No war tax or draft?? WTF?

[d16842 0]

Quote

How come the "financial principles" count when it comes to health care, and are totally meaningless when it comes to sending troops overseas? It would seem that money is no object when it comes to war, in the values of those folks. Are those the real values of the USA? I don't think so.

Let me throw in the critical difference. A war can be ended by an incoming administration, and its spending stopped. For better or for worse, the health care bill will become a PERMANENT entitlement program. No Congress or President will be able to stop it once passed.

Quote

We need to implement a draft so that everyone in the USA is directly affected by the ongoing war/police actions that we are engaged in. The volunteer force is broken, or close to breaking. We don't have the reserves needed if something important comes up somewhere ellse in the world. We need a draft NOW to get the staffing level up to where we can maintain the presence in the two current wars, and have enough to deal with something else that could come up.

I was in the Army at the end of the Vietnam War, and the start of the volunteer Army. Draftees were necessary to field a large army like then, three times the size of today's, with only 65% of the population. Imagine that scale. But grabbing people who don't want to be there simply doesn't make for a quality soldier. It hasn't since the late-60's. We proved that in later Vietnam.

Quote

Since almost none of the general US population is directly affected by the wars, they really don't give a shit. If their kids started being drafted and sent off to fight in other countries, for other countries, maybe they would start to care a bit.

Yes, none of the families of our volunteers care. It would have saved me a lot of sleepless nights the two times my wife went if I had known I didn't care. But I am glad you brought it up before my active duty son goes. And none of the Democrats cared when they nearly defeated Bush in '04, and did defeat McCain in '08.

Tom B

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

I can't think of any. How long is the list, and how long ago was it? Tell me what you know, because from where I sit, I don't see Congress giving anything up.

The top hit of an easy search reveals that the first derivative of income tax rates with respect to time has, at times, had a negative value, disproving your assertion.

Quote

The declaration would have provided a far larger conduit and broader ability for the military commanders to execute a strategy without having to depend on so large a coalition.

On which nation, exactly, would you have had us declare war? We can't defeat al Qaeda by attacking Afghanistan. It made no more sense to invade and occupy Afghanistan in search of bin Laden that it would have made to launch a military assault on North Carolina in search of Erioc Rudolph, another terrorist harbored by religious fundamentalists.

It's doubtful that we will even be able to completely drive al Qaeda from Afghanistan with the increased troops and narrowed mission provided by Obama. A declaration of war wouldn't help matters any. All that changes is the semantics.

The US screwed up in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks by treating as a war what should have been treated as a police action. By going off half cocked and invading Afghanistan, we served to start cutting the heads of the Lernaean Hydra that is made up of the insurgent groups.

Quote

In a declared state of war, military assets can be consolidated under a 5-star.

That five star would merely be one of 2001-2009's four star generals who. If they are unable to accomplish their mission with only four stars, a promotion won't magically give them new insight into better military strategy.

Quote

It would also allow the government to better pay for the war, as well as ensure allocation of resources outside of the normal bureaucracies.

No, it wouldn't. The war wouldn't be any cheaper just because Congress declared war instead of authorizing the use of military force. In fact, if we fought the war unilaterally, as you propose, it would be more, not less, expensive.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[d16842 0]

Quote

Imagine what would have happened if we had never gotten involved in Vietnam or Iraq. Probably very little.

Nothing would have come of Vietnam, except the possible loss of the Laos and Cambodia, and that happened anyway. But Iraq?

Yes, imagine . We are completely dependent on the world's oil supply. Saddam twice invaded other critical oil supplying nations to take theirs, and planned a third. He used WMD on enemies, and Iraq citizens, and subjugated the Shi under him to brutal torture and murder. He thwarted the UN sanctions and was about to bribe his way free of them. He had 550 tons of enriched uranium, and his previous attempts to create a bomb program are documented. His two son's were at least as bad as him, with one torturing, perhaps even killing athletes who didn't win in competitions. The other was like a mafia boss.

