[OT] State of the Union Address

[Patty16]

If I recall correctly Harry Reid was recently asked about tort reform and he emphatically stated that it was a drop in the bucket and that only $54,000,000,000 could be saved. Like picking up a penny off the street, I guess.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/10/12/tort-reform-could-save-54-million-report-says/

 

Yea 54 billion over 10 years, or 5,400,000 a year when the 2,500,000,000 a year on healthcare.

[grinreaper]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/10/12/tort-reform-could-save-54-million-report-says/

 

Yea 54 billion over 10 years, or 5,400,000 a year when the 2,500,000,000 a year on healthcare.

 

 

I assume you were at least trying to make a coherent statement here. Suggestion......check your zeros and add words so that your sentence makes sense.

[Taro T]

I stand by my statement. Bush in his first year came into office with a roaring economy and a budget surplus. Sure 9/11 happened and it was unlike anything a new president has had to deal with.

 

Do you really think his first year equates to Obama's where we have a budget deficit, banks in ruins, fighting two wars, massive job losses, a dropping stock market (albeit it recovered), 10% unemployment, ...... Really think they compare?

We had a "roaring" economy in January '01? :huh: I seem to recall a certain stock market correction that began in March '00. As for a "surplus", unfortunately there hasn't been one in my lifetime. The only reason it appeared that there was a "surplus" in the '90's was due to including the excess monies received (which have already been allocated to be spent) from SS. Only the govt. can get away w/ that sort of bookkeeping, most accountants in the real world would get fired or jailed if they tried to use govt gaap.

 

Wasn't the "stimulus" supposed to keep unemployment below 8%?

[wjag]

We had a "roaring" economy in January '01? :huh: I seem to recall a certain stock market correction that began in March '00. As for a "surplus", unfortunately there hasn't been one in my lifetime. The only reason it appeared that there was a "surplus" in the '90's was due to including the excess monies received (which have already been allocated to be spent) from SS. Only the govt. can get away w/ that sort of bookkeeping, most accountants in the real world would get fired or jailed if they tried to use govt gaap.

 

Wasn't the "stimulus" supposed to keep unemployment below 8%?

Don't get me wrong, I'm defending neither adminstration. I'm just looking at it from a purely objective point of view.

 

Obama came in with a lot of things happening immediately. Bush's first tenure didn't really ramp up until 9/11. That is my only point.

[Eleven]

Some folks might enjoy this BBC article on why Americans often vote against our own best interests.

 

IMO, it's got a point, but it doesn't tell the whole story.

[nfreeman]

I stand by my statement. Bush in his first year came into office with a roaring economy and a budget surplus. Sure 9/11 happened and it was unlike anything a new president has had to deal with.

 

Do you really think his first year equates to Obama's where we have a budget deficit, banks in ruins, fighting two wars, massive job losses, a dropping stock market (albeit it recovered), 10% unemployment, ...... Really think they compare?

We had a "roaring" economy in January '01? :huh: I seem to recall a certain stock market correction that began in March '00. As for a "surplus", unfortunately there hasn't been one in my lifetime. The only reason it appeared that there was a "surplus" in the '90's was due to including the excess monies received (which have already been allocated to be spent) from SS. Only the govt. can get away w/ that sort of bookkeeping, most accountants in the real world would get fired or jailed if they tried to use govt gaap.

 

Wasn't the "stimulus" supposed to keep unemployment below 8%?

'doh! Taro beat me to it.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm defending neither adminstration. I'm just looking at it from a purely objective point of view.

 

Obama came in with a lot of things happening immediately. Bush's first tenure didn't really ramp up until 9/11. That is my only point.

It's hard to talk politics and be purely objective, although it is a worthy goal. Still, saying "I'm purely objective" is a little bit like saying "I've got the correct perspective" instead of "I'm trying to get to the correct perspective."

 

I know -- I can really be a pain in the butt (let's see if that one makes it through the filter).

