Tuesday Night Open Mic for June 23

Open Mic 1Wooo Hoooo. Flying through the week, we are. And a fun filled week it has shaped up to be thus far. Denouncing those who think the world should change so they don’t get their feelings hurt. Discussing the brewing issues happening in Iran right now. I saw a couple of other issues jump into those discussions so I will attempt to pull them into this thread so that they can be discussed. I appreciate everyone doing their best to keep the issues on topic within the threads and waiting to address different topics. There should be some interesting topics this week as my perusing the news out there reveals a lot of things that I have not covered. So let’s get this started….


Advertisements

Comments

  1. USWeapon says:

    USWeapon Topic #1

    The Huffington Post got some preferential treatment at yesterday’s press conference by the President. The White House apparently sent Huffington Post National Editor Nico Pitney a note saying that they know he is getting questions from Iranians in Iran, and would he like to attend the press conference and ask one of those questions (a Pre-approved one of course).

    What does everyone think of a far left site who projects a lot of true hate like the Huffinton Post being courted by the White House?

    You can view the story on Fox News Here: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/23/foresight-coming-question-iran-obama-welcomes-huffington-post-writer/

    • Danak13 says:

      USW….What I think is not going to matter unless there is a ground swell of support. We are in an era where, and I hate labels here, the far left (some call it progressive)has been allowed to take control of a lot of things. Education, press, health care….. it is nothing short of socialism and that is a death knell to the life of the United States. I forgot who said…”the only way to defeat the United States is in the classroom, in their banks, and in their politics…America can be defeated without firing a shot.” (Words to that effect)…anyway, we have become complacent in our pursuit of life. We, meaning the truly independent thinking, have been so focused on family and our personal lives, the dam started leaking and we let it continue. (There are a lot of people on blogs that feel their thinking is independent but they actually try to stifle independent thinking.)

      The love affair of the press with the “progressive” (which is s total crock of dino dung)far left, liberal movement, or whatever you wish to call it, is absurd but they have the control for now. What is mind numbing is how many people really buy into the media. How many people respond to sound bites and news clips and platitudes. It is because they do not take the time. So, millions of people are friggin’ brain washed and it is very, very sad.

      The questions on Iran are going to be no different than the questions on health care. They will be pre-approved and answers at the ready and the “lemmings” of America will drink their beer, nod their head, and go to sleep thinking that all is well.

      To answer your question directly, it appears that 95% if the media is bent on destruction of personal freedoms and rights of individuals. It is a crock and this will be a “dog and pony” show.

      And the hits keep on coming.

      D13

    • Well he is THE AMERICAN IDOL winner to a host of you down south. That he’s hand picked a few who did more for him than Monica Lewinsky did for Mr Bill is to be expected. As for canned questions, there are more movies that hadn’t a script than Obama, president or otherwise, press conferences. Why even bother when you absolutely know what he’s going to say well in advance of him opening his mouth. He was getting irritated by softball questions that Fox would have asked president Bush 2.0 yesterday! No way in hell he’s letting anyone serious about journalism anywhere near him… EVER! They don’t have that “come hither” look about them, he’ll not even acknowledge their existence save for those times he feels the NEED to voice “Not all the media loves me…” to those who’ll answer “That’s just the way Fox News is heart of my heart.”

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      I missed in the article and linked video where we ascertain it was a pre-approved question? And who cares if they solicited a question from Huffington Post? Maybe those who claimed to have been offended should have done some legwork themselves to see what it is the Iranian people would want to know from President Obama. This is a non issue and just more conservative carping.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      USW – maybe that “Great American” Sean Hannity led you astray?

      http://mediamatters.org/research/200906240006

      • USWeapon says:

        I don’t watch or listen to Hannity.

        You don’t even know my position on this you are attacking up front?

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          So what’s your point then? To attack the Huffington Post? To ‘insinuate’ a question was planted. You said ‘pre-approved’ which is apparently not true – clever but false.

          • USWeapon says:

            Pre-approved is an assumption then. Doesn’t matter if it was pre-approved or not, but the fact of the matter is that almost everything the President gets ask is either pre-approved or completely anticipated. Every now and then something gets thrown in there that surprises a President, and then we watch them hem and haw.

            • Ray Hawkins says:

              I assume that they prepare him to answer from a list of likely questions regarding the events at hand, that way he doesn’t look like an imbecile to the whole world. If he asked something important that they/he have not thought carefully through then either (a) shame on them for not being prepared and (b) maybe they should go more secretive like President Bush

              • Danak13 says:

                Ray…please tell me that you do not think that questions are not preplanned… You cannot be that naive….from what I have read that you post, you seem pretty smart.

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                Do you mean planted? No – they are not likely planted – but for chrissakes they should have some idea what they may be asked.

              • SFC Dick says:

                I’m with Ray, if it starts and ends with “put your thinking cap on sir, these are the topics and questions you will recieve”

                BUT….

                I have no link/site/post to link to, but wasn’t there a big hub bub in administartions past about screening/knowing in advance the questions. I realize there is a big difference between knowing and screening, ubtill it’s time for the president to call on people for questions, it’s at that point that screening and knowing become the same; as in I know Bob is going to ask this question, therefor I won’t call on Bob.

                I won’t even touch questions to W or Bush 1, but I think some of the crap the press corps got in or asked durring Pres Clinton were pretty inapropriate, that is ofcourse after the left lost their love afair with Pres Clinton.

    • USWeapon says:

      Well since negative nellie Ray has gone and begun accusing me of some sort of debauchery right up front I guess I will have to expand on this prior to allowing everyone a chance to discuss it. I do not, however, expect that Ray will vindicate me once I do, as once I pointed out the flaws, in detail, of his preemptive strike on me about whiners and crybabies he did not do so there (Reply #38 on that article Ray). It seems Ray would rather throw out things to discredit me up front.

      I personally approve of them asking the Huffington Post to come to the White House and ask the question. I was happy to see that they saw an opportunity to answer a question directly from Iranians rather than simply addressing everything from an easy American Sheeple standpoint. I liked the question from HP. I like that the White House invited a blogger who was covering the situation intensely was asked to attend rather than just the same old BS press people that usually cover the White House. I despise the HuffPost. They are a far left, ultra-liberal, hate monger site. But I didn’t have a problem with what happened here. Sorry to disappoint you Ray. See what happens when you simply assume that I am a hypocrite or partisan hack?

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        Thats what happens when you wrap unrelated opining around a legit question – people like me are forced to deconstruct and try and figure out what the heck your point is.

        • Baseball95 says:

          I thought his point was asking the rest of us what we thought about it. What did you think his point was?

        • Try to never jump to conclusions. I personally loved the question. If they were expecting a softball, they didn’t get it. What would it take for beloved leader to accept the election results from Iran? Any ideas anybody?

  2. USWeapon says:

    USWeapon Topic #2

    Health Care Reform is one of the hottest topics in politics today and we have not covered it much on this site…. yet. I am working on a multipart series on health care that will give us the ability to discuss it in depth. But here, I want to focus on a specific comment from Obama to the insurance companies. Save the rest of the health care debate for later.

    The insurance industry stated that the government health plan the President backs would dismantle the employer coverage Americans have relied on for 50 years and overtake the system. Obama’s response during the press conference was “If private insurers say that the marketplace provides the best quality health care … then why is it that the government, which they say can’t run anything, suddenly is going to drive them out of business?”.

    Liberals across the country high fived one another and said “Obama sure showed them”. I silently chuckled and realized the fatal flaw in Obama’s argument…. So what do you guys think?

    You can view the story on ABC News Here: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=7904200

    • Obama’s response during the press conference was “If private insurers say that the marketplace provides the best quality health care … then why is it that the government, which they say can’t run anything, suddenly is going to drive them out of business?”.

      Gov’t screws everything up. They can’t help it, its in their nature. Waste and inefficiency are their middle names.

      I can’t find the article this morning that I was reading yesterday. Most politicians are quoting that 46 million Americans were uninsured or underinsured last year. It counts the following:

      People eligible for Medicare/Medicaid but are not signed up.
      People who dont want health insurance (i.e. young and healthy)
      People who were without insurance for one day during the 2008 calendar year (like if you were switching jobs)
      …there were more but I can’t remember.

      The actual number of “real” uninsured/underinsured was around 16 million. About 3% of the population. Somehow spending $1,000,000,000,000 to help 3% of the population doesn’t make much sense to me.

      • Richmond Spitfire says:

        Hi Edward,

        I read the same article yesterday at Fox Nation…can’t find it this morning.

        It had to do with “Healthcare Myths in America”.

        Another big point that the article was dispelling was that America has a poor “birth mortality rate” when stacked up against other countries (this high mortality rate is used by some to be negative about our current Health Care/Insurance situation).

        The article basically indicated that comparing American birth rates against other country’s birth rates is like comparing apples to oranges…In America, we count all live births – even if a single breath was taken. Other countries exclude certain births (i.e. baby must be 12 inches long or weigh a certain amount of weight). Because other countries do have “exclusions” and we don’t, their mortality rates look better.

        I’ll keep looking for the article…I thought it was very interesting.

        Regards,
        RS

    • My first thought after reading O’Buttheads comment was “Katrina”. They managed to foul that response up, which cost lives. Do I really want them running healthcare? Not just no, but HELL NO.

      G!

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        President Obama fouled up Katrina? I didn’t know he was President then?

        • Richmond Spitfire says:

          Hi Ray,

          I don’t see where G-Man states that Obama fouled up Katrina…

          He said, “They”. Which obviously means the “government” and in this context he means that the “government” would foul up health care, just like they fouled up Katrina.

          Regards,
          RS

          • Just because Bush was completely incompetent doesn’t mean Obama is.

            • Obama works for the same people so why do you think he would do anything different…

              • Because Obama is an intelligent, thoughtful, pragmatic person. Not an ideologue like Bush.

              • SFC Dick says:

                The process, ability etc has never been with the feds to save an area of the US. I know this because I AM the plan to save areas of the US. I am far enough up the food chain to have been in on some of those planning missions for Illinois, the fed was never a part of it, ok, small incidental stuff, but no life saving, infrastructer repair/protection evacuation etc.

                “They”, as it was used properly, will fail as misserably again, in the same type of circumstances.

            • Richmond Spitfire says:

              Todd,

              Actually, I think that Barack Obama is an extremely competent pawn…that’s what scares the hell out of me.

              Regards,
              RS

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

              Todd,

              No, just because Bush was incompetent doesn’t necessarily mean that Obama is also incompetent; however, for the most part, Obama has not done much of anything that has demonstrated any sort of competence that I have seen yet, so to this point I rank him as about equal with Bush on the competence scale and even higher than Bush on the March towards socialism scale.

            • USWeapon says:

              The claims of Bush being incompetent are laughable and somewhat show the animosity attached to him by the left. He was not a stupid man. A poor public speaker perhaps. Not as great an evangelist as Obama for sure. But incompetent and stupid? I think not. He was President of the United States. That wasn’t an accident. He graduated from Yale. That was not an accident. To be honest I see Obama making far more mistakes in office thus far. I also see Obama making far more claims and promises that show incompetence and a drastic lack of understanding of reality than Bush made in 8 years. He just sounds so much better saying stupid things

            • USWeapon says:

              And are you really blaming Bush for messing up the response to Katrina? Do you really think there were that many decisions that were made by him around that debacle? If you really think that the Katrina response can truly be laid at the feet of President Bush, then I would have to say you don’t have much of a grasp on the way that federal agencies or national emergency response works.

            • If you could stand back a bit and just see how poorly POTUS is doing with his OJT. (On the Job Training) That’s why most presidential candidates have a history of public or private experience and responsible leadership.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            Apparently Ray thinks that “They” automlatically refers to Obama… lol.

          • JayDickB says:

            Like government health insurance? Check out Medicare. I have it; it sucks.

        • USWeapon says:

          Ray
          Obama stated government, not him. Thus the response was that government screwed up Katrina, not Obama. Touchy today I see.

    • I'm learning! says:

      So “If private insurers say that the marketplace provides the best quality health care … then why is it that the government, which they say can’t run anything, suddenly is going to drive them out of business?” is exactly what he said? Did he just basicaly say government IS going to drive them out of business?

      • “If private insurers say that the marketplace provides the best quality health care … then why is it that the government, which they say can’t run anything, suddenly is going to drive them out of business?” Yes, you have to read between the lines. He just stated that government is going to drive the private sector out of business although people say the government can’t do anything right. You see, people are not really listening and comprehending what is being stated…they are just hearing what he is saying; I see that you are listening!

        • USWeapon says:

          On the contrary… In this case i think you are looking for something that isn’t there in this particular statement. What is the saying? Those who look for a conspiracy will always find one, and never be disappointed. I watched him make the comment. It was nothing more than a witty retort to a question.

          • Please stop calling me a Conspiracy theorist USW. I am not, if you stop watching the main stream media and actually go out and do the research for yourself, everything that I talk about is real and is happening and there are laws that are backing it up. I think it is sad that people are making excuses for what is really going on in the world but of course, when you have been BW and feed into what is being told to you…what more can I expect?!

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Government will invariably provide poorer quality health care, but will (temporarily) force costs WAY down in order to purposely put the private insurers out of business. Once the private insurers are driven out of business by phony “cost controls” the costs will go back up, and the quality of care will remain crappy.

        The government can “afford” to provide crappy care and waste a ton of money in the process. The government is not motivated by the need to make a profit.

        It is not the quality of government health care or the competitive price of government health care that will put the private insurers out of business, it is the fact that the government does not need to (and never will) make a profit that will kill off the private insurers.

        • JayDickB says:

          Once the government plan is the only one, care will be rationed to reduce costs. Old people like me will die soon thereafter because we won’t be able to get all the care we need. But that won’t be important to the government. We don’t have that long to live, so on a cost-benefit basis, we shouldn’t be given any care that is expensive.

          The only way to achieve the cost reductions Obama brags about is to ration care. That’s exactly what he plans to do.

    • First, lets look at how the government operates a business. The US postal service has raise its rates for 1st. class mail repeatedly, and yet, still is in the red. UPS & Fed Ex MAKE A PROFIT!. The postal service is subsidizing their package shipping with their mail income, to have an unfair advantage (mail service is protected from compantition).

      Cost: USPS Priority Mail Flat Rate Envelope. As much fits in the enevlope, regardless of weight. For example, a coast to coast shipment would be approx. $14.70 UPS as compared to $4.05USPS.

      And how will government run health care fare in the real world? Didn’t do well in Hawaii.

      http://www.breitbart.com/print.php?id=D93SBEUG0&show_article=1

      Seven months after instituting the only state child universal healthcare program in the country, Hawaii is dropping the plan. According to an AP article, the state could no longer afford the plan though it only enrolled about 2,000 of the state’s estimated 3,500 to 16,000 uninsured children.

      The plan, was supposed to cover all children without health insurance from birth to age 18 — “mostly immigrants and members of low-income families.” Care was free except for a $7 copay for each doctor’s visit. In conjunction with the cost of the plan, the state objected to the fact that families were dumping their private health insurance to enroll in the “free” plan.

      The last is an inevitable occurrence when government tries to “manage” healthcare. The Cato Institute estimates that under the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) — a federally funded healthcare plan intended for children and run by states — up to 60 percent of the enrollees had dropped private coverage for “free” care. Freeloaders on the government dole are an unavoidable facet of government involvement in healthcare. So to are the end results of government involvement: rationing of care. This is true because people in public health programs perceive the care as free, and so they use them prolifically — for every twinge and ache – swamping the system.