Yes, Bill, you are perfectly right in assuming all would have gone just fine if we had done nothing...

Where we screwed up was not in going to war there, but doing a lousy job of it. The insurgency could have been largely avoided/averted.

Tom B

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

If people vote for their personal interests, then higher callings like helping others in need, will be lost.

That defines Republicanism.

Quote

And if America becomes isolationist and turns a blind eye to serious problems elsewhere around the globe, then the world will be worse off for it.

THat defines many Scandinavian countries.

Quote

Imagine what Europe would be like now if the U.S. had not stepped in to help defeat Germany in WWII.

Yes, but we stayed out for some time, not justed before there was a problem, creating a problem by those actions.

Quote

Imagine what Iran, China and North Korea might do now, if they understood that America would do nothing to help it's Allies.

Love how Reagan-style dellusion lives on thru some; China is the new USSR even tho they are our primary banker. Not sure how they've been such an axis of evil.

Quote

Is that the kind of America you want? One that is selfish and does nothing to help others outside our own borders?

So we're genrous outside our border, whether people want it or not, which is called Imperialism. And we're selfish inside our borders, which is called oppression.

No, that is not teh America I want, I want one that respects the world and their boundaries, one that cares for its own internally.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Imagine what Europe would be like now if the U.S. had not stepped in to help defeat Germany in WWII.

Well, Hitler HAD declared war on the USA (Dec 11, 1941) and Germany had previously attacked several US ships, so it's not like there were a whole lot of options.

Right, and we held off for years, when now we jump in before there's a problem, creating a problem.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

First, because when this administration came to power, all the nice "working together" talk was thrown out the window (along with many other campaign promises.)

Yes, the Dems worked and waited for years to roll-over to the R's. Do you not understand politics well?

Quote

So, if you're not a democrat, you're not going to get anything passed.

And if you are a Dem you still may not get everything passed.

Quote

Secondly, why raise taxes?

Because fascist Ronnie lowered them so much, from 70% to 28% over 6 years that it threw us into at least 1 major recession and caused the debt to climb from 900B to 5.5T before his 2 successors could raise taxes and curb it. Then the guy you voted for and his R congress cut them again and doubled them after FR's tripling of them; that's why.

Quote

Debt means nothing to this administration.

Are you having a Reagan or Bush flashback? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms I know, no respo0nse, I'm so used to the other side (you) just skimming over the tough questions.

While you're at it, tell us what you would do, in detail, if you were pres on Jan 20, 09. Taxes, spending, the auto indust, the banks, etc. And tell us what the outcome would be and how we would get there. Again, crickets.....

Quote

Just print more money, then bitch about the deficit and the people "not paying their fair share" when trying to stick it to the people.

Again, easily 80% of the total debt is attributable to Republican presidents/congress'. Not sure what you're trying to establish by pretending it's otherwise. Not to mention they have a horrible habbit of dropping a POS economy on D's.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Go read some history and see how fucked up you r foreing policy is.


America is under the thimb of the Neo cunt warmonging murderers.

Shhhhhhhhh, most Americans are so ethnocentric that they know not only the world, but the entire Milky Way revolves around us; you'll blow away his entire ideological base.

[CSpenceFLY 1]

I'm betting that trying to implement the draft would end up in at least a decade long court battle.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

I can't think of any. How long is the list, and how long ago was it? Tell me what you know, because from where I sit, I don't see Congress giving anything up.

The top hit of an easy search reveals that the first derivative of income tax rates with respect to time has, at times, had a negative value, disproving your assertion.

Providing a temporary reduction of a tax-rate does not eliminate the tax. My statement was, "However, every tax, fee, ad infinitum that Congress assesses, never goes away." The tax does, indeed, remain. In fact, where there used to be three brackets, there are now five. Congress does not let go.