 

As to the substance of your post -- I certainly wouldn't deny that Obama came into a very dicey situation. But unemployment was below 7% when he was elected and at about 7.6% when he was inaugurated. He inherited a bad situation, but his policies made it much worse -- and as Taro points out, he promised up and down that his stimulus package would keep unemployment below 8%. The stimulus package was almost entirely comprised of kickbacks to democratic special interest groups. It's been completely ineffective other than as a deficit-growing factor. And the energy tax, the health-care proposal, the bank-bashing, the promise of new taxes -- all of these have deterred private-sector investment, spending and hiring, which are the engines of our economy and job creation.

 

I will agree that if the question is which president came into a trickier situation on day 1, the answer is Obama. But if it's which president faced a tougher set of challenges in his first year, well, Bush's first year included, as Taro noted, a major stock market correction, a very sluggish economy, and 9/11, which was quite literally a turning point in US history. There is plenty of room for reasonable people to disagree on how Bush handled it, but I think with the passage of time, people have forgotten how terrible that day was, and what it really meant. Unfortunately, I think many of the President's supporters, both inside and outside of the government, have been able to convince themselves over time that it was a one-time occurrence and that there is no danger of another attack like it (or one much worse).

[SwampD]

'doh! Taro beat me to it.

 

 

It's hard to talk politics and be purely objective, although it is a worthy goal. Still, saying "I'm purely objective" is a little bit like saying "I've got the correct perspective" instead of "I'm trying to get to the correct perspective."

 

 

One thing that might make politics easier to discuss for everyone is to realize that there isn't a "Correct Perspective". There is only "what You want and what I want."

[SarasotaSabre]

Excellent, very objective points NFreeman. totally agree that it is tough to be objective when it comes to arguing different points politically, but you nailed it

 

'doh! Taro beat me to it.

 

 

It's hard to talk politics and be purely objective, although it is a worthy goal. Still, saying "I'm purely objective" is a little bit like saying "I've got the correct perspective" instead of "I'm trying to get to the correct perspective."

 

I know -- I can really be a pain in the butt (let's see if that one makes it through the filter).

 

As to the substance of your post -- I certainly wouldn't deny that Obama came into a very dicey situation. But unemployment was below 7% when he was elected and at about 7.6% when he was inaugurated. He inherited a bad situation, but his policies made it much worse -- and as Taro points out, he promised up and down that his stimulus package would keep unemployment below 8%. The stimulus package was almost entirely comprised of kickbacks to democratic special interest groups. It's been completely ineffective other than as a deficit-growing factor. And the energy tax, the health-care proposal, the bank-bashing, the promise of new taxes -- all of these have deterred private-sector investment, spending and hiring, which are the engines of our economy and job creation.

 

I will agree that if the question is which president came into a trickier situation on day 1, the answer is Obama. But if it's which president faced a tougher set of challenges in his first year, well, Bush's first year included, as Taro noted, a major stock market correction, a very sluggish economy, and 9/11, which was quite literally a turning point in US history. There is plenty of room for reasonable people to disagree on how Bush handled it, but I think with the passage of time, people have forgotten how terrible that day was, and what it really meant. Unfortunately, I think many of the President's supporters, both inside and outside of the government, have been able to convince themselves over time that it was a one-time occurrence and that there is no danger of another attack like it (or one much worse).

[SwampD]

Excellent, very objective points NFreeman. totally agree that it is tough to be objective when it comes to arguing different points politically, but you nailed it

Speaking of kickbacks, what do you think the war in Iraq is? Bush just found a way to keep his kickbacks flowing well after he left office.

[SHAAAUGHT!!!]

Obama is a smooth-talking wanna-be. He is all talk, just like a typical politician. Well, he's not all talk, he will turn around and turn the US into a socialist state, but that is different from what he says, so maybe liar is the better word. POS

 

If what he said had actual meaning other than sounding good, I would be optimistic. Read the AP's fact checks on his speech. The guy will say anything.

