doing nothing--vs cost of maybe preventing same.
IMHO The cost of foreign aid to countries that give the U.S. 0 support is the biggest waste of funds.
--but thats just me:shrug:
IMHO The cost of foreign aid to countries that give the U.S. 0 support is the biggest waste of funds.
--but thats just me:shrug:
Well Wayne, our actions don't seem to be preventing Iran from moving forward with their plans. Also, I don't think Iraq was responsible for 9/11. On a similar note, what happens IF Iraq ia a completely free country tomorrow with no local threats......then some independent terrorist faction blows up a US landmark?
Was reading a little on this the other day, and looking for specifics on why pork was included - I mentioned then that I think the defense funding and timeline should be on their own merits without clutter. Have seen that this bill is not listed as a specific "only" defense bill, but is a supplemental spending bill, which opens it up to pretty much anything, so the adding on is status quo for either party. I hate attachments, and have said so, but I guess if it is simply a spending appropriations bill then I guess I understand that better. Don't like it, because it opens some dems up to discrediting...and I think the stand against failed policy is a strong one.
it's pretty clear now that the entire iraq war was a setup by the spinach farmers.....lol
and those peanuts that need storing?...they'd fit nicely up the dem`s reps' asses.....
and maybe stuff a pound or two of broken shells up hagel`s butt...
seriously....24 billion for spinach subsidies and peanut storage among other silliness?...while we fight wars in afghanistan and iraq.....
amazing....
if the dems were really serious about what`s in the country`s best interests,they`d wait until at least august or september..to give the surge a real chance.....then revisit the issue....make no madates or show their hand until all the troops are in place and the surge is given a chance...
or,if the war is truly lost and it is just a big civil war and we cannot expect even a partially acceptable outcome,why don't they defund it...pull `em out...now...
you talk about wasting the lives of our troops....what`s a bigger waste than giving up...yet,setting a future date of surrender....and leaving the troops there with no chance of succeeding....anybody death that would occur while marking time until the surrender date would truly be wasted...
they ok`ed petraeus...give him a "real" chance...
they know...everyone knows...that you can`t tell the enemy you plan to leave on date certain....that`s probably the most insane aspect of this whole issue...
defund and get out....or stop undermining the surge and give it a real chance...
take a stand...
i hope we succeed...i want us to give the surge a shot...but,honestly,if they`re gonna give the enemies an expiration date,i`d rather pull `em out right now and let the chips fall....
Lets see if I'm' getting some of this story right. Money all we need to spend for war the Reb's say is a- OK. But don't touch there taxes. Seems They think there war never has to be payed for. I don't get it. Reb's don't wish to spend money to keep us free and protect us if you take a little extra tax from them to do it. Then they act like Bush and Cheney. They will start a war but they won't show up to fight. They get defer.:shrug:
That sounds nice, as it always does, but you know as well as I do that if the democrats weren't pressuring for an end date, there would be none as far as the current administration is concerned. This surge, whatever the heck that will "achieve," would be followed by another request for funds, and another surge, because, look, we're winning a little more now, and we don't want to lose. Wash, rinse, repeat.
Four years and counting, and now, the democrats are supposed to fund this thing again, sit back and wait to see what happens, and then be told that we have to stay the course and do something else that costs a sh*tload more of our money, so we don't lose face in the world. Ironic, doesn't even begin to describe that thinking.
Four years and counting, and now, the democrats are supposed to fund this thing again, sit back and wait to see what happens, and then be told that we have to stay the course and do something else that costs a sh*tload more of our money, so we don't lose face in the world. Ironic, doesn't even begin to describe that thinking.
On this note of pulling out of Iraq, the Onion newspaper hit the nail on the head with one of its "humor stories" last issue. The story blared...
U.S. to withdraw from Iraq, through Iran.
I thought that really funny...LAST week.
U.S. to withdraw from Iraq, through Iran.
I thought that really funny...LAST week.
Gman on your--On a similar note, what happens IF Iraq ia a completely free country tomorrow with no local threats......then some independent terrorist faction blows up a US landmark?
That is very likely probabilty (the idependent terrorist)
However it appears to me so far that retaliation has been much better deterrent than doing nothing--been quite a while since we had an embassy-ship ect targeted by terrorist when it use to be yearly event--much tougher now with most in hiding--no open training-limited communication ect-
Would you agree?
That is very likely probabilty (the idependent terrorist)
However it appears to me so far that retaliation has been much better deterrent than doing nothing--been quite a while since we had an embassy-ship ect targeted by terrorist when it use to be yearly event--much tougher now with most in hiding--no open training-limited communication ect-
Would you agree?
interesting article...
interesting article...