Quote

The US screwed up in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks by treating as a war what should have been treated as a police action

Really? An attack on our Pentagon wasn't an act of war? Two attacks on critical civilian/financial centers within 8 years wasn't an act of war? Attacks on our Embassies, official government channels of diplomatic function, sovereign US soil, was not an act of war? Targeting deployed military assets, like the USS Cole, was not an act of war? Attacks by an entity, harbored by a ruling government of a sovereign nation was not an act of war?

Quote

. By going off half cocked and invading Afghanistan, we served to start cutting the heads of the Lernaean Hydra that is made up of the insurgent groups.

Independent cells of operation does not a hydra make. bin-Laden is not revered so much because he is merely one of "many" heads. He is an inspirational center to "the base". Our ability to remove other "heads" in Iraq has withered al-Qaeda's abilities there. The fact that al-Qaeda had not been able to hit the US on our shores does not lend absolute to your statement.

Quote

Quote

In a declared state of war, military assets can be consolidated under a 5-star.

That five star would merely be one of 2001-2009's four star generals who. If they are unable to accomplish their mission with only four stars, a promotion won't magically give them new insight into better military strategy.

I disagree. A "General of the Armies" per se, can direct action in a declared state of war without consult to the legislative branch. It also would have delayed action, if any, into Iraq at that time.

Quote

No, it wouldn't. The war wouldn't be any cheaper just because Congress declared war instead of authorizing the use of military force. In fact, if we fought the war unilaterally, as you propose, it would be more, not less, expensive.

Re-read my statement about war bonds, and rationing of assets and resources.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Bolas 5]

Quote

Quote

How come the "financial principles" count when it comes to health care, and are totally meaningless when it comes to sending troops overseas? It would seem that money is no object when it comes to war, in the values of those folks. Are those the real values of the USA? I don't think so.

Let me throw in the critical difference. A war can be ended by an incoming administration, and its spending stopped. For better or for worse, the health care bill will become a PERMANENT entitlement program. No Congress or President will be able to stop it once passed.

+1

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[billvon 2,475]

>We are completely dependent on the world's oil supply.

Correct. A tiny percentage came from Iraq.

>Saddam twice invaded other critical oil supplying nations to take
>theirs, and planned a third.

And was easily stopped.

>He used WMD on enemies .. .

So have we. (Indeed, we sold Saddam the means to make his WMD's.)

>He thwarted the UN sanctions and was about to bribe his way
>free of them.

Until we threatened him. Then he complied.

>He had 550 tons of enriched uranium . . .

No, he didn't. That's one of the many lies used by the administration to justify the war.

>and his previous attempts to create a bomb program are documented.

True. Which makes him like a dozen other countries in the world.

>His two son's were at least as bad as him, with one torturing,
>perhaps even killing athletes who didn't win in competitions. The
>other was like a mafia boss.

Definitely agreed there.

>Yes, Bill, you are perfectly right in assuming all would have gone
>just fine if we had done nothing...

The USSR was a much larger threat than Iraq. We won there - and we didn't need to invade.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

>We are completely dependent on the world's oil supply.

Correct. A tiny percentage came from Iraq.

Prior to the first Gulf War, Iraqi oil exports were in excess of 3M bbls per day. That's not a tiny perentage.

Quote

>Saddam twice invaded other critical oil supplying nations to take
>theirs, and planned a third.

And was easily stopped.

I have some Iranian friends that disagree with you. In fact, Iraq was within sight of Tehran before the revolutionary guard regrouped. Their casualty count would seem to indicate otherwise as well. Combat casualties alone for Iran topped 300,000. Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, was not easily stopped, and Iraq could have rolled into Saudi Arabia with little resistance. The US-led coalition was able to "easily" push those forces out.

Neither invasion was "easily" stopped.

Quote

>He used WMD on enemies .. .

So have we. (Indeed, we sold Saddam the means to make his WMD's.)

Circular arguments.

Quote

>He thwarted the UN sanctions and was about to bribe his way
>free of them.

Until we threatened him. Then he complied.

The farce that was "Oil for Food" was compliance?

Quote

>He had 550 tons of enriched uranium . . .