 

 

http://content.usatoday.net/dist/custom/gci/InsidePage.aspx?cId=democratandchronicle&sParam=32649085.story

I'm sorry but that article you cited is garbage. They basically regurgitate GOP talking points:

 

1) Spending Freeze: why wouldn't someone support a spending freeze in a recession? Prices go down in a recession; you should be able to do more with the same budget as the previous year. Medicare and Medicaid are already purposely underfunded, I don't think anyone wants to cut grandmas SS check any further, and we are still fighting two wars so defense spending is critical (although the adminstration already has reduced frivilous spending on cold war era fighters to fight an imaginary enemy).

 

2) A presidential appointed commision is a tactic used to shame congress in to approving a commision that has some teeth to make actual reform. Not the presidents first choice, but a smart one if we are really trying to improve our fiscal policies.

 

3) "Obama can't guarantee people won't see higher rates or fewer benefits in their existing plans." A rather broad statement. Rates may and/or will increase year over year since we as a country veiw 3-3.5% inflation as an important attribute to a growing economy. A real solution would cap health plan price increases, with either a hard cap, or one based on a indices to inflation rates, GDP growth, etc.

 

4) Lobbyist in the white house: one of the seven lobbyist use to represent a group that tried to reduce the consumption of alcohol by minors. This man was appointed to a role in the whitehouse related to his experience. When looking for the best candidate for the job, I want the person that is most capable of furthering my agenda. I don't see why this is a bad appointment. It is important that this information is made public so we can have a sanity check on these types of appointments.

 

5) 2MM jobs created under the stimulus. The closer number may be 1.5 or 1.6MM, but all these numbers are hard to verify. A bill might create 100 manufacturing job, but then 9 more manager may have to be hired, 2 more delivery truck drivers for UPS, another pilot for flying the additional cargo, so on and so forth. The important attribute here is that jobs are created. The estimate might be off by 25%, but the indicator is going in the right direction. The kicker is that if more money would have been spent faster, there would have been more jobs and a stronger economy right now.

 

6) Healthcare negotiations on C-Span: they were on C-Span!!! Negotiations took place in both houses, in the whitehouse, and in random offices. Cameras couldn't be everywhere at once. They president admitted that he should have tried to work out better logistics so coverage would be easier, but I think that is BS. What congressman wouldn't want the press involved if he was doing something good for the country?? I think the more coverage the better, but this is a flat out incorrect statement by these writers.

 

7) Savings rejected by Congress. How is this the presidents fault? It is these congressmen that only care about their own re-election that are including all this unnecessary spending. Its embarrassing.

 

8) "The United States and Russia are completing negotiations on the farthest-reaching arms control treaty in nearly two decades." This is the most ridculous point yet in this article. Bush completely destroy our relationship with russia with his arbitrary and capricious tarriffs on their metal exports, and then insisting on a US missle defense shield in Europe. The fact we are in negotiations with Russia at all is a feat in diplomancy.

 

9) I know people in the military fighting in Iraq and Afganistan. The hundreds number is probably much lower than the actual body count.

 

If you want to actually see a real debate, on real issues, you should watch the republican Q&A with the president yesterday. It shines a spotlight on how hollow all these GOP criticisms really are (questioning starts around the 19-20 minute mark):

 

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/291730-1&start=1168&stop=5222

 

FYI - the clip is from C-Span! :)

[Hank]

Speaking of kickbacks, what do you think the war in Iraq is? Bush just found a way to keep his kickbacks flowing well after he left office.

 

Swamp, what do you mean by this? If the implied thought is that we are in Iraq strictly for oil than I strongly disagree.

[deluca67]

'doh! Taro beat me to it.

 

 

It's hard to talk politics and be purely objective, although it is a worthy goal. Still, saying "I'm purely objective" is a little bit like saying "I've got the correct perspective" instead of "I'm trying to get to the correct perspective."

