Current deficit under the "conservative" watch..8.5 trillion and counting

[s_dooley24]

Dogs are you actually saying that Greenspan didn't cause the dot com bubble to burst? It is a universally accepted fact that he did. Not only by raising the interest rates but by his comments.

I doubt any Fed Chairman would sit on his hands and watch people take out second mortgages to invest in the stock market...you have to raise the cost of captial to slow down borrowing/spending.

Also, irrational exuberance is far from inflammatory comments.

The Fed Chairman is an appointed official and not elected, so if Bill didn't agree/support his policies thats on Bill b/c he appointed him.

 

[kosar]

There hasn't been nor will there ever be peace in the middle east regardless of who is pres.

Totally agree. That's what makes the pro-Iraqi war peoples stance so puzzling. A half trillion dollars and counting, 2600 and counting dead. 20,000 maimed and counting. All so we can bring 'em home and watch the same Middle East play out where there has never been peace and never will be peace.

 

[djv]

I guess Bin not important to this administration either since we called off the search. And now dropped the special unit that was looking for him. I'm sure this special unit was not a budget buster and did not add to deficit.

 

[AR182]

thanks for the link murphy...


boy you guys really jumped on me for that silver platter comment....

i just think that clinton should have been much more aggressive after the 93 world trade center bombing...

just make the dems here feel better..i also think reagan should have gone after hizbollah right after the bombing of the barracks in lebanon...

for years the u.s. leaders acted like the european leaders...from carter right on through to clinton....they ignored the problem & hoped that these terrorists would disappear...but instead they got stronger & they judged the rest of the world as being weak...

now bush is trying to take this festering problem on.... along with blair, the australian pm, & israel...they understand the situation...

 

[kosar]

for years the u.s. leaders acted like the european leaders...from carter right on through to clinton....they ignored the problem & hoped that these terrorists would disappear..

Let's face it, if 9/11 didn't happen, Bush 43 would be right on that list with everybody else. And any of those aforementioned presidents would have gone into Afghanistan if 9/11 happened on their watch. Well, maybe not Carter, but I digress.

And anyways, invading and occupying a country that had at *most*, very peripheral ties to terrorists, does not make a president 'tough on terror.'

Urgently going after terrorists and terrorist nations make a president 'tough on terror.' Getting bogged down for 3 1/2 years fighting Sunni and Shia insurgents makes a president downright stupid.

 

[smurphy]

There's a certain amount of pragmatism that we need though. I think Reagen, Bush Sr, and Clinton understood this - Bush Jr does not. Yes - something needs to be done when we are hit by terrorists - but invading Iraq did not fit into that picture. We have to keep an eye on the big picture at all times, and not get caught up in a war fervor that doesn't go after the right terrorist culprits. Yeah - we removed Saddam, but look at the cost and instability now. Very few can honestly say we are better off for doing this.

Osama should have been caught by someone - I think we can all agree on that.

-----I guess I pretty much repeated Kosar. ...Hey nice new sig by the way - almost sounding like Rumsfeld....

 

[AR182]

Let's face it, if 9/11 didn't happen, Bush 43 would be right on that list with everybody else. And any of those aforementioned presidents would have gone into Afghanistan if 9/11 happened on their watch. Well, maybe not Carter, but I digress.

And anyways, invading and occupying a country that had at *most*, very peripheral ties to terrorists, does not make a president 'tough on terror.'

Urgently going after terrorists and terrorist nations make a president 'tough on terror.' Getting bogged down for 3 1/2 years fighting Sunni and Shia insurgents makes a president downright stupid.

i completely agree with you that bush 43 would have fallen inline with the rest if 9/11 never happened..i'm pretty sure he didn't even know where afghanistan was..

the point is that you have to get these maniacal (sp ?) leaders before they get wmd's..& i'm not so sure he didn't have them in the first place.

you can't let these countries hold the world hostage to their whims...