      The government has and will use its advantages to drive private business out, when their cost overrun, they simply raise taxes. They underestimate the cost of every program. But its not about health care, its about control! If not, they would look at programs that are successful and use them as a model. Instead, they are following those programs that have failed, with poor treatment and ever rising expenses.

    • Bama dad says:

      USW:
      Private healthcare insurers are a “for profit” business with competition. Government has no incentive to be profitable, has no competition and can throw unlimited amounts of money at any program they start. Can you say unfair advantage?

      • USWeapon says:

        Bama Dad,

        So close to exactly the answer I was looking for. Bravo to you for seeing through the bullcrap answer that Obama gave.

    • Amazed1 says:

      The problem I see with this is the government competing against a public sector. Now the Government wants to drive the cost down and they will at first….but then they will have to allow the cost to continue to climb to cover their expense which like all government agencies is so laden with overhead and red tape that the cost is overwhelming. After the government has run the private sector out of the insurance market then we will find out the real cost of health care, when America is so deep in debt they will never climb out and we have no other option but to continue government insurance.
      Since the government thinks they can handle this….and everyone deserves health care….why doesn’t the government get into the hospital, clinic and drug business. They can have free clinics, free hospitals and free drugs…..wow then the President and both houses could get free health care just like everyone else. Reckon how long it would be before healthcare completely collasped? I think the best thing we can do is tell congress and the President that no matter what they vote in they and their families have to completely partcipate in “the new system”.

      • JayDickB says:

        I love it. Government running hospitals, clinics, drug companies. Can you imagine? Frightening!

        Politicians participating in a new system is a laugh. Even if they participated, they would get special treatment.

    • Danak13 says:

      Hoo boy…let’s see. I am on the Veteran’s Health care program in an area that has a Veterans Hospital, several Veteran’s clinics, and seems to be somewhat well staffed. However, since it is a metropolitan area (Fort Worth/Dallas) there are thousands of veterans in this area that use the facilities. Even with the Veterans government run health care, there is rationing of health services using age, type of injury or ailment, and numbers as a prerequisite for enrollment and treatment. How do I know this? well, I am a retired full Colonel with 40 years service and considered highly decorated and I suffer from Agent Orange poisoning, which is herbicidal and blood oriented. There are several long term effects from this type of poisoning up to and including diabetes and cancer. Since cancer has claimed most of the men afflicted already, the numbers are dwindling and we are now few. Research and funding was stripped away in the 80’s under Clinton and the rationale was there were not enough afflicted to fund any more research. So, our ailments are now on the back burner for more prominent ones. It is historical and record fact, that there will be no national treatment for cancer from AO and will be preempted for more favorable types of cancer. (go figure…I have yet to determine which type of cancer is more favorable or which type of diabetes is more favorable.) The end result is that others are chosen by edict. So, I have supplemental coverages to get treatment and tests. I have to go to the outside for continued testing for cancer and diabetes because of the sole fact that I have AO and in the minority and the decision has been made to exclude this unless there are openings. This is called rationing. AND this is not what I want nor should it be. What is happening in the veterans group is just the tip of the iceberg to what will happen with National Health Care.

      Now, as an employer, someone tell me why I would keep providing my employees with health care when I can simply turn it over to the government and save money? Where is my incentive? I am going to be taxed higher on employer supplied health (ie. it’s value will become income and, therefore, all employer related taxes apply)and I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that the tax deduction for health insurance will “sunset” which will increase employer taxes. In addition, individuals will be taxed on employer health benefits as income and pay taxes. So, you experts that believe in this…. where is my incentive? Or do you want me to sit around and hold hands and sing Kumbaya and bask in the knowledge that I have helped my fellow man.

      Now, there are those on this blog that are from Canada and the UK. I have but one simple question… ready? Here it comes….it is VERY simple. How do you justify your health system that has the power over life and death by managed health care? Please….justify this position. Please justify how one persons health is subservant to another.

      Finally, there is no way that a private insurer can compete against an entity that has unlimited funds. So, BF, Bob, and some of you die hard liberals, please explain this and please explain it rationally and don’t throw articles that are slanted on the screen. Your real thoughts…..please.

      D13

      • I have never had a problem with my health service in the UK and recieved nothing but excellent care. I have been able to see a doctor the same day I made an appointment for my entire life. Now why on earth would I want to be on an American system of private insurers? My grandfather recently had a knee replacement operation and he is 80, 6 months of in home physiotherapy and £0 cost to him. From some of the peoples comments on here you would have thought as soon as you get past 65 you get chucked onto a fire instead of being treated.

        • Indeed…you are a lucky man. Perhaps the exception. I have many friends from UK that do not share your perception.

          • I also know many people in the UK, I am surrounded by them. I hear the odd grumblings about the NHS about wait times etc. but if a politician ever suggested an American style system instead of the NHS that would be his career over. The conservative party here said if they were elected then they would cut public spending by 10% but they made sure to promise no funds would be taken from the NHS.

            No matter what your many UK friends say the NHS is very popular with the population in general. If the NHS is so bad why isn’t everyone clamouring for something else? I doubt I am the exception, my family and extended family all go through the NHS and they have not had any problems, whether that be cancer treatment, hysterectomy’s, child birth etc. Again I have grown up with the NHS it is not the bogeyman some people make it out to be in America. Could it be better? Yes, but I am happy with it and would not place it with the American system.

            The ironic thing is I have lived in Canada and America, three different American dentists messed up a diagnosis which resulted in me having to have a root canal in Canada and eventually have the tooth pulled when I got to England. I got better care in the supposed socialist hell holes then I did in America. This is all anecdotal of course.

            • There are always going to be cases where one system is obviously worse off than the other. We just had a major blowout here when it came to light that an ultrasound technician did not have the updated credentials (training) he was supposed to have gotten during a paid sabbatical. That wouldn’t have even merited a tsk tsk in the American system.

              The advantage of American medicine is outside of the GP and into the area of specialized medicine. That’s the part we hope to be adopting here in Canada and a 50/50 pay system for specialized medicine is what many are working towards right now.

              Dental we pay for completely out of pocket.

            • JayDickB says:

              What do you do if you are unhappy with your care or its financing? What alternatives do you have?

              • I go to a private hospital and get private insurance, I don’t think you guys realise the UK has a national health service and a private system with health insurers like America.

              • JayDickB says:

                As I understand it, Canadians don’t have that option. It will be interesting to see if Obama allows it.

              • JayDickB says:

                So, if you go private, you pay twice, taxes for the government system and premiums for the private system. Why not let people select which they want and pay only for that?

              • Because, then we end up with your system, we dont want that.

              • JayDickB says:

                But, I do.

              • JayDickB says:

                Oh, right. Free choice is no good.

              • Danak13 says:

                Whoa!!!! Wait. I need to understand this.

                “I go to a private hospital and get private insurance, I don’t think you guys realise the UK has a national health service and a private system with health insurers like America.”

                You just said that there are two insurance programs in the UK and that you have availed yourself of one…then you say you do not want that system you just availed yourself of and that you do not want to give people a choice…this leads me to believe that most would not want your system…which is it?

        • The wait for a knee here is 6 months to a year based upon age.

          • My grandfather waited 2 months I think.

            • Wife’s father had both done and her uncle just got out of hospital for his second complete and one changing of the pads just last week.

      • I can give some picture of my family’s experience with health care in Canada. We moved here when I was about 2 years old, but my Mom tells me this story about when I was given some immunizations and I had a reaction (convulsions). My mother had a hard time dealing with the nurses. When my pediatrician heard he told her she should have called him. She was amazed that a doctor actually cared about his patients, willing to come in at all hours to make sure I was ok. She grew up in Canada and I suppose this was not the norm for her.

        My grandfather (who lived in Canada) died of cancer a few years back. He underwent treatment for about a year. Rather than get treated in Canada for free, he came to the states and paid OUT OF POCKET, which they could not really afford. I can see how a national health care system looks good and Bob says it works well, but will the quality of health care diminish? Maybe it works fine in the UK, but what will happen here?

        It is dangerous to compare to other countries on both sides of this issue. Just because something works or doesn’t work in one place doesn’t mean the same will happen elsewhere. We should, however, be aware of how similar policies have worked elsewhere and take note of what may happen.

        • The thing is you don’t have to look to the NHS for something to base it off, America is the only country in the developed world without some form of universal health care. Look at all the different systems, Switzerland, Germany, Japan, France, Britain and take the best bits and apply it to yourselves.

          Your health costs are spiralling out of control, you spend more money per person than all the countries with national health care, your infant mortality is higher and your life expectancy is lower, your health care is good for the rich but the poor cannot afford it.

          • Our health care costs are spiralling out of control because of:

            1. Lawsuits with no cap.

            2. Our Illegal population who contributes nothing but uses the system and can and does sue,(see answer #1).

            What, if any limitations are their on malpractice suits in Britian and Canada and what status do undocumentated aliens have in your systems? I would like to know, it would probably help us better understand what our weaknesses are.

            Bob, It ain’t free. You are paying for it.

            • Richmond Spitfire says:

              Excellent questions Sir!

            • When did I ever say it was free? I pay through taxes.

              • I guess I thought it implied when you talked about your grandfathers knee replacement at zero cost to him. Same here, my Mom used to describe how her post 65 YOA bypass was
                “free”.

                Still interested in info on malpractice or illegal immigrants in GB.

              • Illegal immigrants are a huge problem in the UK but most of the time they are “legal” anyways. Mostly muslim with a very low standard of education. Police already pulled out of some parts in some cities and “sharia” courts were introduced for family etc. issues.
                The system in the UK is flawed despite what Bob says. My aunt is a doctor here in Germany and a good friend of her lived in London. She was suspected to have cancer but had to wait 6 months for the necessary CT scan. So she visited my aunt here and got a CT scan on the same day which was covered by insurance. She actually had cancer and lived 5 more years. If she had waited the 6 months her life expectancy would have been around 1 year.

                Lawsuits on the other hand are no problem. They are capped and I never heard of a doctor here in Germany or the UK who is afraid of lawsuits.

                The bottom point is: Europes Health Care systems are collapsing. The costs are increasing while less and less people pay for it. The problem of socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money. They all worked pretty well till the 90’s when Europe started its March to socialism and got unqualified immigrants from all over the world. Since 1990 the government here in Germany kept cutting health care over and over. My aunt gets a maximum of 50$ per patient per quarter. Her income declined for the last 15 years and their is no end in sight.

              • Thanks for the info.

              • Yes great Manuel, every system is flawed I never claimed the NHS was perfect. If we are going by anecdotal evidence I think my examples will outweigh yours by a large amount, I have had nothing but good experiences with the NHS and everyone is able to be treated on it.

              • It was free to my grandfather, he did not pay a penny for the operation or the physiotherapy after.
                If my grandfather had been in the states no way he would have been able to get insurance and he would have had no way to pay for the treatment. He would be left walking with a limp for the rest of his life.

              • Again, your grandfather paid into the system for his working life, therefore there was a cost to him. There are life insurance plans like that a twenty payment life for example where, at a young age, you make 20 annual paymentts for insurance. The insurance is then “bought” for the rest of your life. The life insurance company then invests the money you paid and hopefully makes a profit.

                Wrong on the US. Mom & Dad both lived to retire ans collect social security and Medicare. Almost all of their medical costs in later years were picked up by the program. When Mom finally bottomed out on her very small savings, medicaid stepped in.

                Again, we have a huge number of folks, legal immigrants mind you, relatives of people already here who have come to the US, pay minimally into the system and then we get to pick them up for life. Our system was not designed for this. Same with Social Security. When SS and Medicare were originally passed, it was assumed that you would have “paid” into the system your entire working life to draw benefits, not just three or five years. Ever wonder why you never hear about any of this from the nmedia? I do. I suspect, your problems and those of the rest of Europe will be of the same nature. You can’t just keep burdening a system with new expenses as we have been doing in the US without the system breaking down.

              • Wait a minute are you saying your mother lost her savings and it was only then medicare stepped in? The amount my grandfather paid in would be a pittance, he was a low paid charity worker looking after severely disabled adults. He is able to keep his small savings, his doctor visits, medication physiotherapy, he does not need to pay a penny for.

              • No, first you have to understand that there are two programs in the States, The first, Medicare was launched in the ’60’s and was for Sr. Citizens since expanded to permanenthly disabled adults and children. Then we have Medicaid on a state level (goes by different names in differemt states). This program will pick up for the poor or indigent. In Mom’s case, all her regular health needs were taken care of by medicare after age 65(she too never made serious money always working only part time as a companion to the elderly). Mom later developed parkinson’s disease which resulted in her entering a nursing home. medicare (federal) does not pay for this, Medicaid (state) does but only after you deplete your assets, So, after she went through her $ 20,000 US, her few stocks and bonds, the state government picked up the tab which then, over the next 6 years ran into the hundreds of thousands. She also had to surrender her Social Security check every month. Some might consider this cruel but the assumption was she was never going to leave thet nursing home, and she didn’t, so her money did her little good. The only purpose would have been to pass it along to her children which I disagree with. If i didn’t or couldn’t provide for her care, I do not deserve to share in her limited inheritance.

                Actual medical care while in the nursing home was picked up by the federal Medicare program, which would have included surgery if necessary.

    • Your private system is humped humped humped! What employer is NOT going to nab that cheaper government policy for their employees? It’ll be a very good thing for the corporate entity. As for taxing such to pay for such… that’s the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard/seen in all my days. What are the morons in power going to do to assure that things stay as they are to afford them the opportunity to tax existing Health Care Benefits? Mandate an employer into KEEPING THEIR EXISTING HEALTH CARE STRUCTURE when both they and their employees will have merely to drop the existing structure, dump the coin that would entail that year into the hourly and its all over but the crying? Idiots. Absolute morons. People who are genuinely retarded must feel emboldened with their chances in life seeing those on the presidential infomercials.

      I guess taxing “the rich” to pay for Shangri-La hasn’t worked out.

      • Danak13 says:

        No Alan, it has not. If it is mandated to keep existing health insurance, I will guarantee you none will…mandate or no. I will not nor will I agree to being taxed extra. We are pretty smart and know how to protect our money and we will.

    • JayDickB says:

      The government plan could be cheaper for the following reasons:

      1. It will have no capital costs associated with its startup.
      2. It will be subsidized, although the subsidies will be well hidden.
      3. Prices will be controlled. Fees will be low and health care providers will be required to accept them.
      4. Care will be rationed.

      I don’t want any part of a government plan. I have Medicare and it sucks.

    • Massachusetts. The Bay State’s CommonwealthCare continues to implode — as anyone with a brain could have predicted, and as many did predict.

      Despite deep cuts, which essentially amount to large-scale rationing of care and cash-starving of providers, the Boston Globe’s Kay Lazar, in an allegedly straight news story, felt compelled to describe the state’s health care arrangement as “trailblazing,” and to characterize a 12% budget cut as “trimming.”

      http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2009/06/24/boston-globe-story-describes-mas-state-run-health-care-trailblazing-its-

    • USWeapon says:

      I am shocked that no one came right out and said the reason that Obama’s quote was flawed. He said, “If private insurers say that the marketplace provides the best quality health care … then why is it that the government, which they say can’t run anything, suddenly is going to drive them out of business?” Why is this flawed?

      Because government does not play fair, my friends. The do not have to play the game the same way as all of those in the private sector. Will government completely screw the pooch on this? Absolutely. A ten year old can go buy a hammer for $20 at a hardware store. Government can’t get one for less than $500. The government, however, will have every advantage and will be not be accountable to any of the disadvantages that the private sector must face. Government cheats in business, with absolutely zero repercussions. Their customers won’t even have the ability to boycott the badly run “business”. And government punishes those in the private sector who cheat.