 

I know -- I can really be a pain in the butt (let's see if that one makes it through the filter).

 

As to the substance of your post -- I certainly wouldn't deny that Obama came into a very dicey situation. But unemployment was below 7% when he was elected and at about 7.6% when he was inaugurated. He inherited a bad situation, but his policies made it much worse -- and as Taro points out, he promised up and down that his stimulus package would keep unemployment below 8%. The stimulus package was almost entirely comprised of kickbacks to democratic special interest groups. It's been completely ineffective other than as a deficit-growing factor. And the energy tax, the health-care proposal, the bank-bashing, the promise of new taxes -- all of these have deterred private-sector investment, spending and hiring, which are the engines of our economy and job creation.

 

I will agree that if the question is which president came into a trickier situation on day 1, the answer is Obama. But if it's which president faced a tougher set of challenges in his first year, well, Bush's first year included, as Taro noted, a major stock market correction, a very sluggish economy, and 9/11, which was quite literally a turning point in US history. There is plenty of room for reasonable people to disagree on how Bush handled it, but I think with the passage of time, people have forgotten how terrible that day was, and what it really meant. Unfortunately, I think many of the President's supporters, both inside and outside of the government, have been able to convince themselves over time that it was a one-time occurrence and that there is no danger of another attack like it (or one much worse).

Those engines where stalled and sitting on the side of the road. This administration could have just sat there and kept trying to turn the key hoping they would start or they could get out of the car and see if they can fix it. I prefer a administration that gets out of the car and tries to fix it.

 

I do agree with you that 9/11 was a turning point. The entire world was in our corner. G.W. Bush and the poor decisions he made after 9/11 turned this country down a dark path that will take years to overcome. The raping of the Constitution, the violation of basic civil liberties and the disgrace of manufacturing a war under the guise of 9/11. This country needed a President and got a cowboy. We needed a Statesmen and ended up with Major Tetley.

[deluca67]

Swamp, what do you mean by this? If the implied thought is that we are in Iraq strictly for oil than I strongly disagree.

Not just for oil. The billions of dollars flowing to American businesses there "rebuilding" something that should have never been destroyed in the first place. Next to Vietnam, Iraq may be this countries greatest embarrassment.

[Hank]

Next to Vietnam, Iraq may be this countries greatest embarrassment.

 

I don't believe that it is an embarrassment. We are doing alot of good over there, and I believe that in the big picture our presence over there is important.

 

We disagree, and I respect your opinion, but I'm curious what you are basing your opinion on? What have you seen/heard/done that has helped form your opinion?

[deluca67]

I don't believe that it is an embarrassment. We are doing alot of good over there, and I believe that in the big picture our presence over there is important.

 

We disagree, and I respect your opinion, but I'm curious what you are basing your opinion on? What have you seen/heard/done that has helped form your opinion?

The US doesn't get points for building up a country that we destroyed, unnecessarily. If the United States was truly interested in a humanitarian effort they wold have gone into the Sudan and prevented hundreds of thousands of innocent people from being "ethnically cleansed."

 

I base my opinion on this as I do all my opinions, I watch and listen. Much like a juror, I listen and watch the witnesses, in this case the "experts" on TV and radio, and I decide for my self what is truth or what is rhetoric.

 

As always, this is just one opinion of one working stiff. Just like my opinions on the NHL, I watch and listen and draw my own conclusions.

[SwampD]

Swamp, what do you mean by this? If the implied thought is that we are in Iraq strictly for oil than I strongly disagree.

I'm not implying anything. I'm saying it outright.

 

 

 

This is how the war was sold to us -

 

Sadam had something to do with 9/11. He didn't.

 

Al Qaeda is there. They weren't, at least not when the war started. In fact, Al qaeda hated Sadam because he was a secular leader.