On streets of Tehran, some urge release of British sailor
The Associated PressPublished: March 29, 2007
TEHRAN, Iran: Faye Turney's plight has touched Iranians, too: On the streets of Tehran on Thursday, several people said they thought their government should have kept its word and released the British woman sailor.
Others interviewed here said they were annoyed by Britain's alleged intrusion into Iranian waters and felt their country was within its rights to seize the 15 British sailors and marines.
Even then, several said they hoped the standoff would end soon, rather than escalate.
And several said pointedly that they disliked the fact Iranian officials had first promised to release Turney, then backtracked as the standoff grew.
"It would not have been right (for Iran) to act indifferently about someone violating its borders, no matter if it was Britons or others who did it," said Ahmad Tabrizi, a cell phone trader.
Today in Africa & Middle East
New charges by Iran intensify crisis with Britain
Ethiopian troops clash with insurgents in Somalia
Saudi king tells Arab leaders that U.S. occupation of Iraq is illegal
"But it was also not fair that officials changed their word," he said. "The girl should be released."
Iran is in the middle of its long Persian New Year holiday when many business and government offices shut down and newspapers close. Many people go on long holidays or visit relatives.
But Iranian state television has repeatedly broadcast pictures of Turney, the sole female captive ? and many Iranians have clearly been following the events.
Neda Kermanian, 23, an industrial design student, said the British sailors and marines "should be tried for their violation ... But Iran should have remained honest about its promise of releasing the female sailor. I hope the case will not escalate."
Iranian public opinion can be hard to gauge because there are few independent polls.
People often feel free to discuss social and political issues among friends, and Iran has an active blogging community. But most are less willing to express outright dissent with the government.
However, there clearly has been some popular discontent with the current regime, including anger at the president's confrontational rhetoric and worry that U.N. sanctions over Iran's nuclear program could hit average people's pocketbooks.
There also is a tradition of admiration for the United States and other Western societies among young people here ? despite the longstanding break in the two countries' relations.
In one notable case, hundreds of young Iranians held a series of candlelight vigils in Tehran after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States. Some of those who attended were roughed up by hardline religious zealots.
On the other hand, many Iranians still harbor resentment over Western domination of their country, first by the British and later by the Americans, who engineered a coup against a democratically elected government in 1953.
Most Iranians are too young to remember that era. But the government often cites those days to bolster the Islamic rule that began during the 1979 revolution.
And hard line opinions are easy to find on Tehran's streets.
"Finally, Iranian forces dealt a master stroke to the Westerners," said one young building contractor, Mohammad Abdollahi, interviewed here Thursday.
He lamented, however, that the Britons seized were "simple soldiers and not equal to our diplomats who were detained by Americans in Iraq" ? a reference to several Iranians held by the U.S. military in Iraq.
Despite his strong pride at the Britons' capture, Abdollahi added: "I do hope this case can be settled as soon as possible."
interesting article...
On streets of Tehran, some urge release of British sailor
The Associated PressPublished: March 29, 2007
TEHRAN, Iran: Faye Turney's plight has touched Iranians, too: On the streets of Tehran on Thursday, several people said they thought their government should have kept its word and released the British woman sailor.
Others interviewed here said they were annoyed by Britain's alleged intrusion into Iranian waters and felt their country was within its rights to seize the 15 British sailors and marines.
Even then, several said they hoped the standoff would end soon, rather than escalate.
And several said pointedly that they disliked the fact Iranian officials had first promised to release Turney, then backtracked as the standoff grew.
"It would not have been right (for Iran) to act indifferently about someone violating its borders, no matter if it was Britons or others who did it," said Ahmad Tabrizi, a cell phone trader.
Today in Africa & Middle East
New charges by Iran intensify crisis with Britain
Ethiopian troops clash with insurgents in Somalia
Saudi king tells Arab leaders that U.S. occupation of Iraq is illegal
"But it was also not fair that officials changed their word," he said. "The girl should be released."
Iran is in the middle of its long Persian New Year holiday when many business and government offices shut down and newspapers close. Many people go on long holidays or visit relatives.
But Iranian state television has repeatedly broadcast pictures of Turney, the sole female captive ? and many Iranians have clearly been following the events.
Neda Kermanian, 23, an industrial design student, said the British sailors and marines "should be tried for their violation ... But Iran should have remained honest about its promise of releasing the female sailor. I hope the case will not escalate."
Iranian public opinion can be hard to gauge because there are few independent polls.
People often feel free to discuss social and political issues among friends, and Iran has an active blogging community. But most are less willing to express outright dissent with the government.
However, there clearly has been some popular discontent with the current regime, including anger at the president's confrontational rhetoric and worry that U.N. sanctions over Iran's nuclear program could hit average people's pocketbooks.
There also is a tradition of admiration for the United States and other Western societies among young people here ? despite the longstanding break in the two countries' relations.