No, he didn't. That's one of the many lies used by the administration to justify the war.

This is indeed true. But several tons of radio active materials were found, likely legacy from the "old" nuclear program, some dating back to pre-Israeli strikes.

Quote

>and his previous attempts to create a bomb program are documented.

True. Which makes him like a dozen other countries in the world.

That does not diminish the need to stop weapons proliferation. We've been able to do so in a few occasions.

Quote

The USSR was a much larger threat than Iraq. We won there - and we didn't need to invade.

The context of the Cold War. You're also leaving out the fact that we fought several proxy battles with them, numerous clandestine efforts back and forth...tens-of-thousands of can be attributed to that. Also, at the onset of the Russian revolution, the US, did indeed commit troops to fight on the side of the Czars in Russia.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[billvon 2,475]

>Prior to the first Gulf War, Iraqi oil exports were in excess of 3M bbls per day.

And of those we got about 175 million barrels a day out of 22,000 million barrels a day we use. That's .8%. Pretty small in my book.

>The US-led coalition was able to "easily" push those forces out.

OK. Sounds like you agree, then.

>The farce that was "Oil for Food" was compliance?

No. His eventual cooperation with arms inspectors, after we threatened war, was compliance.

>But several tons of radio active materials were found, likely legacy
>from the "old" nuclear program, some dating back to pre-Israeli
>strikes.

Agreed. The IAEA had found them and sealed them in a vault. We invaded, opened the vault and discovered them still there. Doesn't sound like a big threat to me.

> You're also leaving out the fact that we fought several proxy
>battles with them, numerous clandestine efforts back and forth..

Right. And we fought several proxy battles (and a few not-so-proxy battles) with Iraq as well.

[d16842 0]

Quote

>We are completely dependent on the world's oil supply.

Correct. A tiny percentage came from Iraq.

>Saddam twice invaded other critical oil supplying nations to take
>theirs, and planned a third.

And was easily stopped.

Perhaps you will tell that to the estimated million dead from the Iran-Iraq war. As for Desert Storm, the only reason it was easy, was that he stopped at the Saudi boarder, and gave us six months to prepare. It could not have been done otherwise. Do you plan on keeping forces in the middle east forever to stop his next incursion?

Quote

>He thwarted the UN sanctions and was about to bribe his way
>free of them.

Until we threatened him. Then he complied.

That explains why it took 17 sequential UN orders. And 17 threats. Yes, that was clearly working. And why Bill Clinton said near the end of his term that the program wasn't working and we would have to use real force to remove Saddam.

The bottom line is that he used the Oil for Food money to bribe enough officials so that all sanctions were about to be lifted, and then there would be no basis for more threats or for him to comply. That was why Bush was in a rush, my opinion anyway.

Quote

>He had 550 tons of enriched uranium . . .

No, he didn't. That's one of the many lies used by the administration to justify the war.

Yes he did. It was shipped to Canada last year, but attracted little notice in the election cycle.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/07/iraq.uranium/

And before you follow the left line that this was just his old reactor fuel, partially enriched yellow cake is NOT reactor fuel. The French removed the reactor fuel after the Israeli bombing. The only reason to have 550 tons yellow cake at all is if you plan to go into the uranium processing or enrichment businesss, for it is about useless otherwise.

Tom B

[billvon 2,475]

>Perhaps you will tell that to the estimated million dead from the Iran-Iraq war.

Zero millions. Estimates range from 200,000 (official) to 800,000 (unofficial.)

>Do you plan on keeping forces in the middle east forever to stop his
>next incursion?

Nope.

>That explains why it took 17 sequential UN orders. And 17
>threats. Yes, that was clearly working.

Sorry, I'll have to take the word of UN inspectors over yours when it comes to compliance with UN inspections.

>Yes he did. It was shipped to Canada last year, but attracted
>little notice in the election cycle.

No. That wasn't enriched uranium. It was uranium ore (yellowcake) which is useless for making weapons.

>And before you follow the left line that this was just his old reactor fuel . . .