      • Sorry if my answer was not direct, used the Postal Service as an example of how they operate.

        • USWeapon says:

          LOI,

          Yes several of you were dancing around it, but it was obvious to me that you understood what I was getting to. I just had to state it simply for those that hadn’t gotten it yet.

    • Chris Devine says:
    • Chris Devine says:
      • In that article it stated that the US was ranked 37th in the world at Overall Health System Performance.

        As I’ve found out, the data for a lot of those studies is voluntary (this could be one where impartial data was collected). The US is usually more honest than most countries when responding to those surveys. Therefore they rank lower. I noticed that Columbia was ranked ahead of the US in Overall Health System Performance. Would you really want to go to a doctor in Columbia over one in the states? Also, if cost was given a heavy weighting then that would kill the performance rating of the US.

        I agree that Health Care Reform is needed. But a gov’t run program spells disaster. Pass rules on limiting litigation and on the insurance costs for doctors. That accounts for a significant cost run up in the system. Also, reduce the cost to pharmaceutical companies to release a new drug. Between those two you could cut a trillion or two out in 5-10 years.

        I know the administrator in one of the local doctors offices and they pay $100,000 to $200,000 per doctor per year for insurance. Basically equal to what the doctor makes! Those costs are passed on. Another reason costs are high is because Medicare/Medicaid pay a percentage of the office normal rate. So the doctors jack up their rate to get what they need out of the Medicare/Medicaid system. Fixing these problems would be way more effective in driving costs down than a gov’t program.

    • Chris Devine says:
    • Chris Devine says:

    • Chris Devine says:
    • My first thought is that, yes, we need some kind of Health Care Reform. Something needs to be done about the skyrocketing cost of Health Care. But does Government need to get in the Healthcare bizz? Not only NO, but HELL NO!!!!

      The Federal Government cannot run the Federal Government. Why would they be able to run Health Care? They CAN”T.

      I see all these insurance companies, the AMA, Doctors and Pharmacutical Companies stepping up and agreeing to cut costs voluntarily trying to keep Obama and the Federal Stooges out, and I can’t help but wonder, why couldn’t they have done this sooner? BEFORE our fearless leaders decided they had to fix it for themselves.

      • Black Flag says:

        I see all these insurance companies, the AMA, Doctors and Pharmacutical Companies stepping up and agreeing to cut costs voluntarily trying to keep Obama and the Federal Stooges out, and I can’t help but wonder, why couldn’t they have done this sooner?

        Because the government, by the use of socialist systems of Medicare, etc. and by legally protecting the AMA from competition – removed market discipline.

        Therefore, the only discipline left must come from the entity that destroyed it in the first place – government.

        • Chris Devine says:

          So it’s OK with you when an insurance company denies coverage based upon pre-existing conditions or denies payment for treatment against the advice of physicians?

          Do you think there should be no licensing for medical workers?

          BTW, the AMA only represents about 20% of America’s doctors.

          • Black Flag says:

            So it’s OK with you when an insurance company denies coverage based upon pre-existing conditions or denies payment for treatment against the advice of physicians?

            IF the insurance company knew about such a condition, but issued a policy which included that coverage, and THEN reneged – that is wrong and immoral.

            If the condition was not disclosed; if the condition was not covered – then the insurance is moral and right to deny coverage.

            The reason, Chris, is for a greater good.

            If the insurance company begins to pay for things that they (1) did not get payment for or (2) that were fraudulent – it will severely reduce their ability to pay for the coverage of those that do pay and were not fraudulent.

            Do you think there should be no licensing for medical workers?

            Correct.

            However, every industry has certification standards – such as mine. It is not a requirement, however, it certainly separates the professionals from the boys.

            Would you go to a doctor who wasn’t certified? Probably not – and probably neither would I, unless I knew from trusted others that he was worth his salt. But removing my right to go to him on my own decision is a terrible wrong

            BTW, the AMA only represents about 20% of America’s doctors.

            …but 100% of the power.

          • The state of Maine mandates liberal pre-existing conditions to be covered, so the BC/BS rates are double of those of comparable policies in neighboring states. And because of their involvement, I recall even one year, there was only BC/BS – now there’s only 2 or 3 but they’re quite restrictive or HMO based.

            • Black Flag says:

              Exactly, Frank.

              You can never, ever, fool economics.

              Push it one way, it will take back-in Spades-the other way.

  3. USWeapon says:

    USWeapon Topic #3

    The Supreme Court rendered a ruling on Monday that missed a lot of coverage mainly because they chose not to answer the question that many thought they might tackle. The Civil Rights Act of 1965 included a provision that gave the federal government oversight authority over states and local jurisdictions surrounding voting. This was needed in 1965, as southern states were using discriminatory laws to disenfranchise blacks.

    In 2006, Congress reauthorized Section 5 of the voting rights law, which requires many state and local governments, mostly in the South, to seek federal permission before making even minor changes to voting procedures. Critics have said a nation capable of electing a black president should no longer tolerate such federal intrusion into state affairs.

    So what say all of you? Should this law be repealed? Should the federal government have any say in the voting laws and procedures of a state or municipality? Or should this be one of the opening steps in getting the federal hands out of the state’s cookie jars?

    You can read the story by the New York Times Here: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/23/us/23scotus.html

    • I can’t believe it, but I agree with the French. France, as well as most of Europe, is being overrun with Muslims. This, I believe, is by design. It will destroy cultures which have existed for quite some time if something is not done to reign them in. If this helps things to that end, I am for it.

      • Sorry, replied to the wrong topic…try being blonde!

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        Being ‘overrun by Muslims’? What the H is that supposed to mean?

        • Let’s see, Your traditional French have a birthrate below replacement level because of selfishness, self-actiualization and homosexuality. Your typical Muslim immigrant produces four to six offspring, first generation. It gets lower in the second but does not approach negative territory. Your immigration continues unabated, ergo, Latin adverb meaning therefore, eventually, they replace you.

          In the US, it is the Latin American immigrants doing the same thing however, by the second generation, through assimilation, they stop reproducing at geometric rates.

          Regarding the why’s, people from a rural, poor culture tend to reproduce at rates needed in their country of origin. My grandparents did it. Nine siblings in Mom’s family, eight in Dad’s. next generation had only one who had three and several who had one. No more need to worry about taking care of the farm or infant mortality. Among my 1st cousins, there will be no replacements in quite a few cases. On My generation, we probably broke even.

          Do not believe that this is deliberate. The deliberate part is the unabated immigration, the total change/destruction of a culture is unintended consequences.

    • Danak13 says:

      Wars have been fought over state’s rights….they can be again. Oh, wait…Ray and Bf and others will think that I mean a secession movement. States should have the right to govern their own. Only where the National interest is involved, should there be federal oversight. For example, since voting is National Issue on President, then there should be oversight…but what the hell….ACORN proved that wrong.

      The Federal Government needs to stay the hell away from the Sates. If otherwise, why is there a State governor, and State Senators and representatives? The Federal Government forcing its way into the states is simply more power for the Feds. Maybe it will come to a fight.

      • JayDickB says:

        I would be happy for the federal government to stay away from voting entirely. I mean, let the states determine how to select congressmen, senators, and presidential electors. If a state wants to use the jury system suggested by Black Flag earlier, let them. Voter fraud? Let the state handle it.

        There are very few areas where centralization is truly warranted.

    • JayDickB says:

      This law should be repealed. My state is subject to it. A few years ago, an organization I belonged to talked about forming a separate city so we would no longer be under the county zoning and building codes. We were advised that it would be impossible because the voting rights act required the same percentage of minorities in the new city as the county had.

      This is an egregious intrusion into state’s rights. I don’t understand the supreme court decision. Of course, that’s not unusual.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      Where is the root of our right to vote? That should answer your question (Federal v. State).

      • USWeapon says:

        The Constitution giving us the form for our government gives us the right to vote. However, the law at hand is the 1965 Act I mentioned above. The Constitution sets up the form of government. It does not not give the federal government the right to dictate to the states in this issue. If that is what you are implying, go back and read it again. If it is not, then what are you implying?

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          Well – let me back up a minute then. From what I can dig up there is no Federal or Constitutional basis for a ‘right to vote’ (http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#vote). This was further established by the wording: “The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States” as defined by the Supreme Court in Bush V. Gore (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html) – anyone feel better about that decision now? Anyway – back to the State v. Federal issue here – I absolutely believe there needs to be an even stronger case for a normalization of voting laws and process in this Country. Jesse Jackson Jr. actually gets it right when he states:

          “Our voting system’s foundation is built on the sand of states’ rights and local control. We have fifty states, 3,141 counties and 7,800 different local election jurisdictions. All separate and unequal.” (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060206/jackson)

          The last part of the sentence is the important – separate and unequal. Now, wherein the substantiation of inequality is solely the badge of modern American conservatism, I for one as many others do, reject that notion. Jackson offers examples of inequality which support this view. I have worked in elections at the local level in different municipalities and will offer that largely because there is a lack of consistency, far more money is wasted on efficiency, bureaucratic b.s. and conflicting process. We can and should one set of rules for the game so everyone plays the game the same way.

    • As they have ALREADY stuck their nose in our voting process in my State of GA, I say repeal the Law and stay OUT of my State’s business.

  4. USWeapon says:

    USWeapon Topic #4

    The French parliament created a commission yesterday to study the wearing of body-covering burqas (Muslim traditional clothing) in France. The 32-member commission, with members from France’s four biggest political parties, will hold hearings that could lead to legislation banning burqas and face-covering niqabs from being worn in public.

    On Monday, French President Sarkozy told legislators he supported banning burqas in public, calling them “a sign of the debasement” of women. “We cannot accept that women be prisoners behind a screen, cut off from all social life, deprived of all identity,” he said. “It will not be welcome on the territory of the French Republic.”

    First, why is it that all the sudden the French are less worried about hurting someone’s feelings than whiny ass Americans? Second, given that this is a personal choice of dress associated with these women’s religions, are the French way out of line in possibly passing legislation that would ban the wearing of them? Is this religious persecution?

    You can view the story (although most of the article is what I put above) from The Times in South Africa here: http://www.thetimes.co.za/News/Article.aspx?id=1022487

    • TexasChem says:

      “First, why is it that all the sudden the French are less worried about hurting someone’s feelings than whiny ass Americans?”

      The French are fed up with the Muslim immigrants in their country is the reason why.The Muslims do not acculturate well into French society.There have been numerous riots, beatings, honor killings, murders in the Muslim communities there.

      • France got a new Pres, who is trying to get them back on track. We have the perception they are lazy compared to us, but they had tax laws that took 50% of their earnings when they worked more than 36 hours. He has gotten rid of that, and is looking at their problems with immigration. Wonder if we will pay attention and learn anything?

      • Proud Soldiers Mom says:

        I think it is Sarkozy’s underlying attempt to keep muslums out of France, without coming right out and saying we don’t want what is happening in the UK to happen in our country.

    • Richmond Spitfire says:

      You know US Weapon…That was my first thought…wow, they call Americans insensitive towards other peoples/beliefs!!!!!

      TexasChem…I’m totally with you…Europe is getting fed up with Muslims coming into an established country with established laws and not abiding!

      Hey…Money speaks and when there isn’t a whole lot of money to go around, you start seeing people switch to self-survival mode. Europe is sick and tired of Muslims coming in, and jumping onto the welfare wagon all the while sticking their middle finger up to the traditions/laws of their adopted country.

      Hope everyone has a lovely day!

      RS

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Muslims have figured out that if you want to take over a country, the easiest way to do it is to move there, get on the dole, bankrupt the country and then simply take over.

        The Chinese have figured out that if you want to take over a country, simply watch as that country quickly bankrupts itself and continually buy up all of that country’s debt, so that eventually you simply own the country without ever even having to lift a finger.

    • Cultural assimilation. The melting pot is an analogy for the way in which heterogeneous societies become more homogeneous, in which the ingredients in the pot (people of different cultures, races and religions) are combined so as to develop a multi-ethnic society. The term, which originates from the United States, is often used to describe societies experiencing large scale immigration from many different countries.

      Europe has a declining birth rate, below what is needed to sustain a society, which they have offset with increased immigration. It is interesting that many countries are failing to bring their immigrants into their societies. Muslims especially have resisted adopting the laws and values of their new home. France has experienced riots that are entirely made up of young Arabs. Their rape rates have jumped at an unbelievable rate, again, its mainly young Arabs offenders. Spain,the U.K. also have seen increased violence from their immigrants. The Muslims demand recognition of Sharia, or Islamic law, where a rape victium may be stoned to death, and her rapist may or may not pay a fine.

      America has been the best example of how to successfully bring multiple cultures together to form a productive society. That seems to be changing, Mexicans immigrants are willing to riot calling for reclaiming their “stolen” lands from America. It seems this “political correctness” is aimed at muzzeling citizens who do not want their country taken away in a war without bullets.

      • Richmond Spitfire says:

        Hi all,

        Recently I saw this video…not sure if someone here posted it or what, but here it is…

        Overall, I personally enjoy my way of life here in the United States. I am not interested in eventually having to submit to Sharia Law. I am not interested in having my face smacked because I talked back to my husband (as IF he would…). I enjoy wearing pretty clothes and am not interested in wearing a flour sack with my face covered. I want my daughter to be able to ride her bike just like my son gets to without being concerned that her hymen won’t be intact, therefore making her unmarriageable. The list goes go on and on!

        Tell me (and prove to me) that it can’t/won’t happen…that we Americans can’t be assimilated into a Muslim way of life/government.

        RS

        • RS, I can only say that I would likely not live if this change was to begin to happen. Like many on here, the fight for freedom never ends, just changes clothes. Freedom is certainly not free and the cost is high, but I’d rather die fighting for freedom, than live as a slave!

          G!

          • Richmond Spitfire says:

            G-Man:

            My Kitty-Kat Club (Cougar, Bobcat and Tomcat), some non kitty-kats, and I will be standing right next to you fighting for freedom.

            Regards,
            RS

            • I got the answer here. Just came to me…. take all the ladies with PMS, menopause, and hot flashes…arm them, point them in the right direction and dive for cover. It would be over in a heart beat….or less.

              Just teasing RS 🙂

              • Richmond Spitfire says:

                Danak,

                I think you are on to something here…I’d like to add that you show them a picture of their “hateful” ex-husband (if they have one) beforehand…That will increase the “berserkerness” ten-fold and she will have no match on the battlefield.

                Of course, we could always give our menfolk an estrogen shot to help them along a bit! 😉

                Regards,
                RS

              • JayDickB says:

                Do you know what is causing global warming? All the baby boomer women getting hot flashes at the same time.

              • Richmond Spitfire says:

                😆

                Q: Did you hear about Levi’s new jeans for Baby Boomer men?
                A: They come with just a “Viagra” more room.

        • Spitfire,

          I have seen this one, great video, thanks for providing.

          I have can’t find one I’ve seen on immigration in the US, think it was called “Our Last Hope”. A guy shows what our immigration policies will result in by 2050, based on census figures. Very shocking.

    • Danak13 says:

      Who cares about the French? Europe is getting its just deserts…their socialist policies are now delivering. I only hope America sees this. I know, USW, I am not my usual self today but your blog on “whiners” has really made me think again and I think we should just sit back and say I told you so and when Europe asks again…just say no. Take care of yourself. We are tired and have our own set of problems.

      • Danak13 says:

        Sorry about using the wrong analogy up there. Meant to say desserts. Sigh!!! Maybe I should have not said anything else because a desert is where they are headed. I hope the wine and pastries make it. Oh, and their weapons. never fired and only dropped once…..crap sorry USW. I did not stay on topic.