 

[smurphy]

I guess the only real disagreement here is the extent to which Saddam was held in check. Aside from some annoying UN crooks and his own stupid rhetoric, I believe Saddam was contained. Art of War say - if you outnumber the enemy 10-1 who has not directly attacked you, then surround them and contain them - bloodshed not even necessary.

We needed these troops for the real war - Afghanistan. We could/should have overwhelmed that place and it should be a US territory now.

 

[AR182]

I guess the only real disagreement here is the extent to which Saddam was held in check. Aside from some annoying UN crooks and his own stupid rhetoric, I believe Saddam was contained. Art of War say - if you outnumber the enemy 10-1 who has not directly attacked you, then surround them and contain them - bloodshed not even necessary.

We needed these troops for the real war - Afghanistan. We could/should have overwhelmed that place and it should be a US territory now.

i agree with your last paragraph...

and i think if the u.n. doesn't disarm iran or prevent iran from taking their nuclear stuff any further...either israel or some kind of coalition will be invading iran in a few years.

 

[kosar]

you can't let these countries hold the world hostage to their whims...

That brings me to another point. This term 'holding the world hostage.' It's bandied about an awful lot here and everywhere.

If Saddam really did have all these stockpiles of chem/bio weapons, was the world really held hostage? No, but that was the most alarming excuse that our leaders (sic) could come up with. Forget whether they were there or not and forget the fact that none were found. Were we really held hostage because saddam had nerve gas?

On to North Korea. Are we really held hostage by that maniac because they claim to have a couple nukes? Would we really do anything differently if they didn't maybe have a couple weapons? No. And going forward, policy will be the same as it would have been if they clearly didn't have them. Whether that course of action is an attack or appeasement, it will be what it would have been.

Frankly, these possible few nukes are no deterrent to us. There are plenty of other deterrents to keep us from invading or bombing, but unconfirmed, untested possible nukes are not one of them.

Pakistan, a tenuous ally at best, and a country full of fanatics, has the bomb. I don't feel like they are holding the world hostage. Yes, their current leader is somewhat moderate, but overthrow there is a possibility at any given time.

Iran-yes, I know, their nutty leader said Israel should not exist and should be wiped off the map. Comments like that get people like gardenweasel all frantic, but in reality are toothless rants. Comments like that are extrememly popular with their citizens and that's about the end of their effect.

I obviously think it would be better if they did not acquire the material and technology for the bomb, but let's say the worst case happens and we are unable to stop them. That is actually a very real possibility. Not because of the 'moonbats', not because of the media, simply because it wasn't possible.

So we're sitting here and suspect that they have a couple bombs. They are untested with no proof that they have a deliverable system. I mean deliverable to Israel because there is no way they would have an ICBM to reach the west.

Now what. Is the world really held hostage?

Would Iran fire a nuke at Israel pre-emptively? If they did, they better get it right the first time, but whatever the case, their country would no longer exist. Would it be worth the risk to them? To fire an untested and unproven nuke in the hope in trading devastation with Israel, but the only certain outcome of that is that Iran would be no more.

An arsenal that can obliterate any country in the world like ours, Chinas, Russias is one thing. Having several unproven, untested tactical nukes is another thing altogether.

Nuttiness is one thing, but I don't think the NK and Iranian leaders are insane.

 

[AR182]

kosar..

you don't think either n.korea, iran, or iraq under saddam were or are capable of giving these weapons to terrorists for delivery to the states here ?

i definitely think they were or are.

to me that is being held hostage.

 

[kosar]

kosar..

you don't think either n.korea, iran, or iraq under saddam were or are capable of giving these weapons to terrorists for delivery to the states here ?

i definitely think they were or are.

to me that is being held hostage.

Not sure exactly what you mean. Regarding Iraq, do you mean giving nerve agents or chems to terrorists and them bringing them here and using them? Put it this way, I think that would be one hell of a feat to pull off all the way around without getting caught or without killing themselves along the way. In addition, the sponsoring country would surely be identified very quickly and would face the same reprisals as if they had done it directly.