No. Again, it wasn't even that sophisticated; old reactor fuel would have been yellowcake that had been processed into first uranium metal, then LEU, then used, then stored. This isn't even that.

It was raw uranium ore, which is useless for reactor fuel OR for weapons without some very expensive processing. It's also something that every country in the world has thousands of tons of. (That's why anti-proliferation efforts center on enrichment, not control of raw uranium.)

[Gawain 0]

Quote

>Prior to the first Gulf War, Iraqi oil exports were in excess of 3M bbls per day.

And of those we got about 175 million barrels a day out of 22,000 million barrels a day we use. That's .8%. Pretty small in my book.

This country does not import 175M bbls per day. No where close. Try again.

Quote

>The US-led coalition was able to "easily" push those forces out.

OK. Sounds like you agree, then.

With what you said? No I don't. I still don't. You said Iraq was easily stopped. In fact, Iraq was not stopped, and when you count the decades it took for us to take final action 1980 to today, Husseins' casualty list can be accounted in the millions.

Quote

>The farce that was "Oil for Food" was compliance?

No. His eventual cooperation with arms inspectors, after we threatened war, was compliance.

Too little, too late.

>But several tons of radio active materials were found, likely legacy
>from the "old" nuclear program, some dating back to pre-Israeli
>strikes.

Agreed. The IAEA had found them and sealed them in a vault. We invaded, opened the vault and discovered them still there. Doesn't sound like a big threat to me.

Quote

> You're also leaving out the fact that we fought several proxy
>battles with them, numerous clandestine efforts back and forth..

Right. And we fought several proxy battles (and a few not-so-proxy battles) with Iraq as well.

You're changing your argument though. You compared the US role in the Cold War with the US role against Iraq, saying we defeated the USSR without an invasion, and by implication, no bloodshed. I displayed to you, the in-fact opposite.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[billvon 2,475]

>This country does not import 175M bbls per day. No where close. Try
>again.

Sorry, got the units wrong:

Iraq supplied 175m bbl/YEAR before the war
We use 7300m bbl/year

Total 2.9%

>With what you said? No I don't.

OK. It's hard to discuss an issue with someone who changes their mind on a post to post basis, so I'll let that go.

>Too little, too late.

If your goal was compliance with UN weapons inspectors, that was accomplished. If your goal was to find an excuse for war, no matter what was really happening, then I agree.

> You compared the US role in the Cold War with the US role against
>Iraq, saying we defeated the USSR without an invasion, and by
>implication, no bloodshed.

We defeated the USSR without an invasion and without _direct_ bloodshed (i.e. US soldiers being killed by USSR soldiers.) We did, however, fight several proxy battles elsewhere.

In the end, we defeated them without a war against them. Heck, we defeated Fidel Castro by just plain waiting him out. Both good examples of how invasion and mass killing is not needed for victory in the long term.

[kallend 1,679]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Imagine what Europe would be like now if the U.S. had not stepped in to help defeat Germany in WWII.

Well, Hitler HAD declared war on the USA (Dec 11, 1941) and Germany had previously attacked several US ships, so it's not like there were a whole lot of options.

They attacked our ships? Note that was AFTER we had blantely violated both the spirit and internationl rules of war by first selling war material to the Brits, then Lend Lease, and then even by having our Navy escort the ships and material half of the way to Great Britain. Any of these were just cause for being included in another's war, any war. And before you say it, we had to get in that one regardless.

But the most sad result of our doing so and eventually being on the winning side the war, is that our economy surged, and the Brit's crashed, and we ended up with John Kallend here.

A surging economy is sad? Are you becoming a commie pinko liberal?

The USA ruling classes benefited mightily from fighting Germany in WWII. Don't come with the altruistic revisionist shit.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[nerdgirl 0]

One of the neat … or annoying (depending on your perspective) … things about Speakers Corner is that there are a lot of folks who know a lot about things that one wouldn’t necessarily expect. It’s one of things that I like about SC. Helps keep me honest.