 

They have WMDs. Still waiting for those. I'm not holding my breath.

 

Oil revenues will pay for the war. The only revenues to go up were Haliburton's. All those shares of stock that Chaney's owns that were frozen while he was VP are now earning him more money than all of us will see in many lifetimes.

 

 

 

Banking, oil and arms. It's what the Bushes have been dealing in since before WWII. Whenever they are involved, there is a crisis in one of them somewhere in the world.

[Hank]

The US doesn't get points for building up a country that we destroyed, unnecessarily. If the United States was truly interested in a humanitarian effort they wold have gone into the Sudan and prevented hundreds of thousands of innocent people from being "ethnically cleansed."

 

I base my opinion on this as I do all my opinions, I watch and listen. Much like a juror, I listen and watch the witnesses, in this case the "experts" on TV and radio, and I decide for my self what is truth or what is rhetoric.

 

As always, this is just one opinion of one working stiff. Just like my opinions on the NHL, I watch and listen and draw my own conclusions.

 

Again, I respect your opinion. American Soldiers did not destroy the country of Iraq. I have not planted one IED in Iraq, althouth I did help rescue many Soldiers and civilians and scraped up remains of those that were blown up by them. I have not launched one mortar into an Iraqi neighborhood, although I have helped rescue civilians that were hit, lost some friends and had a couple narrow misses myself. I have not attacked a neighborhood, killing hundreds because they were Sunni,or Shiite, or Kurd, but I have seen mass graves of all three that were killed by a different religious faction, because they were a different religious faction.

 

Iraq is a much safer place today because of our presence. We have spent the last few years there training police forces and an Iraqi Army that previous to our arrival resembled the wild west of yesteryear.

 

For the record, I don't agree with the decision to invade Iraq. It bothers me that we are pumping hundreds of millions of dollars into their economy while ours is crumbling. But I also see the good that we are doing over there. I understand the importance of having a USA friendly government in place. I get that it's probably a good idea to have a presence in the middle east for when (Yes, I believe it's when, not if) we go to war with Iran.

 

The thing about basing your opinions off of what you see/read in the news is, nobody just covers the news. CNN, FOX, MSNBC, their talking heads give thier opinions, and the base of what drives their opinions is what will drive the ratings. They are all full of #%^$#!, wether they are left, right or middle.

 

My opinions are based on 4+ years of living in, fighting in and building up that country. Saying that is in no way an attempt to discredit your opinion, as I said, I completely respect your opinion. But Iraq and Vietnam are not even remotely similar, please don't try to draw that parallel.

[Hank]

I'm not implying anything. I'm saying it outright.

 

 

 

This is how the war was sold to us -

 

Sadam had something to do with 9/11. He didn't.

 

Al Qaeda is there. They weren't, at least not when the war started. In fact, Al qaeda hated Sadam because he was a secular leader.

 

They have WMDs. Still waiting for those. I'm not holding my breath.

 

Oil revenues will pay for the war. The only revenues to go up were Haliburton's. All those shares of stock that Chaney's owns that were frozen while he was VP are now earning him more money than all of us will see in many lifetimes.

 

 

 

Banking, oil and arms. It's what the Bushes have been dealing in since before WWII. Whenever they are involved, there is a crisis in one of them somewhere in the world.

 

 

I agree, the pretense that took us into Iraq was horseshit. That being said, we are doing alot of good there for the Iraqi people, most of them are glad for our help, but you wont see any of the good things we are doing on the news because thats not what drive ratings.

 

"Us Soldiers repair water treatment facility and populate fish farms in Mahmidiyuh."

 

"Three US Soldiers killed in roadside bombing in Baghdad"

 

Of those two headlines, you'd only know about the 2nd one. Why, because thats what sells.

[deluca67]

Again, I respect your opinion. American Soldiers did not destroy the country of Iraq. I have not planted one IED in Iraq, althouth I did help rescue many Soldiers and civilians and scraped up remains of those that were blown up by them. I have not launched one mortar into an Iraqi neighborhood, although I have helped rescue civilians that were hit, lost some friends and had a couple narrow misses myself. I have not attacked a neighborhood, killing hundreds because they were Sunni,or Shiite, or Kurd, but I have seen mass graves of all three that were killed by a different religious faction, because they were a different religious faction.

 

Iraq is a much safer place today because of our presence. We have spent the last few years there training police forces and an Iraqi Army that previous to our arrival resembled the wild west of yesteryear.

 

For the record, I don't agree with the decision to invade Iraq. It bothers me that we are pumping hundreds of millions of dollars into their economy while ours is crumbling. But I also see the good that we are doing over there. I understand the importance of having a USA friendly government in place. I get that it's probably a good idea to have a presence in the middle east for when (Yes, I believe it's when, not if) we go to war with Iran.

 

The thing about basing your opinions off of what you see/read in the news is, nobody just covers the news. CNN, FOX, MSNBC, their talking heads give thier opinions, and the base of what drives their opinions is what will drive the ratings. They are all full of #%^$#!, wether they are left, right or middle.

 

My opinions are based on 4+ years of living in, fighting in and building up that country. Saying that is in no way an attempt to discredit your opinion, as I said, I completely respect your opinion. But Iraq and Vietnam are not even remotely similar, please don't try to draw that parallel.

I don't want to turn into people thinking I am bashing the individual soldier. I am not. I am sure what you did in Iraq was heartfelt and truly made the lives of some better. But please, lets not candy coat a dung heap here. Nothing done after the fact can make up for the initial crime. The US steam rolled into Iraq costing 1000's of innocent lives, American and Iraqi, to be lost. Like Vietnam it is a war that can not be won. No training of a police force, rebuilding of a bridge or so called "free" elections will change the nature of a region and a people who have been there for 1000's of years.

[Hank]

I don't want to turn into people thinking I am bashing the individual soldier. I am not. I am sure what you did in Iraq was heartfelt and truly made the lives of some better. But please, lets not candy coat a dung heap here. Nothing done after the fact can make up for the initial crime. The US steam rolled into Iraq costing 1000's of innocent lives, American and Iraqi, to be lost. Like Vietnam it is a war that can not be won. No training of a police force, rebuilding of a bridge or so called "free" elections will change the nature of a region and a people who have been there for 1000's of years.

 

I don't believe you are trying to bash me, or Soldiers in general. I'm not trying to justify our going into Iraq, I thought it was wrong too. You can not see the good we are doing over there due to no fault of your own. As far as our contributions to the Iraqi peaple, and the endstate of our being there, we can respectfully agree to disagree.

 

What I cant understand for the life of me is why you insist on drawing the parallel between the Iraqi war and the Vietnam war. I'd like to, but I don't see it. Why do you think the war's are similar? Is it just the basic simple fact that we did not belong in either country? Because I think the similarity stops there.

 

What is the definition of "winning" the war in Iraq? My definition (Just me personally, not the army or presidents definition) is if we can leave Iraq with an Army and Police force that can police thier own than it's a victory.

[deluca67]

I don't believe you are trying to bash me, or Soldiers in general. I'm not trying to justify our going into Iraq, I thought it was wrong too. You can not see the good we are doing over there due to no fault of your own. As far as our contributions to the Iraqi peaple, and the endstate of our being there, we can respectfully agree to disagree.

 

What I cant understand for the life of me is why you insist on drawing the parallel between the Iraqi war and the Vietnam war. I'd like to, but I don't see it. Why do you think the war's are similar? Is it just the basic simple fact that we did not belong in either country? Because I think the similarity stops there.

 

What is the definition of "winning" the war in Iraq? My definition (Just me personally, not the army or presidents definition) is if we can leave Iraq with an Army and Police force that can police thier own than it's a victory.

The two points.

 

1) Vietnam - Both "wars" were/are way to costly, financially and in lives. Both were attempts to colonize a country that due to it's geographical/strategic location. To me the only difference is that the US overwhelmed a hapless ill prepared "army" is they can be called that. I have no doubt the if the objective was achieved in Vietnam as it was in Iraq the US would have commenced with colonization as was the plan of the Bush administration.

 

2) "Winning" is achieving the primary goal. A US controlled colony in the region as well as control of Iraqi oil. The Middle East will not allow for a US controlled colony and future violence as the US goes forward is assured.

[Hank]

The differences between the two wars are large and many. I agree that the location is strategic, and that fact coupled with the oil is most likely why we took an interest in Iraq while ignoring similar situations worldwide. The only similarities you can offer between the two wars is that we don't/didn't belong in either country. I don't mind saying I'm disappointed. Through the years of being a member of this board I've developed a higher expectation of you in supporting your position/opinion and I feel let down. Your better than this. At least I thought you were....

[Eleven]

I don't want to turn into people thinking I am bashing the individual soldier. I am not. I am sure what you did in Iraq was heartfelt and truly made the lives of some better. But please, lets not candy coat a dung heap here. Nothing done after the fact can make up for the initial crime. The US steam rolled into Iraq costing 1000's of innocent lives, American and Iraqi, to be lost. Like Vietnam it is a war that can not be won. No training of a police force, rebuilding of a bridge or so called "free" elections will change the nature of a region and a people who have been there for 1000's of years.

 

It's rare when we agree, DeLuca. But I guess that we usually spar on less important matters, like hockey.

 

Look, whether the US is there or not, is largely immaterial at this point. What we were told, and why we supposedly are there, is false. Completely. It was a fraud, and it was a fraud designed to maximize money for certain people at the expense of many, many lives. And with my apologies to anyone who is serving there, I don't think the US is going to stabilize Baghdad, much less the country or the region. And I do not think we will have an advantage when war with Iran comes. The entire region needs its own reformation, a la Martin Luther, without foreign involvement. If the region (1) didn't have oil, and (2) wasn't threatening Israel (that's a whole ball of wax best left undiscussed here), the US wouldn't be there.

 

Afghanistan, of course. Pursue our attackers. But we have not found them, because our forces have been diverted. (And I know, a land war in the Afghan region is nearly impossible. I was "awake" during the 80s.)

 

A good revolution comes from within. I truly hope that one day, the Iranian and Iraqi peoples have the courage to take care of their countries, and their business. I truly hope that one day, rich countries in the region stop building indoor ski resorts (I'm looking at you, UAE) or just gaining money for the hell of it (and now, I'm looking at you, SA), and look towards creating peace. But our presence in Iraq, while now necessary because of the 2003 invasion, will solve nothing. Not a goddamned thing.

 

I know we have actives and vets on this board, and I want you all to know that I respect you. I tried to serve and was not accepted. (Unlike a certain former commander-in-chief, I admitted my inhaling. No Navy for me.) That has nothing to do, though, with whether the US belongs in Iraq. We don't. We never did. We never will. We don't belong in Iran, either. We DO belong in Afghanistan, and to the extent that Al Qaeda has filtered into Pakistan, maybe there, too. But we don't do well with addressing real problems in this country; we look for the buck. The buck isn't in Afghanistan.

 

The Middle East will be peaceful when it wants to be. Not before, and not after. 1300 years after the dawn of Christianity, Europe was a complete mess. 1300 years after the dawn of Islam, the Middle East is the same way. Some things only can be addressed by Time, and not by men and women.

[SwampD]

Eleven throwin' down the heavy. Good stuff.

[FogBat]

Obama espoused his usual crap. All hat and no cattle! Again. Anybody sucked in by his rhetoric is just fooled one more time. His calls for being open and to practise fiscal responsibility are fodder for Jon Stewart. What a POS.

+1