    • If the religion affords slavery is it to be tolerated because its a part of that religion? Traditional Islam is a man’s religion thus the covering. It means very clearly “MINE!” and I can see where some men (the older the more adamant) can’t imagine giving that up. Can’t have the young bucks drooling all over the old man’s jealously guarded prize now can we?

      There isn’t enough sugar on the planet to disguise that taste to most but to those of us with daughters its more than just unpalatable.

    • Naten53 says:

      maybe the burqas should be applied to all school children. Think of it, no distractions in class, they can’t see each others faces, they can’t tease someone for looks, they can’t compete to have the best clothes or shoes, parents don’t need to worry about their kid not being able to compete with kids that are more advanced because the teacher won’t be able to tell who is who since they all look the same.

  5. Csm said on June 23, 2009 at 12:40 am e

    Black Flag, If you’re feeling kindly toward me, I have something I’d like you to look over.

    Mish Shedlock posted an article today (The Big Inflationist Scare)
    http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/06/big-inflationist-scare.html
    debunking another article by Gary North (Pushing on a String links in the first if you want to see it). Mr. North articulated some of the same reasoning that you generously shared last week when I asked about deflation, but his analysis was not as extensive as yours. Mr. Shedlock takes issue with several points.

    MS: Gary’s hypothesis “the Federal Reserve can re-ignite monetary inflation at any time by charging banks a fee to keep excess reserves with the FED”, is just that, a hypothesis, and I believe a very poor one at that.

    The Fed does have the ability, under that aegis of its charter and relationship with the current administration, to force banks to increase lending at exceptionally attractive terms if necessary to entice reluctant borrowers. It has not executed that ability recently.

    MS: Bernanke’s idea to pay interest on reserves will slowly recapitalize banks over time. This is why he desperately wanted to do so. To suggest he is about to charge interest on deposits is silly.

    Slowly, as in geological time? The interest rate is < 1%.

    MS: The key fact now is there are not enough credit worthy customers for banks to want to lend, or for that matter willing borrowers looking to expand debt. Thus, if banks had to pay interest on reserves, rather than causing mass inflation, the Fed would cause mass panic.

    I don't have a good rebuttal for the first part, but I question that panic assertion in the last part. My experience in the back office of local bank tells me that, as a group, bankers don't panic easily, and I suspect that the change of a relatively new (Oct 08) Fed regulation would not send them screaming into the night.

    MS: Indeed, the likely result would be banks scrambling for dollars to repay the Fed as opposed to a mad dash to lend dollars.

    Even if they get the required permissions from the Fed, Treasury, the payback czar and their mamas, TARP has no impact on the regulations requiring reserve deposits, that money remains in the vault or at the Fed.

    MS: Of course those "excess reserves" are a mirage; they don't really exist. Banks need those reserves because of the massive wave of credit card defaults and foreclosures yet to hit the books. Every uptick in unemployment exacerbates credit card losses, foreclosures, losses on home equity loans, etc, something that Gary North ignores.

    A mirage in a number of ways: fiat money; virtual deposits. Credit card defaults are ticking up, led by the taxpayers' old buddy BofA at 12%, with JPMorgan trailing the fivepack at 8.91%, handing us an average of 9.92. The 2005 average was 6%, after the bankruptcylaws changed, the 2007 avg was 4.5. That is significant, but less than 'massive' would imply. And isn't the existence of (and potential for more) huge loss the reason for the 'financial crisis'. Besides you forgot commercial real estate, but points will be awarded for 'unemployment exacerbates'.

    MS: So charging interest on reserves would not bring about inflation, it would cause a systemic deflationary crash.

    Google said to define systemic deflationary crash as a severe reduction in all lending activity – that doesn't contradict my understanding of deflation. I recently read in an article by Mish Shedlock that "there are not enough credit worthy customers for banks to want to lend, or for that matter willing borrowers looking to expand debt".

    What did I miss/turn around? Please be gentle. c

    • Black Flag says:

      Dr. Gary North is a good acquaintance – and a very smart man.

      MS: Gary’s hypothesis “the Federal Reserve can re-ignite monetary inflation at any time by charging banks a fee to keep excess reserves with the FED”, is just that, a hypothesis, and I believe a very poor one at that.

      The Fed does have the ability, under that aegis of its charter and relationship with the current administration, to force banks to increase lending at exceptionally attractive terms if necessary to entice reluctant borrowers. It has not executed that ability recently.

      Correct.

      The Fed – historically – paid no interest on Reserve Deposits. This program to pay interest on excess reserves is very new, Oct 2008, in fact.

      http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/20081006a.htm

      It is not likely the FED could predict the consequence of paying 1/4 of a percent interest (0.25%) on reserve deposits that led the Big Banks to pack $800 billion in excess reserve – and gave them a choice of lending to the public, or ‘saving’ their capital at an insignificant interest rate. This does indicate bank fear of the economy.

      I believe the FED will reconsider their position on this and eliminate the interest payment. There is no established protocol of interest payments, so the elimination will not be resisted by the internal bureaucracy of the Fed.

      MS: Bernanke’s idea to pay interest on reserves will slowly recapitalize banks over time. This is why he desperately wanted to do so. To suggest he is about to charge interest on deposits is silly.

      Slowly, as in geological time? The interest rate is < 1%.

      I agree.

      At 0.25% – it would take 288 years to double their money in the Fed. Nearly 300 years to earn $800 billion??

      I cannot conceive of them waiting that long to become ‘profitable’ – even if the profit is merely fiat and inflationary currency.

      MS: The key fact now is there are not enough credit worthy customers for banks to want to lend, or for that matter willing borrowers looking to expand debt. Thus, if banks had to pay interest on reserves, rather than causing mass inflation, the Fed would cause mass panic.

      I don’t have a good rebuttal for the first part, but I question that panic assertion in the last part. My experience in the back office of local bank tells me that, as a group, bankers don’t panic easily, and I suspect that the change of a relatively new (Oct 08) Fed regulation would not send them screaming into the night.

      I agree.

      Since the banks have operated under a “no interest” environment from the beginning, I doubt they would suddenly be panicked into a “Oh my God! Now what do we do!!?!?” mode.

      As far as finding creditworthy customers, that is never an issue. Inflation favors debtors. There are a lot of debtors. Debtors need to borrow.

      MS: Indeed, the likely result would be banks scrambling for dollars to repay the Fed as opposed to a mad dash to lend dollars.

      Even if they get the required permissions from the Fed, Treasury, the payback czar and their mamas, TARP has no impact on the regulations requiring reserve deposits, that money remains in the vault or at the Fed.

      Yep.

      MS: Of course those “excess reserves” are a mirage; they don’t really exist. Banks need those reserves because of the massive wave of credit card defaults and foreclosures yet to hit the books. Every uptick in unemployment exacerbates credit card losses, foreclosures, losses on home equity loans, etc, something that Gary North ignores.

      A mirage in a number of ways: fiat money; virtual deposits. Credit card defaults are ticking up, led by the taxpayers’ old buddy BofA at 12%, with JPMorgan trailing the fivepack at 8.91%, handing us an average of 9.92. The 2005 average was 6%, after the bankruptcy laws changed, the 2007 avg was 4.5. That is significant, but less than ‘massive’ would imply. And isn’t the existence of (and potential for more) huge loss the reason for the ‘financial crisis’. Besides you forgot commercial real estate, but points will be awarded for ‘unemployment exacerbates’.

      … and those reserves are not there to pay for the defaults. Those reserves are there to lend more money. The way the banks can stave off large losses is to earn large profits and/or inflate the losses away.

      A loss on the books is dealt with the same way as a debt – it is on the opposite side of the ledger as income/profit.

      Under Inflation income dollars increase – while the debt/loss dollars depreciate. It takes no brainic to see that the banks, if faced with large losses, would consider using inflation to mitigate them.

      MS: So charging interest on reserves would not bring about inflation, it would cause a systemic deflationary crash.

      Google said to define systemic deflationary crash as a severe reduction in all lending activity – that doesn’t contradict my understanding of deflation. I recently read in an article by Mish Shedlock that “there are not enough credit worthy customers for banks to want to lend, or for that matter willing borrowers looking to expand debt”.

      What did I miss/turn around? Please be gentle. C

      I agree. The US is in a deflationary period now – because the banks aren’t lending because of the current set of circumstances.

      A change of the circumstances that is causing the deflation is very unlikely to reinforce the deflation and quite likely cause the opposite – inflation.

      But even in a larger picture, it is in the benefit of the banks (to mitigate their toxic debt load) and the government (to mitigate their $1 trillion/3 month borrowing) to have inflation. It makes no sense at all for either entity to encourage anything else since doing so would severely curtail the ability of the government to fund its pogroms.

      The current deflationary period cannot be sustained by the government expenditures. In an era of Socialist/Fascism, do not bet against government.

      So, I don’t think you missed a thing, CSM!

      I forwarded the essence of your questions directly to Dr. North himself. He answered in his blog:

      To summarize Mish’s scenario:

      1. The debt pyramid will implode.
      2. The Federal Reserve will not be able to stop this.
      3. There will be serious, bankrupting, depression-creating monetary deflation.
      4. There will be long-term price deflation.
      5. When prices finally reach bottom, or close to it, thereby reversing 100+ years of FED inflating, the government will restore the gold standard.
      6. All nations that do not copy the USA will experience hyperinflation: money with zero value.
      7. Then there will be only the gold standard.

      This is what I gather from what I have read. If my summary is incomplete, then he needs to write a book detailing his scenario: the economic evidence, his theory of political action, and the chain of events that are likely to bring scenario to pass. I have done this for gold in my book, The Gold Wars. He should do the same.

      If this scenario is inaccurate, and if we don’t go back to the gold standard, then the USA will experience hyperinflation: money of zero value. Then we will have to go back to the gold standard, or start all over again: mass inflation.

      Your assessment of Mish’s arguments against me and all other predictors of price inflation depends on your assessment of the accuracy of his forecast.

      What would systematic price deflation do? We would see a collapse of overleveraged large banks and overleveraged insurance firms all over the world, a huge increase in unemployment, an increase in bankruptcies, and double or triple the number of home foreclosures. We would see the Great Depression.

      What then? He is saying that the voters all over the world will respond by adopting Ron Paul’s view of the gold standard and central banking. They will force the politicians to restore the gold standard and shut down the central banks, so that the banking system cannot undermine gold again.

      This is a theory of political action, not a theory of inevitable economic processes. He is implicitly arguing that in a time of incomparable economic crisis, Congress will abandon Keynesianism, monetarism, supply-side theory, and rational expectations economics in favor of Austrianism. Congress will do this, despite the opposition of 99.9% of all economists and business school professors. Meanwhile, the voters will not cry out for more government money. The voters will demand budget cuts, a balanced Federal budget, and the abolition of the Federal Reserve System.

      My assessment: somewhere, over the rainbow, way up high.

      Thanks CSM!

  6. This is for BF and anyone else with an opinion on this subject . . .

    Bf got my ire up a little when he stated in yesterday’s post that the Iranian military could just run over the U.S. military (specifically the American Army) and then close off the gulf.

    My answer, which as of this writing he has not responded to, is that the Iranian military first was held to a stale mate for years by Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi military and if “Ach-med-the-nut-job” could have done that he would have done so a long time ago. Secondly, Iran is a Theocratic Dictatorship run by the Ayatollah Komenei and no one does anything or says anything without his prior approval and input.

    Knowing that I am a retired Marine and Viet Nam Veteran, BF, I do believe that your assessment of the Iranian military is totally flawed – even I have much more faith and trust in the U.S. Army than you have.

    • USWeapon says:

      GA,

      I answered BF on that subject near the bottom of that thread. I also think he was flawed in making such an assessment. But he did answer you, just further down the page.

      • Okay, I went back and found it.

        I also read your rebuttal to his far flung theory that the little mouse might roar and defeat the United States in a military conflict. I agree with you on that assessment, however I still believe that we might be able to help those dissidents in Iran some, at least with some weapons and ammo if they want it.

        Iran might not have a good standing army, but if they are allowed to obtain nuclear warheads . . . well, destabilization in the middle east would be the understatement of the millennium!

        • Providing guns and ammo to the dissidents would be a very, very, very, very bad idea. We have been messing with Iran for far too long, the best idea would be to either leave them alone completely or try to engage them diplomatically. Providing guns to a rebelling minority would be near the bottom of the “What to do with Iran” list.

          • Bob, US, All

            Seems we are actively supporting Iranian dissidents. From Flags answer to me yesterday.
            Having ‘puter problems, sorry for not including link.

            The largest and most well known of the anti-government organizations is Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), operating out of Iraq. For years MEQ had launched cross-border attacks and terrorist acts against Iran with the support of Saddam Hussein. Officially designated a terrorist organization by the U.S. State Department in 1997, and disarmed of heavy weaponry by the U.S. military six years later, Washington has since come to view MEK in a different light. Three years ago, U.S. intelligence officials suggested looking the other way as the MEK rearmed and to use the organization to destabilize Iran, a recommendation that clearly has been accepted.

            • Actually, it is hypothetical based on English speaking Iranians and cell phones and twitter.

          • Leave them alone…..completely. No diplomacy…nothing. Let the rest of the world deal with it.

    • You’d merely have to act the part of “The Great Satan” they paint you as to win the lot in less than a day… less than 60 minutes if you play truly unfair.

    • Black Flag says:

      I’ve respond to USWep’s posts of yesterday in yesterday’s thread.

      If USWep wished to move up that discussion here – that’s fine….

  7. I would laugh if it wasnt so tragic. Apparently their is a memo detailing a meeting between George Bush and Tony Blair two months before the invasion of Iraq. In the meeting the two leaders were aware that they would not get UN approval for an invasion because the UN would not be able to find any WMD’s. This is what they came up with; “Bush told Blair the US had drawn up a provocative plan “to fly U2 reconnaissance aircraft painted in UN colours over Iraq with fighter cover”. Bush said that if Saddam fired at the planes this would put the Iraqi leader in breach of UN resolutions.”

    If this document is correct the US and UK’s leaders both knew that WMD’s would not be found in Iraq so they lied to the public so they could get support for the invasion.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/jun/21/iraq-inquiry-tony-blair-bush

    • USWeapon says:

      If this document is correct the US and UK’s leaders both knew that WMD’s would not be found in Iraq so they lied to the public so they could get support for the invasion.

      Incorrect Bob. It means that they were willing to paint a plane and bait him into making a bad move. Anything else that you think you know about what they “knew” is nothing more than your opinion. You are welcome to it. But I fought in that region. The WMD arguments are old and worn out. I will say only that those of you who feel like you have all the answers about WMD’s in Iraq know absolutely nothing about what you are talking about. He had them. We know he had them. HE said he had them. He threatened to use them on us. We couldn’t find them later. Live with it. If you tell me you are going to punch me in the face, I will floor you. If I find out later that you don’t have the use of your arms, tough. You shouldn’t have threatened me.

      I know you hate this war, but really dude, let it alone. Those of us who believe there were WMD’s aren’t listening any longer. Those who believe that it was a lie made up as an excuse to attack are already on your side. Those like me who don’t really give two shits whether Iraq had WMD’s or not and still don’t have a problem with us attacking Saddam could really care less about all the whining about WMD’s. What exactly is your point in bringing this up now? Talk about beating a dead horse. Should I continue to point out that King George wasn’t such a great guy or that Mick Jagger is ugly as hell? Bush is not President any more. Blair is not PM any more. We are in Iraq and have to find a way out. There is the reality. What is the point of constantly bringing up these conspiracy theories and attempting to rile people up about them. Are you afraid that Bush or Blair are going to somehow run for election again and win?

      • I am sorry you are so dismissive about being lied to, I am not. The people responsible for the invasion of Iraq should be brought up on war crimes. If Bush and Blair had told the people of our countries that Saddam posed no threat to us but we were going to take him out of power what would the reaction have been to the invasion?

        Justice is the reason I am bringing this up or the complete lack of it as this will happen here. 5000+ US dead, 100,000+ iraqi dead, the “no use crying over spilt milk” attitude does not gel well with me, maybe if you had maimed friends in hospital who wont be able to walk again because they went over there based on a lie you would think differently.

        I am afraid the men responsible for thousands of dead civilians, thousands of dead and wounded soldiers will be left unpunished. I suppose you also think the people responsible for war crimes in Nazi Germany, Congo, Bosnia etc should be left alone because hey whats done is done no use whining about it.

        • “I am sorry you are so dismissive about being lied to, I am not.”

          You’re lied to every day by the leaders of this country. They say things and make you believe things that are not true. Its part of the nature of politics. They say what they want to to get things done. Every President and every administration does it.

          I’m not happy about it but there is very little that can be done.

          • I am from the UK but there is no difference really in politicians from either country, they all lie the same.

            You look at the people in Iran who are protesting, although I think it will be fruitless you have got to admire the guts it takes to do that, I doubt you would see anything of that scale here in the UK, people are far too complacent.

          • JayDickB says:

            Know how to tell when a politician is lying? See if his lips are moving.

        • Bob….you are from the UK….right?

          I have friends that are dead and maimed physically, wounded mentally, and have caused some of it myself. Do I think that we went in on a lie…..No…do I think we went in unjustifiably…. I am on the fence on that one.

          WMD’s were there and used previously. We know where they are and how they got there. Syria is complicit in this. Gas is a WMD. Hell, our own “daisy cutter” is a WMD…..any weapon capable of multiple deaths is a WMD. I have been on the receiving end. A mortar shell is a WMD. So are IED’s. Get real, here. WMD are not just nukes…ask any combat soldier. So get off the liar liar pants on fire issue here. It does not wash.

          • D13 that is a terrible argument. Everyone with a firearm has a weapon of mass destruction, we had better lock them up. Firearms can kill lots of people right? By your definition a lot of citizens in America are in trouble.
            If you want to include conventional weapons like mortars as WMD’s then we better start the draft cos we got some invadin to do.

            If we were so certain where the WMD’s were and we were 100% sure they were in fact WMD’s why were they not target No.1? The skies must have been littered with spy satellites and observational special forces teams watching on the ground in Iraq before the invasion. Where the hell did those weapons go??? Again I don’t like being lied to and certainly not a lie that has caused thousands upon thousands of deaths, your okay with that, I am not.

            • JayDickB says:

              If you believe you were lied to (a lie meaning a knowing, intentional, untruth), you were lied to by a lot more people than Bush and Blair. Bill Clinton comes to mind, but there were many others.

              • Good, get them to court and try them if we can prove that they lied about Iraq. These people will never be brought to justice and it makes my blood boil.

              • Amazed1 says:

                Iraq’s own leader lied to….maybe we should retry him.

              • Yeah good idea, lets get him up on trial again.

        • USWeapon says:

          maybe if you had maimed friends in hospital who wont be able to walk again because they went over there based on a lie you would think differently.

          I take great offense to that statement. First of all, do you know my history at all? Have you been paying attention to anything I have written over the last 7 months? I spent ten years in the US military. Ten years. I went to combat over and over. I had friends killed and maimed. I have my own wounds that I deal with constantly. And you make a statement like that? That might be the dumbest statement that I have seen on this site addressed to me since I began writing it.

          I am going to let it go at this point and simply chalk it up to the common arrogance of folks like you who think that for some reason the rest of the world just can’t see things the way you do because you simply know more than we do. It was an awful arrogant statement to make and to address both myself and Danak as though we don’t know the results of war shows that you are arrogant enough to believe you can tell soldiers who have been there and watched those friends get disabled that you understand it better than we do. I don’t claim to understand it “better” than you, but I sure as heck aren’t going to stand for you thinking you know jack shit about war and I don’t. Are you a veteran?

          • Its exactly because I knew your history that I posted that comment and I knew exactly how you would respond now. That’s why your quit whining comment made me decide to post it. Soldiers have needlessly died and been maimed over there for what cause? I thought you of all people would have been opposed to sending soldiers out to die when our people had not been in danger at all. I support soldiers no matter what but we should not have been in Iraq at all, someone has to answer for this mistake.

            • USWeapon says:

              And who do you think is going to answer for it? Bush? Blair? We both know better than that.

              I am always opposed to sending soldiers to die for no reason. But I do think there was plenty of reason to take out Saddam. Does that mean if I was President I would have made that decision? No, I wouldn’t have. But Bush did and I am OK with it for a multitude of reasons. I do not agree that Saddam was not a threat.

            • USWeapon says:

              And it should be noted that the vast majority of soldiers who actually had to go and fight this war, agree with it. There are a few here and there who don’t. But most do.

              • JudyS.NV. says:

                USW, I have to agree with what you said. I’m going to speak for my son here and what he told us when he was in Iraq the first time. He was there in 04-05 and has seen things there that only he can describe. He was in a convoy going through Najaf, when they were suddenly attacked by insurgents. Remember that fight between Al Sadar and his men, well, my son was involved in that. A former Marine now. Anyway, he said that when he was there, that at least 80% of the Iraqi’s were glad they were, and were afraid of what might happen if they leave. My son said he was glad to go there and do what they could to help them achieve the freedom they were so desperate for. They were afraid to say anything for fear of being killed by insurgents. BTW, that’s where he lost 5 of his buddies, was in Najaf. My son also said he had no trouble killing those insurgents either. As he said, it was either them or me. He told us things that happened there that would curl your toes, then there are things he absolutely won’t talk about either. He said he’ll take a lot of that to his grave. He went back for a second tour in 06-07, when he said things were a little better. He said also that we did the right thing by going in there, and for taking out Saddam. He also said, that if you haven’t been in the service, or have never been in combat, you really can’t say too much about it. He said it pisses him off when he hears people say the things they do about what Bush did by going into Iraq. He feels he did the right thing, by going there. Just thought I’d let you know what my son said and how he feels. He said he couldn’t be prouder of himself for doing his job in making this country and Iraq maybe a little more safe.

                Judy

                P.S. He’s been out of the Marines now for a little over a year, but is now in the National Guard Reserves. His older brother is a full time Guard and works in Carson City, in fact, he is the ammo manager for the state of Nevada.

      • “If you tell me you are going to punch me in the face, I will floor you. If I find out later that you don’t have the use of your arms, tough. You shouldn’t have threatened me.”

        I have been threatened with violence before and although I have been physically stronger than the person, I found ways to resolve the conflict without resorting to violence. Resorting to violence shows qualities of a lesser man and you will usually find that peoples barks are worse than their bites.

        • TexasChem says:

          Shamelessly stolen from http://WWW.atlasshrugs.com

          Iran: A Letter from a Marine

          Dear Atlas,
          First of all, thank you for showing the pictures of the casualties in Iran. They are graphic and disturbing but their exposure is necessary. People need to see what is happening in there. My heart goes out to those brave people in Iran, they are fighting for freedom and I admire them. They have more of a spine than many Americans today do. But that is because they have experienced some things that most Americans haven’t: hardship and oppression. We have forgotten how it feels to be in their shoes. Again, may God help the Iranian people overthrow their oppressors.

          I’m actually writing to you tonight to tell you how proud I have been these last few days to be an Iraq Veteran. There is something missing in our news media and all the talk about the events in Iran- Maybe, just maybe, is it at all possible that these people in Iran saw a functioning democracy right next door in Iraq and thought, “Why can’t we have that?” Or is this all just a coincidence? I’ve asked that question to a lot of people in the last few days and I refuse to believe that they are not connected. You can’t tell me that those Iraqis coming out of the polls with their blackened fingers didn’t have any influence on the Iranian people and what is happening today.

          According to Bush and Cheney one of the reasons we went to Iraq was to set up a democracy right in the center of the Middle East in the heart of repressive regimes and that freedom would spread in a reverse domino effect. Is this the start of that? I think so. But if it is nobody wants to give any attention to it because they won’t admit that Bush may have done something right. Case in point: President Obama. He was against the Iraq War from the start. It was that single issue that he rose to prominence on. He of all people does not want to acknowledge the wisdom of George W. Bush in this area. It would undermine his entire platform of Change and no “more of the same” and all that. Everybody knows that Obama doesn’t want to take an active role in this crisis but I just hope that his lack of action doesn’t doom this for the Iranian people fighting in the streets. This is a great opportunity, the United States has waited 30 years for something like this, I just hope that President Obama doesn’t blow it. I kind of wish it had happened even a year ago. Whatever happens happens. May the Iranian people free themselves from the oppressive grip of the Mullahs. I learned a lot in Iraq, but one thing stood out to me: freedom exists only for those who are worthy of it and willing to pay for it. The problem with the Iraqis was that they didn’t want it bad enough. Turn on the TV, the Iranians want it. I hope they want it bad enough now and will be willing to pay for it. It won’t be cheap.

          Anyways, I have been especially proud of my time in Iraq these last few days. It does my heart good to see Iranians stnding up for their right to vote. I feel like what we did over there had ramifications that reached further than anyone has discussed in a long time. Now we are just starting to see them. I see these brave people in Iran fighting for freedom in their streets and I feel like I helped make a big difference. If the Iranian regime collapses then there will be absolutely no doubt that Iraq was worth the struggle.

          President Obama: Please do not leave the Iranian people high and dry. I beg you, please don’t let this opportunity slip by.

          Atlas, keep up your reporting for the Iranian Freedom Fighters. The left likes to call terrorists Freedom Fighters, these people standing up in Iran are Freedom Fighters. We need to back them up.

          Your Marine

          • JayDickB says:

            For some time, I have wondered if Bush’s real reason for the Iraq war was some grand strategy of dealing with the mideast. Establish a friendly democracy in Iraq and leverage that against the other countries.

            That would be quite a stretch if it is his reason.

        • USWeapon says:

          And bravo to you. My statement was an analogy, Bob, not a threat. I have not thrown a punch in anger in a very long time. Your statement of resorting to violence shows the qualities of a lesser man are lost on me. Was your point to attempt to paint me as a violent person and therefore less of a man than you? Not that I mind, you are welcome to your opinion. I am just wondering whether that was your intent?

          • It was a poor analogy, yes if your attitude is to hit people without trying to settle things first you are a poor excuse for a man. I do not know you but I am just going off what you put in that post, if you are not like that then I apologise.

            • JayDickB says:

              “hit people without trying to settle things first” ??? What? We and the UN tried for years to get access to Iraq to check for WMD. We played around way too long.

              I think we could have done things differently, in hindsight. But Bush didn’t have hindsight.

              • Black Flag says:

                We and the UN tried for years to get access to Iraq to check for WMD.

                And they did get access and found nothing.

                Please review the work of Scott Ritter.

                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Ritter

                William Scott Ritter, Jr. is noted for his role as a chief United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 to 1998, and later for his criticism of United States foreign policy in the Middle East. Prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq in March 2003, Ritter publicly argued that Iraq possessed no significant weapons of mass destruction (WMDs)

              • JayDickB says:

                As I recall, there were certain areas Ritter & Co. were kept out of. Then, they were thrown out entirely, weren’t they?

                In any event, my point is that Bush did not use violence as a first resort.

              • USWeapon says:

                ah revisionist history, BF

            • Bob – It was a very clear analogy to the UN/WMD/Saddam issue !! Or do you just like to create strife?

              • It was a poor analogy because why did Saddam not use his chemical weapons in the first Iraq invasion? Like I said in the post “peoples barks are worse than their bites”. In USWeapons story he said he would knock out a man who threatened to punch him, well the man he just knocked out was crippled who could not in fact do what he claimed he would. Do you now see?

      • USWeapon,
        So you’re Ok with the Bush administration creating stunts to justify going to war?

        The point in bringing something like this up now is to determine the truth.

        Those who don’t learn from history are bound to repeat it.

        If you’re Ok with Bush lying, then don’t complain when Obama lies…

        • USWeapon says:

          No sir, I am not OK with the stunts. What I said was that Bob made a leap to a conclusion that was not warranted by the information provided.

          No the point is not to determine the truth. No one who continues arguing the WMD debate seems to be interested in finding the truth at all. They only seem interested in constantly trying to prove that they are right. I do not believe that Bush was lying. I made that clear. I do believe that Saddam had WMD’s. I have made that clear. I don’t care if we ever find them, I know what I know based on my knowledge and my research. I have made that clear. The fact that I think the whole WMD “argument” is nothing more than a liberal move to capitalize on whatever they can to discredit the right in no way implies that I think that lying is OK, so please don’t try to make that connection. I think the entire debate on this subject is complete bullshit and driven by complete speculation and half truths from those who want to discredit the Bush administration. I choose to throw my bullshit flag and simply move on. I don’t do so because I don’t care if Bush lied or Bush waged an illegal war. I do so because I DON’T think he lied and I DON’T think he waged an illegal war. I think that people like Bob who continue to make this argument have their head buried in a warm spot and are not at all interested in hearing even one single thing that goes against what they believe. I have tried to have this debate with folks like this, and they will simply ignore anything that doesn’t fit what they believe. There is no point in arguing the subject with someone who is only interested in proving they are right rather than interested in trying to learn the reality of the situation.

          I apply this logic to every debate I have. When I debate a topic I try to prove my side. I listen to the other points made contrary to what I believe. If the are logical and reasonable I say so. If one of my points gets proven wrong I say so. If I engage in the debate I do so with a willingness to be wrong and learn that I am wrong. I don’t bother with arguing the point with those who are not willing to consider the fact that they might be wrong. They simply believe what they believe and will not acknowledge any point that contradicts what they believe. They are lemmings and a waste of my time. And they are a waste of yours. You have shown yourself, Todd, to be willing to learn and debate with honesty and to do so without prejudging that the other side cannot possibly be right. Hence why I debate with you.

          • The lib faulty WMD position is also used repeated in the waterboarding / torture mis-presentation.

          • The thing is USWeapon you say you say I have a closed mind but I would sweep away all my accusations if we discovered WMD’s that were a threat to the people of our countries like what our leaders told us. All I have got from you and others are err maybe they are buried in the sand or probably shipped to Syria. If you were running a military operation would you not make sure that the imminent threat to your country was dealt with first, would that not be priority No.1?

            All I have got from you is assumptions and guesswork, from my side is the fact we didnt find anything substantial and several years of UN inspections. Sure we found some old shells filled with chemical weapons that we helped them develop to fight Iran but that was about it really. If you can provide some compelling evidence I would love to hear and see it so far I have got your thoughts and little else. I would love to hear evidence where the weapons are now and I would love to be provided with links, seriously. All I want to know is what Saddam had that would have been an immenent threat to US and UK soil, I would love to be proved wrong so at least the lives of the soldiers who died over there would be validated, that they died protecting the lives of the people in our countries. I have anything but a closed mind as you seem to think but again you have provided me with nothing to argue your case.
            If you want to say we should have gone over there to free the people then fair enough but that is not what we were told by our leaders as the reason for going. Someone lied somewhere down the line that much is obvious, that person or group of people should be held responsible for wasted lives, that is all I ask.

            I am not being sarcastic and very serious, I would love to hear the evidence you have gathered about the threat Saddam posed to our countries.

            • USWeapon says:

              Bob,

              I used this example of you arguing and that was perhaps unfair. I don’t doubt that you are open to being proven wrong. Unfortunately, it seems the only thing that most folks who make the WMD argument would accept is the actual finding of some massive cache.

              I am at work, so I don’t have access to all my stuff at home, nor at home do I even have all the stuff that I have read. But I will do my best over teh next week or so to find what I do have and forward it to you. Is the email you put with your posts accurate?

              But I will leave you at the moment with just a thought that should be considered. If you believe that the story you offered is true (the memo with Bush/Blair conspiring to paint a plane like the UN), then you obviously believe that Bush and Blair are of a moral character that would do anything to justify their actions even if it means fabricating a whole story. If that is the case, why wouldn’t the massive US/UK governmental powers simply plant WMD’s somewhere buried in the desert and “find” them? I think we both can agree that they could do something like this and pull it off. And it would have shut up the entire world opposing them. But they didn’t. Why would that be?

              I submit that they are NOT of that character, which is why I tend not to believe the memo is accurate (Plus I don’t think these two powerful men would have had a conversation like this, it would have been others lower on the totem pole so that they could both have plausible deniability. Plus they would NEVER have allowed it to be recorded or documented if they did in fact have it. See where my head is at on that one?). But if they are of that character, then perhaps they didn’t plant evidence there and vindicate themselves because they really did know that the WMD’s were there. And they are now just as baffled as teh rest of us as to where they went.

              Just a thought.

              • Now that is a good argument, why did they not plant the weapons? It is the only argument that has troubled me and I don’t have a proper answer for.
                When we were 2 weeks into the invasion I remember thinking why haven’t they found the WMD’s yet and if they have not found them why have they not planted them.

                The only reasoning I could come up with is that they didn’t need to find any planted or otherwise. Our administrations quickly shifted from “we are in imminent danger” to “we have gone to free the Iraqi people from Saddam”, although we have had war protests and the like our populations in general are more worried about how they are going to pay their mortgage. Out of sight, out of mind. If the amount of body bags that are coming out of Iraq would have been like when they were coming out of Vietnam it would be a whole different ball game. Our casualties (although each one a wasted life in my eyes) have been relatively low.
                People in general don’t really care, we have become complacent and people now will say “If you don’t support the war, you don’t support the troops so you are a traitor”, I don’t know how many times I have heard something similar.

                Anyway those are my personal thoughts, no proof. When the politicians say “Iraq is going to blow you up” people take notice so they want the government to launch an invasion to protect themselves. Once we were in there and it is established there is no threat people quickly become more concerned what is happening on X-Factor/American Idol instead.

              • Oh and sorry I never use my real email when posting on blogs, I sometimes ruffle a few feathers when I post, I lost the password and account details for this email address long ago.

    • Who’s out for blood now?

      Here are a few facts:
      Saddam Hussein was indicted in the world court for GENOCIDE. http://civilliberty.about.com/od/internationalhumanrights/p/saddam_hussein.htm
      Iraq had been vigorously attempting to create a nuclear weapon since the early 80’s.
      We pulled out a great deal of yellow cake uranium. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25546334/

      Notice where I’m getting these articles, not from far-right websites.

      I understand that you hate the war. Who doesn’t hate war? The bottom line, though, is that this war was just. I don’t know all the facts, I don’t know what Bush and Blair knew, but I find it hard to believe that they even could carry off such a farce. Someone high up who knew would leak. We’d have another “deep throat.”

      The number of people who have died is tragic. No one will disagree with you there. Is it right, though, to lay that blame at the feet of our presidents? I say it is terrorists and people like Hussein who deserve our anger. Instead of being upset with our troops who kill terrorists, be upset with the terrorists who kill innocents. We’re not the ones strapping bombs filled with ball bearings to brain damaged women and sending them into crowded marketplaces to maximize damage.

      Bottom line, I’m not upset with people like you who blame Bush for starting the war. It keeps people like that honest.

      • I am not upset with the troops I am upset by the people who sent them there to do a fruitless task.

    • In your post was “In the meeting the two leaders were aware that they would not get UN approval for an invasion because the UN would not be able to find any WMD’s.”. I would tend to agree…the UN is for the most part useless…IMO. The UN couldn’t find their butt with a map, compass and a flashlight…using both hands!

      I believe that there were WMD’s. Everyone knows that Saddam had them at least at one point. There was no reason to believe he had them no longer.

      • Richmond Spitfire says:

        Well…My Ex-Husband accused me of hiding the Weapons of Mass Destruction in a private place 😉

      • Terry…how can you say that about the UN….of course they can find their ass…they kiss it regularly.

      • Bama dad says:

        “”Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
        -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

        Together, we must confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons and the outlaw states, terrorists, and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade and much of his nation’s wealth not on providing for the Iraqi people but on developing nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them.”

        President Clinton
        State of the Union address
        January 27, 1998

        Terry if the witched witch of the west and slick Willy say they have WMD’s, it has to be true.
        😛

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        The fundamental point is that we were led to believe it was no longer an issue of simply using chems on the Kurds or other dissident populations in the locale – there was linkage being offered that there was an imminent threat to the United States and we had to act. I find it astonishing that the opportunity to learn from some a tremendous gaffe/mistake is so readily dismissed as a big ‘ooops’ or ‘he needed to be taken out anyway’.

        • USWeapon says:

          I don’t dismiss it. I just don’t see the point of endlessly making the WMD argument over and over. And you are right we were led to believe he would use them on us. We were led to believe that from the mouth of Saddam himself. Funny how everyone simply wants to dismiss the words of the leader of the country we invaded. It doesn’t matter what he said. Weird, but it sure matters what our leader said. Refer to my punching analogy to Bob above. It makes me crazy the way those who feel the way you do simply dismiss every single fact that gets in the way of your call for retribution.

          • Like I said above USWeapon, in your analogy you have just knocked out a disabled man who could not do what he said he was going to do. I dont know about the US but if I punched a disabled man unable to use their arms it would not go down too well, in fact I dont think the jury would be very happy when I went to court. I will ask you, if Saddam was so dangerous and was an immenent threat with WMD’s why did he not use them in the first Iraq invasion? He was in a much better position then, then when we invaded in 2003.

          • Ray Hawkins says:

            So maybe we should have invaded North Korea long ago? Your commentary on this is becoming more and more inconsistent.

      • The UN security council caused the US to act. China, France and Russia were all violating the food for oil program, allowing Sadam to
        re-arm, while they vetoed more sanctions.

        • Danak13 says:

          There were a variety of reasons as well. You are right on this point but add to this…Desert Storm ended in a cease fire with stipulations. Continuing to kill Kurds, shoot at our planes, and circumvent the oil for food program were enough to go back in there….despite WMD’s. Do I think he had them? Yes. Did he know that we were going to attack? Yes. Is Syria complicit in hiding WMD’s? Yes. We even know where they are…or were. We even know how they got there. What types? We do not know…but they were not nukes or fissionable material. But they are chemical and deadly chemical. Anyway, it is time worn and the blame is always going to be on Bush/Blair….without consideration of the violations of the ending of the Kuwait Campaign. Everyone seems to forget this as well and focus on WMD’s. We simply did not move fast enough.

          Good post

          D13

  8. Cyndi P says:

    Bob,

    What makes you think this document is telling the truth? Do you have any proof it is truth, or is this a case of BDS on someone’s part? Personally, I find lousy intellignece gathering a more likely cause for failure to find large quantities of WMD in Iraq, than Bush and Blair cooking up a lie. I recall reports of small amounts of chemical weapons being found, but those were dismissed as being ‘old’ stuff, etc.

    • I have no proof as I said in my post but I find it hard to believe that the US and UK’s combined intelligence services which are apparently some of the best in the world could mess this up. If you knew you were going to go into an invasion that would lose thousands of troops and an occupation that would probably last decades, would you not want to be triple sure first that your reasons for going are actually valid?

      The old stuff is what was left of chemical weapons we helped Saddam develop and provided the substances to make.

      • “I find it hard to believe that the US and UK’s combined intelligence services which are apparently some of the best in the world could mess this up”

        Bob, I am sorry to inform you that James Bond is nothing but a figment of Ian Flemings imagination – He just doesn’t exist. Intelligence gathering is, at best, a hit and miss proposition – emphasis on the miss part. The reality is that with all of our satellite and arial photography if it isn’t out in the open to be seen by all, then we can’t see it to photograph it. Then there is the problem of information for pay . . . Put enough money out there and someone will fabricate what ever it is that you are looking for just to get the money. Occasionally the intel folks get a good solid hit on something, but that is always shrouded in a cloak of doubt until it is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to actually be real. With all this in mind, then your statement above is just a little bit off center . . . Not to take this too seriously as most civilians do believe that intel gatherers are more like James Bond than not. Reality is that most intel gatherers do nothing more than look through someones garbage can, and you know that when people throw stuff away it is usually long past its usefulness.

        WMD – Weapon of Mass Destruction . . . Everyone on this planet has their own idea as to what that is. To some it is a nuke, to others it is gas, large bombs(our bunker busters, for instance), and still others it may be nothing more than a hand grenade or a rifle with a 30 round magazine.

        • Well you sure dashed my perceptions of the intelligence agencies, here I thought the spies all flew around in jet packs and played baccarat all night.
          It might have been a good idea to “prove beyond a shadow of a doubt” before we launched an invasion that would cost thousands of lives and trillions of dollars right?

          Fair enough you want to qualify WMD’s as things other then the big CBN, which of the WMD’s that Saddam possessed proved to be an imminent threat to the US and UK?

          http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/kfiles/b24970.html

          • Ray Hawkins says:

            Bob – its a typical right wing tactic – the second you bring up anything regarding Iraq you’re dismissed as a liberal whiner or crybaby now – in their view there are no lessons learned and Iraq deserved what they got.

            • Amazed1 says:

              Ray that is not true…..run into a crowed bar a hollar I have a gun and I am gonna use it…..see how fast someone blows you away. If Sadam hadn’t thought it necessary to put his people in the position he put them we would not be there today. Real simple. Right, wrong or in between it is done and their government is as to blame as anyone else. We still do not know if what they had was buried, destroyed or is now in the possession of some other country. We may not ever know. Iraq had already shown they would invade their neighbors….so I guess we should have just sat around and waited for them to use their supposed weapons against a different neighbor.
              I feel the same way about NK…they keep saying we have, we have and we are gonna use it….well guess what if they attack a neighbor and then keep threatenin someone will probably go after them to and they will go in with the idea of getting rid of the WMD.

            • And that would be a Left Wing tactic. We Right Wing Liberals don’t use such a thing.

              By and By Ray, I see you became a Papa while I was gone.

              Congratulations

              Best Wishes to You, Your Wife and the new little Hawkins.
              JAC

            • USWeapon says:

              No that is merely your view of what we think, which works well among your liberal friends who will all agree.

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                As an apparent student of history I’m just a bit confused that this feels to be swept under a carpet – there are still a lot lessons learned to be had from it – just sucks maybe that is was a Republican in office – I’m sure Obama’s policies will be deconstructed for years

              • USWeapon says:

                If I thought the left was trying to learn a lesson from it I might feel differently. But it seems to me the only intent is to portray the Republican party as criminals, have some sort of bullshit trial where George Bush gets villified in order to make those who hate him so much happy.

                The day someone makes the claim this is only about learning from our mistakes, I will agree. But for now it is nothing more than a vendetta against the Bush administration.

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                But you cheer with glee if we prosecute a Democrat who didn’t pay taxes? C’mon – people died on this account. No one is suggesting the Republican Party be arrested and tried – what happened in those years was a huge black eye that everyone has turned into Gumbys over. Get it right, make it right and move on.

              • Yes people died. Let’s makes sure we also prosecute all the congressmen and senators that sent us to war to. Lets not just blame the president..he did not do this alone.

          • Okay, Bob, we be even now . . . You want ME to believe ANYTHING from an admitted “Progressive” website? Li`l ole conservative me believing that a Progressive website is not biased is like you believing James Bond is alive, well and as real as instant peanut butter!

            Here it is – Different people perceive different things in different ways. If that sounds confusing to you, then welcome to the club. I never really understood that concept until I became the Grandfather of a down syndrome child, and believe me that has been an eye opener and then some.

            If we were to rely on what intel people tell us is the absolute facts . . . well, we would be goose stepping and speaking a language that is combined German and Japanese. Way back in WW2 my father-in-law was part of the U.S. Navy intel comm team that broke the Japanese codes that gave us the edge over them in the Pacific theater. They were never certain that what they were giving the Admirals and Generals was fact or fiction, but that is why those in high places get the big bucks to make the decisions with the knowledge that have. Also had we waited until we knew for a fact that Germany was exterminating Jews there wouldn’t have been any survivors to tell what really happened in those concentration camps.

            As I said before, intel is nothing more than a hit and miss proposition. Those in high places get paid the big bucks to make the difficult decisions and all the rest of us can do is second guess them from our comfortable armchairs, just like I am doing with the currant administration.

            And believe me when I say that each and every day I hope and pray that I am wrong . . .

            • I am sorry if you think a collection of quotes with references is garbage, did you actually read the information?
              We have better sources and means of gathering intelligence than we did in WW2, true or false?
              Oh and we did know about the death camps, we had volunteer Polish spies in them feeding out exactly what was happening to the Jews and all the others. We did nothing as we did not want to divert the bombers from other targets, we could have bombed the rail tracks going to the camps hampering the Germans efforts.

        • I think Obama is a WMD! 😆

      • JayDickB says:

        Ever since the intelligence purges of the 70s, US intelligence has suffered badly. Our “on the ground” capability in many places is very poor or nonexistent. I don’t have much faith in it at all.

        Satellites are good, but they don’t work well at night.

        • Then it would have been a much better idea to make sure instead of relying on underfunded, understaffed organisation?

          • JayDickB says:

            I will accept (maybe agree, maybe not) an argument that mistakes (even big ones) were made. But I don’t buy the “Bush lied” argument at all.

            If you argue that it was all due to faulty intelligence, you would also have to agree that major changes are needed in how we gather intelligence. Much more focus is needed on spying the old fashioned way.

      • So, Bob,

        Are you saying that because we allegedly helped Saddam develope WMDs we don’t have the responsiblity to ensure he doesn’t abuse them? If so, I guess that means, since I gave my child what she needed (like providing food, clothing, shelter, etc. to become self sufficient) to be capable of killing if she chooses, I have no moral obligation to prevent her from doing so? My daughter is perfectly capable of killing someone, just as any other person. She CHOOSES not to, just like plenty of other people. Those people who choose to kill are stopped and should be….

        • The correct analogy Cyndi is a mad, raving lunatic covered in blood shouting about how he wants to kill people coming to you asking for a gun and then you giving one to him.
          We sure as hell did not care when Saddam used chemical weapons against Iran and we sure as hell didnt care when he gassed the Kurds, can you not see the hypocrisy? Have you read how much money and support we gave to Iraq when they were fighting Iran?
          All I ask is some proof/evidence/hint about the imminent threat that Saddam posed to the US and UK which was the reason we went over there.

          Saddam got the smack down because he messed with our oil interests in the region, we were quite happy with him before then.

          • Cyndi P says:

            Bob,

            Saddam wasn’t a blood covered lunatic. He was a brutal dictator with predictable behavoir. I understand why we supported Saddam against Iran. We used him to keep the Iranians busy, so they wouldn’t be exporting islamic terrorists all over the world like they do now. You’re right, Saddam became more trouble than he was worth by screwing with the oil supply. What’s the problem? Our modern society needs energy. If you don’t believe me, try living without it. You can’t do it, short of moving to a place that has a pre-industrial revolution standard of living and economy. If that’s how you want to live, be my guest, but don’t force the rest of us to do it.

            As for Saddam using his chemical weapons on his own people, you may have been okay with it, but many others were not. Certainly I wasn’t. If the US had invaded or done anything serious to remove Saddam, the Leftists of the world would have been screaming bloody murder about big bad America. You know this. Since American libtards are so concerned about what people like you think, they were’t about to let any American President use force on Saddam.

            The proof you’re demanding has been out there. You just refuse to acknowledge it because it doesn’t fit with your Bush lied people died BS. The intelligence agencies believed Saddam had WMD. They may have been incorrect, though I believe Saddam had some old stuff and not huge stockpiles. Colin Powell went before the UN and made the case. So are you saying that he lied too? I believe Powell had access to the same information as Bush, and came pretty much to the same conclusion even though he tried to save his ass by distancing himself later on. If he was so sure the info was wrong, he should have piped up at the time. He wouldn’t have be ‘silenced’ because of his skin color. The race baiters wouldn’t have passed up that opportunity, so don’t give me that excuse, I’m not buying it.

    • Also as the memo is being used as evidence in the UK investigation into the Iraq war and several high ranking politicians have commented on it the evidence says that it does exist. Have a read through the article.

  9. USWeapon says:

    USWeapon Topic #5

    Hundreds of New York City public school teachers accused of offenses ranging from insubordination to sexual misconduct are being paid their full salaries to sit around all day playing Scrabble, surfing the Internet or just staring at the wall, if that’s what they want to do.

    Because their union contract makes it extremely difficult to fire them, the teachers have been banished by the school system to its “rubber rooms” — off-campus office space where they wait months, even years, for their disciplinary hearings.

    Read the full article from Fox News here: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,528780,00.html

    • They’re probably more effective in that room than actual teachers in a classroom.

      Separation of Education and State.
      http://www.schoolandstate.org/home.htm

    • Naten53 says:

      The most disturbing thing I find in that article is

      “Once their hearings are over, they are either sent back to the classroom or fired. But because their cases are heard by 23 arbitrators who work only five days a month, stints of two or three years in a rubber room are common, and some teachers have been there for five or six.”

      Reading the article it sounds like the probability out of 700 that some or most of the people there are there for BS reasons sounds reasonable. Why is it taking them so long to resolve cases? It is ridiculous.

      Does anyone know if Principals and Vice Principals and office staff are part of the teachers union? Or is it a management vs union thing at that level.

    • And your point here is……. it is New York. Sigh!!!! No wonder they and California are in trouble. Perhaps some Reganesque is needed here… Just fire em and take the strike.

      • Chicago teachers union(big Obama supporter)agreed to EXTEND their school day last year to 5 3/4 hours a day. Large teacher unions are
        much of the problem.

  10. Depending on your definition of “Weapons of Mass Destruction”, this news report might change that.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/24/deal-sends-climate-change-house-floor/

    Sadly, Congress has made every effort this year to be included in the official definition of WMD. Any thoughts?

    G!

    • G man….all one has to do is be on the receiving end of a grenade. Then convince him that it was not a WMD. It is relative. I am surprised the anti gun nuts are not declaring automatic weapons as WMD’s because they can cause mass deaths…where does this stop?

  11. USWeapon, BlagFlag or JAC:

    When do we get back to Ayn Rand’s objectivism and/or a modification of objectivism and start working toward steps to change our country? I would like to know what the potential plan is.

    • Birdman et al:

      Soon.

      USW postponed putting out the final articles because I was traveling. He thought it important that I be able to contribute to the questions and comments.

      So, to some degree it is my fault this was delayed.

      I am now back home and will be here until late next week. I will contact USW and BF to get this done ASAP.

      Meanwhile I am curious where you are personally in the quest for a solid philosophy that will support our effort. Have you had a chance to think hard about Rand’s suggested ethics and how that would affect what our political system might look like?

      Hope Everyone is Well Today
      JAC

      • JudyS.NV. says:

        Hey JAC, glad to see you back, missed ya.

        • Thanks Judy:

          It was a nice trip. Cut short to get back for a Republican Central Committee meeting last night.

          Lets just say I should have stayed on the road a few more days.

          Left Reno the day the cattle drive was headed to the fairgrounds. Could see it in the distance as I crossed on 395 headed north. By the way, do you know where the cattle drive starts?

          No one could tell me. I assumed up north somewhere but not sure. I worked the Reno Rodeo for a few years while still in college. It was hard work but the cold beer and buckle bunnies made it worth while come evening time.

          Was thinking of you and your family as I drove in through Dayton and then past Mills Park a few times. My brother in law remembers the Goya’s in V.C. when he was young and helping his dad deliver produce up there. Told you it used to be a small city/county.

          Best Wishes
          JAC

          • JudyS.NV. says:

            Glad to hear back from you, and glad you made it back home safe. To answer you on where the cattle drive starts, I really can’t tell you because I can’t remember. I know I read it in the paper, but for the life of me I can’t remember, sorry. Did you hit any bad weather when you drove through town? We had on and off again rain, wind, thunder, and lightning. There was one day here it rained so hard so hard, we kind of had a little flooding going on in our front yard. So, your brother-in-law remembers the Goya’s huh. Do you happen to remember about what year that was? My dad and his brother and mother lived in VC in the early 30’s, and I’m pretty sure that’s when my aunt and uncle owned the Bucket of Blood. Hey, when you were here around Reno, you should have looked me up and we all could have gone to dinner or something. We’re listed in the phone book. Just a thought there. Maybe next time if you happen to be in the area.

            Regards
            Judy

            • I will make time to visit next time down.

              Was in Reno for total of 2 hours the whole trip.

              I hit bad weather pretty much the whole trip until Thursday. It was clear and dry from Carson all the way to N. California. The drive through the northern Sierra was as beautiful as I remember. Took 44 north by Lassen to Shasta.

              My brother in law was in VC in the 50’s but his dad had been there sooner. We both remember the name though.

              Got some chores to do so until later
              Keep smiling
              JAC

              • JudyS.NV. says:

                Okay, you do your chores, in fact I have some too when I get home from work. Catch up with you later.

                Judy

      • Birdman says:

        I like Ayn Rand’s objectivism or a slight modification of it that you proposed. I have not thought about how to implement it or how it would change our political system. I’m going to read through the philosophy series again and think about it.

  12. Bama dad says:

    If you haven’t signed the “Open Letter to our Nation’s Leadership” please do so at:
    http://www.thepetitionsite.com/8/an-open-letter-to-our-nations-leadership

  13. Obama Claims CIA Involvement In Iran “Patently False”.

    President Barack Obama was forced to address accusations that the CIA was involved in fomenting the post-election riots in Iran during his White House press conference yesterday, claiming the allegations were “patently false,” despite the fact that the U.S. government publicly gave the CIA approval to undertake a destabilization campaign in Iran more than two years ago.

    “There are reports suggesting that the CIA is behind all this – all of which is patently false but it gives you a sense of the narrative that the Iranian government would love to play into,” said Obama.

    CIA involvement in Iran is not a “narrative” manufactured by the Iranian government, as Obama well knows.

    As we highlighted in our report earlier this week, evidence of U.S. intelligence meddling in Iran is widespread, which is no surprise considering the fact that the U.S. all but announced they would pursue a destabilization campaign in Iran years ago.

    In May 2007, the London Telegraph and others revealed that President George W. Bush had “Given the CIA approval to launch covert “black” operations to achieve regime change in Iran.”

    On May 23, 2007, Brian Ross and Richard Esposito reported on ABC News: “The CIA has received secret presidential approval to mount a covert “black” operation to destabilize the Iranian government, current and former officials in the intelligence community tell ABC News.”

    The plan set in motion CIA propaganda and disinformation campaigns “intended to destabilise, and eventually topple, the theocratic rule of the mullahs”.

    A d v e r t i s e m e n t

    It also released funds to bankroll the militant Jundullah organization, an Al-Qaeda offshoot formerly headed by the alleged mastermind of 9/11 Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. The group has been blamed for a number of bombings inside Iran aimed at destabilizing Ahmadinejad’s government.

    It is widely suspected that the well known right-wing terrorist organization known as Mujahedeen-e Khalq, once run by Saddam Hussein’s dreaded intelligence services, is now also working exclusively for the CIA’s Directorate of Operations and carrying out bombings in Iran. A large number of Mujahedeen-e Khalq members were arrested following riots last week, according to a Press TV report. The article claims that the men were “extensively trained in Iraq’s camp Ashraf to create post-election mayhem in the country”.

    As part of CIA destabilization efforts in Iran, former Pakistani Army General Mirza Aslam Beig last week claimed that the Agency had distributed 400 million dollars inside Iran to evoke a revolution. Beig cited documents that prove “the CIA spent 400 million dollars inside Iran to prop up a colorful-hollow revolution following the election.”

    The CIA program approved by Bush also included funding opposition groups and providing them with communications equipment that would bypass Internet censorship and allow demonstrators to communicate.

    Twitter and other social networking websites have played a key role in the demonstrations. The U.S. State Department, which routinely demonizes the Internet as a tool of extremists and terrorists when it is used to criticize U.S. foreign policy, took the unprecedented step last week of requesting that Twitter.com “delay planned maintenance work so that Iranian protesters can continue to use it to post images and reports of unrest,” according to a London Times report.

    According to several different reports, the CIA and Mossad has been creating fake Twitter feeds and flooding Iranians with SMS messages inspiring them to riot.

    According to author Thierry Meyssan, Iranians received messages before the election votes had even been counted telling them that the Iranian Guardian Council had declared Mir-Hossein Mousavi to be the winner. When the official announcement of Ahmadinejad’s victory was later broadcast, the sentiment that fraud had took place was therefore amplified.

    Meyssan also charges that the CIA and Mossad used Twitter feeds to put out fake reports of gun fights and deaths that were never confirmed, rousing Iranians to riot in the belief that their fellow countrymen were being brutally suppressed by the authorities.

    Another website clearly documents the fact that the main Twitter accounts used to send out hundreds of alerts during the protests were only recently created and had not send out any alerts whatsoever before the protests began.

    Top Neo-Cons with deep ties to the U.S. military-industrial complex like John Bolton and Henry Kissinger have been calling for the CIA to fund a ‘color revolution’ in Iran for years as a gateway to regime change.

    Lest we forget that it was a violent CIA coup that led to the overthrow of the democratically elected Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953 under Operation Ajax. The ousting was achieved by means of staged bombings and shootings which were blamed on the Iranian government in order to antagonize the population and enable the coup. During the coup, the CIA also bribed Iranian government officials, businessmen, and reporters, and paid Iranians to demonstrate in the streets.

    Given this history, allied with the U.S. government’s own public program to instigate a destabilization campaign in Iran through the CIA, Obama’s claim that CIA involvement is “patently false” is clearly contradicted by the facts. The only thing that’s “patently false” is Obama’s statement itself.

  14. H.R. 675: Building Obama’s Civilian National Security Force

    Kurt Nimmo
    June 23, 2009

    In January, without any recognizable corporate media coverage, Rep. Bob Filner, a California Democrat, introduced H.R. 675. The bill would amend title 10 of the United States Code and extend to civilian employees of the Department of Defense the authority to execute warrants, make arrests, and carry firearms. The bill was referred to the Armed Services Committee on January 26, 2009.

    Rep. Bob Filner
    Filner’s bill would amend the United States code with the following: “Sec. 1585b. Law enforcement officers of the Department of Defense: authority to execute warrants, make arrests, and carry firearms… for any offense against the United States.” (Emphasis added.)

    The Posse Comitatus Act, passed on June 18, 1878 after the end of Reconstruction, limits the powers of the federal government to use the military for law enforcement. The Act prohibits members of the federal uniformed services from exercising nominally state law enforcement, police, or peace officer powers that maintain “law and order” on non-federal property within the United States.

    H.R. 675 sidesteps Posse Comitatus by defining “law enforcement officer of the Department of Defense” as “a civilian employee of the Department of Defense,” including federal police officers, detectives, criminal investigators, special agents, and game law enforcement officers classified by the Office of Personnel Management Occupational Series 0083 (the United States Office of Personnel Management is described as an “independent agency” of the U.S. government that manages the civil service of the federal government).

    In 2005, the Office of Personnel Management partnered with the Department of Homeland Security to create a “21st century human resources management system that fully supports the Department’s vital mission,” according to then Office of Personnel Management Associate Director for Strategic Human Resources Policy Ron Sanders.

    At approximately the same time, the DoD issued a Defense Directive 1404.10 (read http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/140410p.pdf) that establishes a “DoD Civilian Expeditionary Workforce” and rescinds a prior Clinton era directive dealing with the emergency use of civilian personnel. The Obama administration describes the Civilian Expeditionary Workforce as follows:

    Members of the DoD Civilian Expeditionary Workforce shall be organized, trained, cleared, equipped, and ready to deploy in support of combat operations by the military; contingencies; emergency operations; humanitarian missions; disaster relief; restoration of order; drug interdiction; and stability operations of the Department of Defense in accordance with DoDD 3000.05

    “This new directive is odd, coming as it does after campaign promises by Obama to establish a paramilitary ‘civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded’ as our military,” writes Doug Ross.

    According to Sec. Def. Robert Gates, defeating terrorism will require the use of more “soft power,” with civilians contributing more in communication, economic assistance, political development and other non-military areas. “Gates called for the creation of new government organizations, including a permanent group of civilian experts with a wide range of expertise who could be sent abroad on short notice as a supplement to U.S. military efforts. And he urged more involvement by university and other private experts,” the Associated Press reported in late 2007.

    It should be noted that the original Civilian Expeditionary Workforce directive mentions the term “overseas” no fewer than 33 times, while the Obama revision does not mention “overseas” at all. In other words, the revised directive is designed for “emergency operations” in the United States.

    Both H.R. 675 and the DoD Civilian Expeditionary Workforce directive will establish civilian “soft power” under the direction of the Pentagon. Obama is now actively working to create a paramilitary “civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded” as the military. In order to skirt Posse Comitatus, Obama’s paramilitary brownshirts will be organized and run out of the Office of Personnel Management with orders coming from the Pentagon.

    In the recent past, the Pentagon sent operatives to snoop on anti-war and patriot demonstrations — for instance, Alex Jones’ protest at the Federal Reserve was monitored by the Pentagon . In the not too distant future they will likely send “civilians” with firearms and the power to arrest “rightwing extremists” who represent, according to the Department of Homeland Security and numerous federalized police agencies, “offense against the United States.”

  15. TexasChem says:

    It amazes me to hear one day that our President doesn’t want to meddle with other nations governments, then the very next day tells Israel that they cannot do this or that.On two occasions now, he has made clear that the problem of the settlements is not growth, but their existence, calling for a “cessation of settlements”. Obama said this first in Cairo, and then again at a press conference with Italian President Berlusconi.
    The mockery of this man’s election has to be the biggest scheme by a pro-islamist candidate in modern times.

    The crowds of cheering fans that elected him with the medias biased opinions makes my stomach roll. He is the worst of all things, a thieving Chicago politician in sheeps attire with pro-islamic intents and purposes.