In one notable case, hundreds of young Iranians held a series of candlelight vigils in Tehran after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States. Some of those who attended were roughed up by hardline religious zealots.
On the other hand, many Iranians still harbor resentment over Western domination of their country, first by the British and later by the Americans, who engineered a coup against a democratically elected government in 1953.
Most Iranians are too young to remember that era. But the government often cites those days to bolster the Islamic rule that began during the 1979 revolution.
And hard line opinions are easy to find on Tehran's streets.
"Finally, Iranian forces dealt a master stroke to the Westerners," said one young building contractor, Mohammad Abdollahi, interviewed here Thursday.
He lamented, however, that the Britons seized were "simple soldiers and not equal to our diplomats who were detained by Americans in Iraq" ? a reference to several Iranians held by the U.S. military in Iraq.
Despite his strong pride at the Britons' capture, Abdollahi added: "I do hope this case can be settled as soon as possible."
Perhaps you would like to share examples of the "yearly events" of terrorism on U.S. interests prior to 9-11. I'm sure you have them handy. Once again, your point is flatly wrong regarding retaliation being a better deterrent. It's been a while since an embassy was targeted? Man...you gotta stop watching Faux News, my man. Here is a playlist SINCE 9-11, after the retaliation took place (Note the attacks on the Saudi Oil interests, which really got their interest up, as mentioned in the other threads)...
2002
June 14, Karachi, Pakistan: bomb exploded outside American consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, killing 12. Linked to al-Qaeda.
2003
May 12, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: suicide bombers killed 34, including 8 Americans, at housing compounds for Westerners. Al-Qaeda suspected.
2004
May 29?31, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: terrorists attack the offices of a Saudi oil company in Khobar, Saudi Arabia, take foreign oil workers hostage in a nearby residential compound, leaving 22 people dead including one American.
June 11?19, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: terrorists kidnap and execute Paul Johnson Jr., an American, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 2 other Americans and BBC cameraman killed by gun attacks.
Dec. 6, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia: terrorists storm the U.S. consulate, killing 5 consulate employees. 4 terrorists were killed by Saudi security.
2005
Nov. 9, Amman, Jordan: Suicide bombers hit 3 American hotels, Radisson, Grand Hyatt, and Days Inn, in Amman, Jordan, killing 57. Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility.
2006
Sept. 13, Damascus, Syria: an attack by four gunman on the American embassy was foiled.
2007
Jan. 12, Athens, Greece: the U.S. embassy was fired on by an anti-tank missile causing damage but no injuries.
--------
Seems to me that fits the exact definition of "Yearly Attacks on U.S. Interests." Thanks for playing, Wayne. Yeah, things are MUCH improved now, thanks to our fearsome leaders...
:142smilie
I do agree that retaliation is a deterrent. However, I don't think invading a country and setting up our troops up for failure is valid retaliation. Retaliation needs to be swift and harsh. Dragging out this current retaliation smells of a terrorist victory because it seems apparent that we can't "win" and they know it. The longer it goes, the more confident they will be that they can hang with us.
Chad I'm going to give you an A for research and providing facts instead of opinion on this one--however believe it strengthens my point--
You got what on your list--10 americans killed if you included kidnapped journalist.
==========================
heres a few single events that surpass your total tallie
World Trade Center bombing kills six and injures over 1000 people, by coalition of five groups
Khobar Towers bombing -- In all, 19 U.S. servicemen and one Saudi were killed and 372 wounded, by Hizballah Al-Hijaz (Saudi Hizballah) with Iranian support, see FBI Most Wanted Terrorists
U.S. embassy bombings in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya, killing 225 people and injuring more than 4,000, by al-Qaeda
USS Cole bombing kills 17 US sailors and wounds 40 off the port coast of Aden, Yemen, by al-Qaeda
To get year by year tolls go to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents#1993
Note the diminished capacity and magnitude of events---also note the increased # on other muslims and fewer on U.S.
You got what on your list--10 americans killed if you included kidnapped journalist.
==========================
heres a few single events that surpass your total tallie
World Trade Center bombing kills six and injures over 1000 people, by coalition of five groups
Khobar Towers bombing -- In all, 19 U.S. servicemen and one Saudi were killed and 372 wounded, by Hizballah Al-Hijaz (Saudi Hizballah) with Iranian support, see FBI Most Wanted Terrorists
U.S. embassy bombings in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya, killing 225 people and injuring more than 4,000, by al-Qaeda
USS Cole bombing kills 17 US sailors and wounds 40 off the port coast of Aden, Yemen, by al-Qaeda
To get year by year tolls go to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents#1993
Note the diminished capacity and magnitude of events---also note the increased # on other muslims and fewer on U.S.
Last edited:
