|
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,193
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,193 |
The world has changed since France and West Germany were indisputed allies of ours. Instead of needed defense against the Soviet superpower, they are highly motivated in making the European Union a superpower of its own.
France, Germany, and Russia all were invested to the hilt in Saddam-controlled Iraq. For all the claims that we had financial motivations to invade, they had financial motivations to oppose invasion.
The fact that Saddam never fulfilled the obligations of the accords ending the first peace treaty was enough justification to finish it the way we should have in the first place.
"Speak softly and carry a big stick." Theodore Roosevelt
The job market. While it is not an easy market, particulary in some fields, there are job postings and help wanted signs abound for jobs in all compensation ranges. You must be willing to bide your time and take the best you can get and keep looking to move up in the world if not satisfied. The jobs of 30-year tenure our parents and grandparents had is a thing of the past, which presents much greater opportunities for us to advance ourselves. It is no longer seen as disloyal to jump to a competing firm for a promotion or better compensation.
For those of you dissatisfied with the market... what do you think government can do to take care of it?
Brad "Diva": 2004 Mazda 6s 5-door, Volcanic Red
Rex: 1988 Mazda RX-7 Vert, Harbor Blue.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,506
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,506 |
Wow. We disrupt a country by invading it, and no one wants to give us positive press while we restore the water and electricity. That's so unfair! They don't appreciate us for giving back what we knocked out!
I guess I was wrong to not give GWB attaboys for that.
Speaking of naivete, it seems you would link "disasters stateside" with the need to invade Iraq. You know, there are probably sleeper cells in Britain right now. Let's invade.
Certainly, moderate arabs/muslims would not fear that they were being duped by GWB. He's saving the duping for his allies, the UN, the AARP, and the impressionable American swing voter. (Which neither you nor I are.) Or maybe it's Cheney and Rove duping GWB.
So your declaration of "One similarity out of 1,000" allows you to ignore a valid point, huh? From my examples and others, that the local population wanted to call its own shots and resented those that were (even "well-intentioned") outsiders is THE similarity that matters.
Meanwhile, you assume a pro-western Iraqi government will magically appear, while you can't figure how it's relevant that Sadat was shot for being too Western by resentful muslims. OK, you wanted this. I guess I need to draw a connect the dots picture here (deep breath) but there are a couple resentful muslims in Iraq right now, and they don't want our government running theirs. Now, is that too complicated, or is that too dissimilar for you?
And while you're assuming what I'm advocating, how about I clarify: GWB was not qualified for the job he held, even after two years in office, when he invaded Iraq. I'm NOT saying Kerry is. But GWB's judgment was so awful, that as he now seeks to "run on his record" for re-election, he indicates to me that his judgment STILL leaves him not qualified for that office. He could be in the White House for 8 years, and he would leave that office less qualified than his dad was on the day his dad was sworn in. He's an embarrassment to this country. So was Clinton, so tied up in the Lewinsky mess that the GOP screamed "Wag the Dog" any time he wanted to do something about the carnage in SE Europe. Recently, Sen. McLain (R-AZ) came out and said stop the BS, he knows Kerry is NOT soft on defense, but adds lets talk about the real issues, taxes, education, social security. But some people on this site either did NOT know about that announcement by McLain OR feel they know MORE and better than Senator McLain does.
Give me a break.
MSDS, SHO-shop Y, custom 2.5" catback; xcal2; 63mm TB, K&N 3530; Koni struts, Aussie bar; THaines forks, Quaife, SpecII, UR fly; DMD; Nima UD pullies; Stazi brakes; f&r Pole120 mounts. Just a daily commuter car. Silver '98 SVT E0 #3159
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 750
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 750 |
Originally posted by JVT:
Why not? Hell, those sumbitches (France, Germany, and Russia) all want a piece of Iraq rebuilding, so what's so wrong about asking for military and police help?
I say we're doing them a favor by letting them in, so they should automatically help US out, GWB shouldn't have to ASK them.
[...]
I repeat, if they want to make money off of Iraq, they better send us some help. They didn't wanna spend it, but are sure quick to come and ask for it after we've done the dirty work. So, for that, F U Germany and France.
They (France and Russia for sure) were making business with Iraq. You bombed it into dust. They lost their business. Now you (Halliburton & Co) are pumping oil. They are unhappy. It is obviously their fault and they are sumbitches nevertheless. Yeah, and it's soooo unfair that they aren't paying for the reconstruction....
T.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 266
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 266 |
Originally posted by Dan Nixon:
Also, new unemployment claims hit lowest point since 2000 and unemployment rate down to 5.6% support the claim that the anticipated job recovery is coming../quote]
Please note that unemployment increased to 5.7% as your economy increased by meager 300,00 jobs in March.. Today two computer companies announced they ere laying off over 5,000 of their employees.. another sign of a robust jobless economy.. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 482
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 482 |
Originally posted by DanB:
Good News?!
What these bums don't tell you is the new jobs created are the $8 per hour ones, with no insurance, no pensions, no paid vacation or any other benefits to speak of.
There's a bunch of these type jobs (the "New" economy type) out there. Trouble is, how can one support a family on these slave wages?
This is the Truth  .. not much more needs to be said
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 266
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 266 |
Originally posted by Contouraholic:
Vietnam is not a comparable situation. We lost because the Democrats ran the military by public consensus instead of good military tactics. It was the Democrats who started the police action (JFK) and escalated the war (LBJ). It was a republican who ended the war (Nixon). Hopefully, Bush won't fall into the trap of trying please everyone (especially you).
I'm afraid your history is incorrect, there was a Republican President by the name of Eisenhower who was the first to send advisors, helicopters and solders to Vietnam. The man was afraid of the "Domino Theory".
Vice-President Bush (Cheney is the real President) won't try to please everybody, only himself.. Bush is still trying to avenge Bush Senior's embarrassment.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 266
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 266 |
Originally posted by slolx50:
Originally posted by perry:
I don't want 300,000 jobs. I just want one! 
I'll believe the job market is recovering as soon as I'm employed..
i agree!!!
Me too........
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718 |
Originally posted by PDXSVT:
Wow. We disrupt a country by invading it, and no one wants to give us positive press while we restore the water and electricity. That's so unfair! They don't appreciate us for giving back what we knocked out!
I was talking about the press and how they have biased the reporting towards a very left-leaning slant (surprise, surprise and check the Washington Post for some of the most half-assed, putrid and biased reporting examples I've seen since tearing through some of the state-run crap that Franco used to publish in Spain...); I'll learn to be more transparent and throw up road signs for you a MILE high next time so you don't bail off on a tanget of epic proportions...
Originally posted by PDXSVT:
Speaking of naivete, it seems you would link "disasters stateside" with the need to invade Iraq. You know, there are probably sleeper cells in Britain right now. Let's invade.
I'm not going to even try to address this particular flavor of insanity. To even come up with a conclusion (even in jest) as absurd as this is akin to claiming black is white just because zebra's wear both colors.
The invasion of Iraq was a DECADE in the making with the UN participating and blessing EVERY move we made until the VERY last (and even then we had a number of UN-members supporting it). Iraq flagrantly violated section after section of UN resolution 1441; patience doesn't even begin to describe what the UN and the US had towards the regime there. These are FACTS; look them up as they aren't in dispute. The only thing in dispute is the TIMING of the invasion; it appears that some feel that the US has to be 110% positive that they are going to be nuked, gassed and suffer TONS of losses before we can make a pre-emptive move against a KNOWN supporter of terrorism (count the bucks that went to Hamas bombers and the number of Syrian and Eqyptian terrorists that took refuge in Iraq) and a known user and developer of WMD.
I'll not deny that we have next to no physical proof of the stashes of WMD that EVERY first-rate intelligence agency claimed they had; given that stashes of Zyklon-B and other Nazi armaments are still being dug up and found to this day and knowing that TONS of munitions and agents are still missing from the tally the UN ran in '91-'92, I refuse to call the ball-game, though others in their omnipotence(please note the extreme use of sarcasm here) seem to feel comfortable to lay rest to it...
...despite Hussein's sons mentioning to a Jordanian diplomat that no-one would ever find the stashes and his high-ranking relatives who fled to the US clamining their existance in the late '90s as well, among piles of circumstantial and factual evidence of the existance of such WMD programs.
I swear some of the [censored] that populate this planet scare the living HELL out of me. Metaphorically, it seems one has to have a bullet lodged in their spine before they notice the guy in dark clothes carrying a rifle, ominously pointing it in their direction 10ft. in front of them before they say "S**t, better do something before it's too late!".
Anyway...
Originally posted by PDXSVT:
Certainly, moderate arabs/muslims would not fear that they were being duped by GWB. He's saving the duping for his allies, the UN, the AARP, and the impressionable American swing voter. (Which neither you nor I are.) Or maybe it's Cheney and Rove duping GWB.
There are times (and they are VERY few) that I'm rendered speechless; I simply have to stand back and bask in the shining, distorted light of staggeringly, incoherent myopia that I'm presented with.
Good luck getting Nader into the Oval office...
Originally posted by PDXSVT:
So your declaration of "One similarity out of 1,000" allows you to ignore a valid point, huh?
Valid point?! This must be some new definition of the word "valid" in the dictionary that I've yet to come across...
Hitler, Stalin, Marx and Pol-Pot had a few valid points, too. Validity has little to do with being functionaly and overwhelmingly right, considering the WHOLE picture.
Originally posted by PDXSVT:
From my examples and others, that the local population wanted to call its own shots and resented those that were (even "well-intentioned") outsiders is THE similarity that matters.
Not going to happen and it's sheer ignorance to even expect such an occurance. We roll in and roll out the day after Hussein's statue fell (hell, one YEAR after) and we would be dealing with something akin to Lebanon mixed with Afghanistan combined with post-Ayatollah Khomeini Iran...
Yeah, REAL smart; turn over a smoldering wreck of a country to no less than three distinct and VERY distrustful ethnic/religious groups, which have NO freaking clue as how to organize themselves other than to go through the fits of a destabilizing civil-war that would turn into a game of "last-man standing", while Iran waits until the dust clears to waltz on in and get their pound of flesh from the '80-'90 war between them and Iraq and also claim the entire territory, EVEN futher destabilizing the region.
Quick question: did the state of Oregon outlaw the concept of foresight? I haven't been to Beaverton since mid-January, but I thought I'd ask before I make another visit...
Ultimately, that one ranks up there with the oppressed and disenfranchised Palm Beach voters manning life-rafts to Cuba to escape ever having to deal with "dimpled chads" again. 
Again, the US has a vested interest in the Middle-East and Iraq. Fair or not, it's the way it works, especially since we are the one's the kicked Hussein into the bog. I'll say it again: freedom isn't always fair.
Originally posted by PDXSVT:
Meanwhile, you assume a pro-western Iraqi government will magically appear,
Nope. I KNEW it was going to take years and was understanding of this since before we rolled across the Kuwaiti border.
Originally posted by PDXSVT:
while you can't figure how it's relevant that Sadat was shot for being too Western by resentful muslims. OK, you wanted this. I guess I need to draw a connect the dots picture here (deep breath) but there are a couple resentful muslims in Iraq right now, and they don't want our government running theirs. Now, is that too complicated, or is that too dissimilar for you?
Should have done your homework on Sadat before taking this path. I'm going to enjoy eating you up on this one, as he's one of my fortes in 20th Century Arab history.
School's back in session, so let the fun begin...
Either pick and choose, or stick with the WHOLE story (which I'll try to provide in brief here). I won't let you have it both ways. Sadat did piss a GREAT many Islamic EXTREMISTS off for catering to Western tastes and dealing with the infidels of Israel (one of the few Arabs who actually tried to broker peace between the Israelis and Palestinians, I might add); many moderate Arabs had little issue with his Western appearance and mannerisms in the beginning, though it did perplex them.
His name in Western culture is akin to Saladin's in terms of impact and importance in terms of Arab and Western relations and respect. He was one of the few Arab leaders of his time that tried to bridge the differences between the religious Islamic masses and the Western decadence; painting or even inferring Sadat as a puppet of the West is plain ignorant as Egypt took on a very distinct identity under his reign apart from the rest of the Arab countries of the 1970's. He was a visionary but a very flawed one.
The problem was his economic reforms in his later years; a Muslim ruler is supposed to be just and fair across all classes of society. Sadat's reforms created a scism that alienated the poor, who ultimately took to the comforts of religious extremism en masse; the fact is that Eqyptians could make more money working outside of Egypt than inside it, which caused immeasurable grief and resentment, given his previous restoration of Arab pride and stability early on in his tenure. This lead to people turning to the religious leaders in Egypt at the time; unfortunately many of the most influential and charismatic ones were absolute SCREAMING fanatics...
Long story short, Sadat didn't pay ENOUGH attention and didn't crack down on Islamic extremism EARLY enough to "nip it in the bud". Admittedly, his economic bungling only added more fundamentalists to the ranks of the extremists and did turn Arab moderates into very resentful nationals, but it wasn't his Western flavor that did him in. What ultimately ended his life was his total innattention to the EXTREMISTS in his own country for far too long and only acting when it was WAY TOO LATE.
Sound familiar to Iraq? I didn't think so.
Don't take my word for it, dig up a history book and read about it. The fact is that Egypt had a sense of identity, focus and self when Sadat took the helm from Nasser; Islamic extremists did it in. Not so with Iraq...
Iraq after Hussein is fractured and simply too shell-shocked from the former regime's rule to put together any cohesive form of functional government that wouldn't end up in a civil-war. Those resentful Muslims aren't happy with our presence; that's totally understandable, but under the circumstances most KNOW it's a necessary situation:
except for those EXTREMISTS (be the Shi'ite radicals or Sunni partisans) that are happy to splatter more bodies to the wind. You are right in that the EXTREMISTS are the threat here; unlike Sadat, the US is dealing with them EARLY on.
Originally posted by PDXSVT:
And while you're assuming what I'm advocating, how about I clarify: GWB was not qualified for the job he held, even after two years in office, when he invaded Iraq.
I'll not disagree with you there. I don't think anyone short of the likes of FDR or Lincoln would be qualified for office in such times, though they learned rather fast to adjust to the times at hand and BECAME qualified...
...and don't infer that I'm comparing Bush, Jr. to either of these men. In my mind he's been a solid president during a time of crisis in the US, which say a LOT in of itself, but I seriously doubt history will look upon him in the same fashion or with the same respect as either of those two giants. Bush's leadership and direction seems to come from those around him; he's got one of the best staffs in recent memory. Lincoln and FDR had solid people around them but their innate leadership abilities, oratory skills and mettle is on a very different level.
Originally posted by PDXSVT:
I'm NOT saying Kerry is.
Thank God! We've finally managed to agree on something!
Originally posted by PDXSVT:
But GWB's judgment was so awful, that as he now seeks to "run on his record" for re-election, he indicates to me that his judgment STILL leaves him not qualified for that office. He could be in the White House for 8 years, and he would leave that office less qualified than his dad was on the day his dad was sworn in.
I firmly disagree, in that I've often found his father to be a much weaker and indecisive President than his son. That's personal opininon, though and another 10-page post within itself...
Originally posted by PDXSVT:
He's an embarrassment to this country. So was Clinton, so tied up in the Lewinsky mess that the GOP screamed "Wag the Dog" any time he wanted to do something about the carnage in SE Europe. Recently, Sen. McLain (R-AZ) came out and said stop the BS, he knows Kerry is NOT soft on defense, but adds lets talk about the real issues, taxes, education, social security.
Politics is politics and it always will be. Wade through the BS claims that both sides make, don't fall for the transparent fodder that's meant for the idiots that only read the headlines and can barely see past their own paycheck in terms of their political stripes.
Kerry is a Mass. Democrat and a scion of good 'ol Ted Kennedy (D-Lushville) . The tax and spend label is a fair one in his case (his voting record certainly speaks for itself) and anyone that has looked up to Ted Kennedy for guidance (except on how to womanize, get drunk and commit manslaughter) scares the living HELL out of me. It's not that I'm really concerned about Kerry as much as I'm concerned with the people that he will end up surrounding himself with, which is all the same to me.
Originally posted by PDXSVT:
But some people on this site either did NOT know about that announcement by McLain OR feel they know MORE and better than Senator McLain does.