Quote

He had 550 tons of enriched uranium

Do you mean “enriched uranium” or “yellowcake”?

Furthering what Bill has already noted, the latter is not enriched uranium; it’s not even low enriched. Yellowcake is unenriched, processed uranium mixed oxides powder. The material was declared to the IAEA in the 1990s.

couple posts of mine from 2008>

In the early 1980s, Iraq obtained unrefined uranium ore from Niger. During the 1980s, Iraq tried to produce yellowcake from that unenriched uranium ore at Al-Qa’im & Ibn-Sina’. The results were poor to complete failures.

That unenriched material, combined with additional unenriched uranium ore procured from Portugal, was stored at Tuwaitha. Although technically unenriched uranium ore and yellowcake (which is still unenriched) are subject to international safeguards, at the time Iraq obtained it Niger was not party to NPT and Portugal did not have safeguards. Iraq notified the IAEA of the receipt of the early 1980's uranium ore from Niger and Portugal in the late 1990s. I.e., it was known. That was what was shipped to Canada (for whom it was a very good deal at the time, btw, given the rise in yellowcake prices through mid-2007).

Iraq also obtained uranium dioxide (low enriched, >2%) from Brazil and Italy (declared one to IAEA but not the other) and LEU (~20%) from Russia and France for research reactors in the 1980s. Enriched material that was in Iraq after the first Gulf War was removed by the IAEA through UNSCOM in the 1990s. As far as I am aware that was the only enriched uranium Iraq had. Are you aware of something else?

On one hand, it is some fairly technical and wonkish stuff … otoh, it’s not beyond the average American’s comprehension, imo. (Maybe that’s the problem with my thinking? )

The more interesting question, imo -- because I suspect that are a lot of smart people who do think it was 550 tons of “enriched uranium,” -- is who benefits from the propagation of the misconception?

/Marg … who prefers chocolate cake over yellowcake anyway.

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[Gawain 0]

Quote

>This country does not import 175M bbls per day. No where close. Try
>again.

Sorry, got the units wrong:

Iraq supplied 175m bbl/YEAR before the war
We use 7300m bbl/year

Total 2.9%

In terms of the US import numbers, you are correct.

Quote

>With what you said? No I don't.

OK. It's hard to discuss an issue with someone who changes their mind on a post to post basis, so I'll let that go.

I didn't change my mind. You did. You responded as:

Quote

>Saddam twice invaded other critical oil supplying nations to take
>theirs, and planned a third.

And was easily stopped.

To which I noted:

Quote

I have some Iranian friends that disagree with you. In fact, Iraq was within sight of Tehran before the revolutionary guard regrouped. Their casualty count would seem to indicate otherwise as well. Combat casualties alone for Iran topped 300,000. Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, was not easily stopped, and Iraq could have rolled into Saudi Arabia with little resistance. The US-led coalition was able to "easily" push those forces out.

Neither invasion was "easily" stopped.

Some how you translated that to mean, "OK. Sounds like you agree, then."

????

Quote

> You compared the US role in the Cold War with the US role against
>Iraq, saying we defeated the USSR without an invasion, and by
>implication, no bloodshed.

We defeated the USSR without an invasion and without _direct_ bloodshed (i.e. US soldiers being killed by USSR soldiers.) We did, however, fight several proxy battles elsewhere.

In the end, we defeated them without a war against them. Heck, we defeated Fidel Castro by just plain waiting him out. Both good examples of how invasion and mass killing is not needed for victory in the long term.

That's a pretty weird sense of history. Castro is still alive, Cuba is still a communist state. You're right we didn't have a direct war against the USSR. However, there were an awful lot of "Cold War Casualties" to take such a liberty to insinuate there wasn't a conflict of some sort. Never mind the 30M that died under Stalin's boot.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[billvon 2,475]

>The US-led coalition was able to "easily" push those forces out.
>Neither invasion was "easily" stopped.