Syria and Iran have chems/bio weapons. What about them? They're actually tied in with terrorists, as opposed to Saddam. I have no idea why Saddam would have
given wmd to his bitter enemies. Makes no sense.

An even longer shot would be a successful operation where Iran or NK somehow gets a nuke tipped missile to a terror organization. What then, even if they did? Then let's say they manage to smuggle this nuke into the country. WTF do they do with it then? It's not like there's a wick on it that they can light and run like hell.

A crude 'suitcase nuke' or a radiological dirty bomb is *maybe* somewhat feasible, but it would take a hell of a lot of things to go right for them to be successful and then once again, the sponsoring country will have to answer for it.

 

[AR182]

Syria and Iran have chems/bio weapons. What about them? They're actually tied in with terrorists, as opposed to Saddam. I have no idea why Saddam would have
given wmd to his bitter enemies. Makes no sense.


you know the saying..the enemy of my enemy is my friend...i think people are assuming too much.

 

[kosar]

you know the saying..the enemy of my enemy is my friend...i think people are assuming too much.

I think people are underestimating the power of religion, even after all this.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

"and i think if the u.n. doesn't disarm iran or prevent iran from taking their nuclear stuff any further...either israel or some kind of coalition will be invading iran in a few years."

--flash back to 1981 when Israel had to take out nuclear facilty supplied to Iraq by who else the French.

If these countries were sitting on our doorstep--have an idea many people here would see the light.

 

[StevieD]

Flashback to Ronnie Reagan and Rumsfeld arming Saddam. Whats your point?

 

[kosar]

"and i think if the u.n. doesn't disarm iran or prevent iran from taking their nuclear stuff any further...either israel or some kind of coalition will be invading iran in a few years."

--flash back to 1981 when Israel had to take out nuclear facilty supplied to Iraq by who else the French.

If these countries were sitting on our doorstep--have an idea many people here would see the light.

Big difference.

Osirak in Iraq was an above ground, known facility and was easy to take out.

Israel cannot take out Irans nuke program with a strike like that, or any other way. Period.

 

[djv]

Beware Of Venezuela their in our back yard. The guy there is no real threat yet. But you talk about a nut. Or maybe he's a clever nut. And then Bush's drinking buddy from Russia sells that nut 4 billion worth of weapons. So lets see Pakistan, Russia, Iran, N Korea, China. And we invaded that real threat Iraq. ????

 

[Dead Money]

Protest your ass ets..

Protest your ass ets..

Not sure how many "real money" guys are here...but...

It is obvious the dollar is in a prolonged slide against many currencies. It is obvious the politicians are clueless and the deficit will NEVER be under control, which means INFLATION big time.

I began buying gold at 350 an ounce (now 650) as protection. (I see gold at 2000-3000)

The gubberment can take a perfectly good pine tree, shred it and make a billion dollars in currency magically appear. Or enuff toilet paper to supply an army barrack for a week (the intrinsic value is the same) They can not counterfeit gold, history shows us gold always has value.

Here is a no nonsense gold and political dissection site that I put stock into.

hopefully it helps someone with foresight

www. jsmineset.com

 

[Chadman]

If these countries were sitting on our doorstep--have an idea many people here would see the light.

See what light? That's like saying...if China was on our doorstep, we would see the light. They aren't on our doorstep, and that's the point. Those that speak the loudest, like Hussein did, like the NK "leader" did, and like the Iranian "leader" does now shows that they are pretty much just sabre rattlers looking for attention and favors from us in some way. Maybe not Iran in strict terms, but they all want something. And they all can do essentially nothing to us. That's the light I see, not sure what light you are looking at.

The sad thing is, Bush and his cabal have put us on Iran's doorstep with this ridiculous war in Iraq, and how has that been working for us? Iran is sending wave after wave of insurgents into Iraq to blast away at America - in REAL terms. And they are killing us, literally. Which would not be the case had we been pragmatic and stayed the course against the man and men that actually attacked us.