I like McClain as BS doesn't sit well with him in any fashion from either direction (left or right). At the same time, don't DARE subscribe his disdain for BS into admiration for Kerry, as every time he opens his mouth it's like listening to an Infomercial on the latest fat-burning elixr...
Originally posted by PDXSVT:
Give me a break.
Give me something of substance. 
Last edited by JaTo; 04/03/04 07:08 AM.
JaTo
e-Tough Guy
Missouri City, TX
99 Contour SVT
#143/2760
00 Corvette Coupe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718 |
Originally posted by mr_froge:
Originally posted by Contouraholic:
Vietnam is not a comparable situation. We lost because the Democrats ran the military by public consensus instead of good military tactics. It was the Democrats who started the police action (JFK) and escalated the war (LBJ). It was a republican who ended the war (Nixon). Hopefully, Bush won't fall into the trap of trying please everyone (especially you).
I'm afraid your history is incorrect, there was a Republican President by the name of Eisenhower who was the first to send advisors, helicopters and solders to Vietnam. The man was afraid of the "Domino Theory".
Vice-President Bush (Cheney is the real President) won't try to please everybody, only himself.. Bush is still trying to avenge Bush Senior's embarrassment.
Guess I'll have to start into you now as well...
It was Truman (a Democrat) that actually sent the first OSS troops into Vietnam in 1945, if you REALLY care to get technical (I had to look this one up, actually; I knew the US had a small presence there very soon after WWII but couldn't remember exactly when).
In the scope and scale of things, JFK really didn't have a whole lot to do with Vietnam, either; not when compared to LBJ, who tried to run the entire conflict from the Oval office.
I'm too tired to start into the other brand of sewage you are selling here...
Maybe later.
JaTo
e-Tough Guy
Missouri City, TX
99 Contour SVT
#143/2760
00 Corvette Coupe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,228
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,228 |
Originally posted by JaTo:
Originally posted by mr_froge:
Originally posted by Contouraholic:
Vietnam is not a comparable situation. We lost because the Democrats ran the military by public consensus instead of good military tactics. It was the Democrats who started the police action (JFK) and escalated the war (LBJ). It was a republican who ended the war (Nixon). Hopefully, Bush won't fall into the trap of trying please everyone (especially you).
I'm afraid your history is incorrect, there was a Republican President by the name of Eisenhower who was the first to send advisors, helicopters and solders to Vietnam. The man was afraid of the "Domino Theory".
Vice-President Bush (Cheney is the real President) won't try to please everybody, only himself.. Bush is still trying to avenge Bush Senior's embarrassment.
Guess I'll have to start into you now as well...
It was Truman (a Democrat) that actually sent the first OSS troops into Vietnam in 1945, if you REALLY care to get technical (I had to look this one up, actually; I knew the US had a small presence there very soon after WWII but couldn't remember exactly when).
In the scope and scale of things, JFK really didn't have a whole lot to do with Vietnam, either; not when compared to LBJ, who tried to run the entire conflict from the Oval office.
I'm too tired to start into the other brand of sewage you are selling here...
Maybe later.
Just to add to Jato's comments, I didn't bring in Ike and Truman as the French were running things in 'nam for the great while. When the French pulled out, Kennedy started sending in ARMED advisors (Many Green Beret in the bunch) and started the escalation and our "takeover" of the "Police Action".
In addition, Nixon started the "Peace with Honor" and withdrawal of troops. Had he remained president, he would of finished it. I was for not quitting and for fighting a real wars, not the type they were fighting up to then. And I enlisted in the Army, so my opinion had a direct effect on me. I didn't care for Nixon as president, but you have to credit him with the end of conflict in 'Nam.
Finally, anyone who believes Iraq and Iraqi's had better lives under Saddam then they do now, in my opinion, are deluded and probably incapable of rational thought. I understand and don't feel this way about those who believe we should not of attacked or remain in Iraq, but those who use the argument that Iraq citizens were better off with Saddam are just a few chicken nuggets short of a happy meal.
My name is Richard. I was a Contouraholic.
NOW: '02 Mazda B3000 Dual Sport, Black
BEFORE: '99 Contour SE Sport
Duratec ATX Spruce Green
PIAA 510's, Foglight MOD, K&N Drop-in
|
|
|
|
|