Those sound contradictory to me. Sorta like saying "The Perris riggers are able to easily fix tears in mains. Tears in mains are not easily fixed."

>Castro is still alive, Cuba is still a communist state

Right. And it's been right there off our coast for 50 years now, being all communist and evil. How have they caused us harm? By sending lots of illegal aliens in boats, and by Castro's refusal to be killed by anything other than old age. If that's the "price of peace" it sounds better than the costs of war.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

>The US-led coalition was able to "easily" push those forces out.
>Neither invasion was "easily" stopped.

Those sound contradictory to me. Sorta like saying "The Perris riggers are able to easily fix tears in mains. Tears in mains are not easily fixed."

Try this way then: On 2 AUGUST 1990, Iraq began its invasion of Kuwait. Two days later, Iraq had successfully overrun Kuwaiti forces. This invasion was successful, and complete. Kuwait and Saudi Arabia did not halt the advance to stop the invasion. The US did not stop the invasion.

On 22 SEPTEMBER 1980, Iraq began its invasion of Iran. The invasion was reversed for the most part roughly two years later. The war continued for another six years. Total Iranian casualties, as you noted float around official counts of roughly 200,000, maybe as high as 800,000 (unofficial). This invasion, while stopped, certainly did not happen quickly, and it was most certainly not stopped.

Quote

>Castro is still alive, Cuba is still a communist state

Right. And it's been right there off our coast for 50 years now, being all communist and evil. How have they caused us harm? By sending lots of illegal aliens in boats, and by Castro's refusal to be killed by anything other than old age. If that's the "price of peace" it sounds better than the costs of war.

This price of peace as you call it, has taken its share of lives too. From the Bay of Pigs, to the tens-of-thousands of Cuban refugees the US accepts every year -- do we know any possible counts of those that don't make it? The price of peace as you call it has provided a withering civilization only 90 miles off our shores who harbored and aimed nuclear weapons at the US. At best it's a detente.

I agree with you wholeheartedly that the cost of war is not appealing, but to think that "peace" hasn't been maintained without cost or consequence is pretty narrow. Had the revolution been halted, had democracy been restored to Cuba at the on-set, there would not be a refugee population in the millions living in the United States. Not that I have anything against them, but I don't think the US was the first choice, after all, they're from Cuba, and would probably rather be, well, at home in Cuba.

You can mock the "evil" if you like, but the US does not suffer this problem. There aren't thousands fleeing to find greener pastures and better opportunity in Mexico, the Caribbean, Cuba, or Canada, China or Russia. They aren't fleeing Cuba because they have a good life there.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[kallend 1,679]

Quote

Quote

>The US-led coalition was able to "easily" push those forces out.
>Neither invasion was "easily" stopped.

Those sound contradictory to me. Sorta like saying "The Perris riggers are able to easily fix tears in mains. Tears in mains are not easily fixed."

Try this way then: On 2 AUGUST 1990, Iraq began its invasion of Kuwait. Two days later, Iraq had successfully overrun Kuwaiti forces. This invasion was successful, and complete. Kuwait and Saudi Arabia did not halt the advance to stop the invasion. The US did not stop the invasion.

.

I don't think you read or understood what Bill wrote. Neither Kuwait, Saudi, nor Iran, was a "US-led coalition".

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Providing a temporary reduction of a tax-rate does not eliminate the tax. My statement was, "However, every tax, fee, ad infinitum that Congress assesses, never goes away." The tax does, indeed, remain. In fact, where there used to be three brackets, there are now five. Congress does not let go.

If you're claiming that Congress will continually tax people at a rate that may change over time, then I agree. If you are claiming that specific taxes never expire and are never otherwise ended, then that is simply wrong.

Quote

An attack on our Pentagon wasn't an act of war? Two attacks on critical civilian/financial centers within 8 years wasn't an act of war?

Again, against which state should we have retaliated? Neither Afghanistan nor Iraq were behind the attacks, so we should not have invaded and occupied either of those sovereign nations. What state should have been on the receiving end of our military vengeance? If we were seeking to capture specific individuals, that lends itself to police work, not military invasions and occupations.

The reason I believed that we should not have retaliated militarily is because I believed such retaliation would prove to be expensive in terms of innocent lives and money and would ultimately prove to be unsuccessful at best, and worsen the problem at worst.

Quote

Attacks by an entity, harbored by a ruling government of a sovereign nation was not an act of war?

Being within the borders of Afghanistan does not equate to being harbored by the government of Afghanistan. International (and domestic) terrorists have been known to reside within the borders of the United States. Would you advocate other countries invading and occupying the US because someone who committed an act of terrorism against one of those countries was believed to be on US soil? Do you believe we should have launched a full scale military attack against North Carolina in order to capture Eric Rudolph? If not, how do you justify the double standard?

Remember, Afghanistan and USA did not have an extradition treaty in place in 2001. Afghanistan were under no legal obligation to turn UBL over to USA, even if they did have knowledge of his whereabouts.

It was USA's foreign policy under Carter, Reagan, and GHW Bush that significantly contributed to creating an environment in Afghanistan that allowed al Qaeda to be able to operate from there, with or without knowledge of the Afghan government. After setting Afghanistan up for failure, can we be morally justified violently punishing the Afghani people for the repercussions of that failure?

Quote

Quote

. By going off half cocked and invading Afghanistan, we served to start cutting the heads of the Lernaean Hydra that is made up of the insurgent groups.

Independent cells of operation does not a hydra make. bin-Laden is not revered so much because he is merely one of "many" heads. He is an inspirational center to "the base". Our ability to remove other "heads" in Iraq has withered al-Qaeda's abilities there.

You seem to have missed the point I was trying to make. Let me try a different approach of explanation, quoting General McChrystal:

There is another complexity that people do not understand and which the military have to learn: I call it ‘COIN mathematics’. Intelligence will normally tell us how many insurgents are operating in an area. Let us say that there are 10 in a certain area. Following a military operation, two are killed. How many insurgents are left? Traditional mathematics would say that eight would be left, but there may only be two, because six of the living eight may have said, ‘This business of insurgency is becoming dangerous so I am going to do something else.’

There are more likely to be as many as 20, because each one you killed has a brother, father, son and friends, who do not necessarily think that they were killed because they were doing something wrong. It does not matter – you killed them. Suddenly, then, there may be 20, making the calculus of military operations very different.

What Gen. McCrystal refers to as "COIN mathematics" is what I was referencing with my hydra metaphor. Our war on terror has served to strengthen support for terrorism against the US and our allies and has provided better recruiting propaganda for insurgent groups than the finest marketing agencies could have hoped to achieve. Those new member offer no shortage of potential new leaders from which to draw.

Quote

The fact that al-Qaeda had not been able to hit the US on our shores does not lend absolute to your statement.

Terrorist attacks against us are merely tactics in al Qaeda's war against the USA, not a primary objective. The September 11 attacks served as a symbolic attack on our economy and our military. Al Qaeda made a successful attempt to draw us into an unwinnable war in Afghanistan as an effort to launch a long term attack our economy. We taught the mujahideen well; we gave them support to attack the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan to provoke the Soviet Union to invade and occupy Afghanistan for very similar reasons.

Al Qaeda has no reason to launch a terrorist attack against us as long as we're stuck in a quagmire in the graveyard of empires.

Quote

That five star would merely be one of 2001-2009's four star generals who. If they are unable to accomplish their mission with only four stars, a promotion won't magically give them new insight into better military strategy.

I disagree. A "General of the Armies" per se, can direct action in a declared state of war without consult to the legislative branch. It also would have delayed action, if any, into Iraq at that time.

[freakyrat 1]

John
The military is meeting it's recruitment goals however the forces are strtched thin by the constant deployments of one, two and three tours and the reserves are also stretched thin.

This is exactly what a retired USA General told Sen Cornyn 4 years ago whe I was in Cornyn's office.

Chris