    You give Obama too much credit with his ‘I have always been a Christian’ LIES then to turn around and say this is no longer a christian nation even though the mahority of its populace conside themselves christian!
    He was born to a foreign Muslim father adopted by a foreign Muslim stepfather and attended two schools in Indonesia one of which was a Catholic run Multi Faith school. At BOTH schools he was registered as a Muslim and even took ‘mengagi’ the study of correctly accented Koranic Arabic. This is a subject ONLY devout Muslims study. He also condemns himself in his own book where he states he was ‘chastised by the teacher for pulling faces in Koranic Studies’ . Unfortunately for the Messiah and his rabid Moonbat worshipers ONLY Muslims are allowed to study the Koran in Indonesian schools. If they allowed or tried to make CHRISTIANS study the Koran there would be riots and blood on the streets / Christians have been oppressed , discriminated against and attacked by Muslims for decades in Indonesia and as a result have become extremely protective and aggressive against Muslim actions which is why it would NEVER allow Christian kids to be made to study the Koran.
    So there you have it Obamba WAS/IS? a Muslim but more important he IS a LIAR.

    He is pro-Islamist like the rest of the international left, including European leftists. He sees Islam as anti-western and anti-capitalist, so it’s a force for good.Islam permits the practice of taquiya, lying to non-believers in the cause of the prophet and Islam.
    I am convinced he truly does share the beliefs of Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers.Do you guys think he just hung out with them to drink tea and eat cake? I think he equates Israel to South Africa under apartheid. As a leftist whose father was African, this is probably one of his core concerns – Israel the oppressive colonial power. Is Obama perhaps a follower of Frantz Fanon, as fed to him by his mentor, Ayers?

    With every passing day, the decision made by 52.7% of the electorate is looking more stupid and reckless. They rolled the dice and now we all lose.

    Would it bother the 52.7% to throw Israel under the bus? I think our degenerate elites wouldn’t care. Perhaps a sizable number of African Americans misguidedly believe that Israel has it coming. The young Americans who have no knowledge of even recent world history and who enthusiastically voted for Obama will swallow any explanation he gives them.

    I am so ashamed and disheartened that this man is in charge of what used to be such a great country. It really bothered me when the Chinese students laughed at Geithner’s obvious lies. I guess the stereotype of the ignorant know-nothing Americans is now true. Now, after 6 months in office, $10 trillion in debt, the abandonment of Israel and even more added debt with the healthcare reform and cap n trade; anyone with any snap at all has to question what his real intentions are with America.

    • TC, I’m wondering what he REALLY is up to myself. I’m not liking what I’m seeing and feeling, but if I had to guess as to what is coming, I’d say he wants total control and to get that the economy would be made to collapse, causing public unrest and riots. We are seeing a very interesting movie being made, and it’s a disaster movie.

      G!

    • Tex,

      Islam permits the practice of taquiya, lying to non-believers in the cause of the prophet and Islam. Spot on, we cannot know if he is Muslim or what,
      if any, beliefs he does hold.

      Bob & co. are all worked up that Bush lied on WMD’s. Sounds better than he and Congress, Senate and CIA were wrong.

      Obama said we must pass the Stimulus immediately, to stop unemployment reaching 8%. Its now over 9%, did Obama lie?

      Health care, true figures are linked above, that this will only help 8 million, not 47 million. So is Obama lying about that? I say yes.

    • TexasChem says:

      Let’s look at Cap n Trade for a minute.The Obama administration wants to go green with windmills, solar power,etc.Completely hydrocarbon fuel free.This entails shutting down the coal, LP gas, and oils fuels that run our electricity generating plants now.Wind and solar power is not nearly as efficient per kilowatt produced as hydrocarbon fuels.There is just no comparison.What company would want a manufacturing plant built inside our borders that could not actually produces a competitive product because of the added costs of energy?Not to mention the permits required for any greenhouse gases that may be released.China, India and other emerging world countries without these restrictions will monopolize industrial production for the simple fact that they do not have these restrictions.

  16. JudyS.NV. says:

    Those that say Bush lied about WMD’S, well, then I say that congress lied just as much, after all, didn’t they agree? Aren’t they the ones who said if you don’t believe the Saddam doesn’t have WMD’s. Didn’t they one by one get up there and give a big speech about his WMD’s? So, if Bush lied, then so did Congress since they went along with Bush into going into Iraq, and since they all voted yes, then that makes them lair’s too. As for the stimulus working, I don’t think so. Just where are all these jobs Obama promised. Here in Reno alone, the unemployment rate has gone up 12%, foreclosures have gone up, not down. People are looking for work, but not having a lot of luck there. Prices have skyrocketed, places are closing because of the lack of people going out more, tuition at UNR and UNLV are going up by 10%, our police department has reduced their workforce, as well as the fire department. So yea, I say Obama lied to us just to get voted. He sang a pretty love song to the American people, and they fell madly in love with him. Now look where we are. I know it will eventually get better, but at what cost.

    Judy

  17. Richmond Spitfire says:

    Well…Here we go again…another one of our leaders (Gov, SC) has had an extra-marital affair. I truly do find it disheartening for all parties involved that their private lives are laid out for the world to view and judge.

    While cheating on your spouse does sicken me, I have to give the Governor good marks for addressing the situation up front before the media beat him to it.

    I do so hope that this family can maintain their dignity thru this.

    • JudyS.NV. says:

      They probably come out with it because my guess is is that maybe they are threatened by the other person involved to go to the media themselves and/or threatened by blackmail. You notice how you really don’t hear about women politicians having affairs. If they do have them, I think they seem to be more discreet about it.

      • JayDickB says:

        As I have said before, power corrupts. Politicians crave power. That’s why they’re politicians.

        Don’t trust any of them, even if you’re married to one.

        I haven’t figured out the women yet. Maybe they channel their power in other directions. Not as much testosterone. Or, maybe they don’t have enough power yet.

    • I find it interesting that this topic is all over the news and required a nationally covered press conference the same day that this came out.

      June 24 (Bloomberg) — U.S. Congressman Darrell Issa said the Federal Reserve “engaged in a cover-up” about details of Bank of America Corp.’s takeover of Merrill Lynch & Co. The Fed “deliberately hid concerns and pertinent details” of the merger from other government agencies, Issa, a Republican from California, said in an e-mailed statement.

      • Or this could be a bunch of BS designed to distract us so President Obama’s health plan passes both the house and the senate 😦

        • The health plan is the distraction because they have the poll numbers to make a case. While we watch health care look behind you for:

          Cap & Trade
          New Green Jobs classifications
          New industry exemption standards for CO2 production
          The international gun treaty
          etc, etc,.

          When ever you hit a bump in govt you trot out a program/proposal that has at least 50% support to divert discussion. Support may not last but by the time it is over the other programs/proposals will have been slipped through.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      I don’t give him any good marks – he was caught in the Atlanta airport and was already lying about his whereabouts. More amusing was listening to a douchebag like Sean Hannity try to spin this (c’mon Sean – ya gotta use the Kennedys again?). While we seem to find more conservatives with, ahem, their hands in the wrong cookies jar (or bathroom stall), their hypocrisy is far more prevalent and damaging than a John Edwards – just different levels of shittyness.

      • Black Flag says:

        Lying is not a crime.

      • USWeapon says:

        I don’t give him good marks either. He did a bad thing. It has absolutely zero, however, to do with his job. He was not a bible beater or someone who was always taking a moral stand against the Democrats. But I am sure that won’t stop Democrats or the press from tearing him apart. I just wish they were as critical of those who say…. don’t pay their taxes, as they are of those who have an affair. One is breaking the law and the other is not. Odd that the outrage is so large over the non-law breaker while so quiet over the law breakers. Unless of course those law breakers are Republicans…. Then we will hear about it for the next ten years. Talk about hypocrisy.

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          “It has absolutely zero, however, to do with his job.”

          Really? Having good judgment isn’t part of his job? Ensuring tax payer dollars aren’t used to help support/facilitate an affair isn’t a question that needs to be answered here? I’m not buying it.

          “He was not a bible beater or someone who was always taking a moral stand against the Democrats.”

          Okay – maybe my b.s. radar needs tuning here – but when the good Governor is quoting Corinthians 13 in his love letters to Maria, I’m thinking the guy has done a little bit of bible beating. I’m not buying this one either.

          “…that won’t stop Democrats or the press from tearing him apart”

          Odd coming from someone who I thought believed in scrutiny of our elected officials. Correlated to point one – character and judgment do count. John Edwards deserved every bit of brow beating he received (and even from Ms. Winfrey no less).

          “I just wish they were as critical of those who say…. don’t pay their taxes, as they are of those who have an affair. One is breaking the law and the other is not. Odd that the outrage is so large over the non-law breaker while so quiet over the law breakers. Unless of course those law breakers are Republicans…. Then we will hear about it for the next ten years.”

          Ahhh – I knew I’d get some Hannity out of you – while maybe you don’t listen to the guy it seems peculiar that you two agree on a lot of things and use similar talking points and language – but anyway – who cares right? I do disagree with the notion that any tax issues are not covered by/in the press – on that account you’re just wrong and that has been addressed in this blog before. Tom Daschle was run out of D.C. and maybe for good reason.

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          “He did a bad thing. It has absolutely zero, however, to do with his job”

          Newer: “Embattled South Carolina Governor Sanford to repay trip expenses”
          http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20090624/NEWS-US-USA-POLITICS-GOVERNOR/

          Still think his affair had nothing to do with his job?

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          And today Sanford is quoting from King James but he is not bible beater eh? Think this is a dead horse yet USW?

          • He could quote the Gettysburg address for all I care. Point is if he used taxpayer money, he should:

            1. Resign or be impeached

            2. Be arrested and prosecuted.

            Paying it back is no more an option for him than it would be for Bernie Madoff.

            As a replacement, I suggest his wife. The lady has class and a proper sense of moral outrage.

          • USWeapon says:

            I stand by what I said. Have you followed Mark Sanford or what he has said for even one day prior to this scandal breaking? He has NOT been a bible beater and he has NOT been one of the Republicans who always had something to say when another politician made this sort of mistake. To be truthful Ray, I think you are being awful petty about Sanford. When I come on here and say that what he did was right and then say something different about another politician, you can call me a hypocrite. When you find a clip of Sanford sometime in the past making a stump speech against someone else for their sexual straying from a marriage you can call him a hypocrite. But none of those situations have happened. Are you attempting to make me believe he is a bad person for cheating on his wife? No need, I already think so. But if you are going to call him a hypocrite, then find me an instance where he was a hypocrite. I don’t hold him responsible for what other Republicans have said about Democrats who cheat any more than I hold all pastors responsible for what Reverend Wright said.

            So he quoted King James today. Lots of criminals quote the bible once in the clink…. I guess that means that they were bible beaters prior to killing or raping someone too under your logic.

            • Ray Hawkins says:

              Not accusing him of being Pat Roberts – but I call bullshit when a guy can quote from different sections of the Bible and we pretend like he is far removed from being a Bible beater. His prior political rhetoric may not have been chock full of bible b.s. but his excuses sure as hell are. Conservatives own a bigger chunk of the hypocrisy pie here USW – that is fact you cannot so easily dismiss.

  18. Black Flag says:

    Swiss offer millionaires a haven away from the poor

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/21/swiss-millionaires-haven-away

    This is the wave of the future – governments competing against each other for the wealthy, and leaving the Socialist countries dry.

  19. Black Flag says:

    The war in Iraq had nothing to do with Saddam, nor WMD.

    Those were the excuses parroted by the MSM to build support – and were lies.

    Bush had planned (and stated so) that he was going to invade Iraq. He merely needed an excuse.

    The US government had plans to invade Afghanistan and overthrow the Taliban (who was resisting plans for a pipeline) prior to 9/11.

    Both actions are so suspect – based on the reasons publicly given – that one needs to look just a little deeper.

    I’ll help.

    Caspian Oil.

    The nations in the Caspian region—notably Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and Turkmenistan, and to a lesser degree Russia, Iran, and Uzbekistan—are believed to be sitting on what amounts to 10% of the earth’s potential oil reserves. Proven reserves total approximately 17 billion–49 billion barrels of oil, with a possible additional 100–300 billion barrels not yet proven. Thanks to the Soviet Union’s collapse, the world has gained the opportunity to share in one of the planet’s greatest supplies of natural resources.

    Anyone ever wonder why the USA staked so much over Georgia? Why would the USA jack-force Georgia into NATO membership – tying the defense of Georgia into a nuclear response? Perhaps this paragraph helps….

    The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline is a 1,768 kilometres (1,099 mi) long crude oil pipeline from the Azeri-Chirag-Guneshli oil field in the Caspian Sea to the Mediterranean Sea. It connects Baku, the capital of Azerbaijan; Tbilisi, the capital of Georgia; and Ceyhan, a port on the south-eastern Mediterranean coast of Turkey, hence its name.

    Please review these two maps:

    Note which country sits in the middle.

    Note what and where these pipeline cross.

    Think strategically.

  20. Black Flag says:

    Black Flag said on June 24, 2009 at 12:56 am e

    G. A. Rowe

    I know I am a retired Marine – But I have much more faith and belief in the U.S. Army than that!

    Faith does not ship supplies.

    It wouldn’t be the first time an Army, with superior numbers and firepower, are defeated by supply lines.

    America’s Achilles heel is the dependence on fuel and lubricants. Every drop of fuel for every machine, tank, and armored vehicle needs to be transported on the Basra highway.

    Further, who in Iraq would be America’s allies?

    The USA invaded Iraq and destroyed the Sunni’s who held power with Saddam.

    The Shiite have an affinity for the Shiite in Iran – and an attack on Iran they would most certainly not chose our side against their own.

    Our forces would have absolutely no place to go – literally, every one Iraq would attack our forces. A hundred thousand troops surrounded by 28 million Iraqis and 60 million Iranians.

    Think about it . . . If “ach-med-the-nut-job” could have done that then he already would have! This is the nutcase who has vowed to nuke Israel off the face of the earth –

    Firstly, he has said no such thing. You are guilty of gullibility from MSN talking heads. He has said – “The Zionist regime in Israel cannot last and will be swept from the pages of time”.

    Where do you get ‘nuking Israel’?

    Further, I agree. If Iran wanted to decimate the USA, she could do it – but it would cost her dearly too. But the reverse it true. Any action on Iran will cost the USA dearly.

    if this guy’s military (whose tactics and equipment are old soviet throwaways) could have even had a remote chance of doing that (remember that Iraq under Saddam Hussein held them to a stale mate for YEARS) they would already have done that.

    As history has proven, hubris is the worse enemy of a Nation.

    -’Quintilius Varus, give me back my legions!’ (Legio XVII, Legio XVIII and Legio XIX – altogether some 20,000 men destroyed in Teutoburg Forest by “savages”)

    – In 415 BC, Athens – the greatest power in Mediterranean at the time – dispatched a massive expeditionary force to attack Syracuse in Sicily; the attack failed disastrously, with the destruction of the entire force, in 413 BC.

    – Philip II, who sent the Spanish Armada in 1588 to escort the Duke of Parma’s army across the North Sea to invade England and put a friendly Catholic on the English throne. Driven off at the sea battle of Gravelines, the Armada failed. The English and Dutch gained new confidence in attacking the Spanish at sea around the world. Spain did not agree to a truce until 1609 – and did not recognize the Dutch Republic until 1648

    American hubris regarding Iran will risk this entire nation. We will not recover from the loss.

    Fortunately, the JCoS are fully aware of the Iranian asymmetrical strength of response.

    Do remember, in war games, Iran sank our two fleets in the Gulf…twice… (a second time when the war game was restarted and the fleet brought back to life). After the second time, the rules of the game were changed.

    Unfortunately, the US does not have this power in real life.

    > Remember that Iran is nothing but a Theocratic Dictatorship – Their military is more geared for doing damage to and controlling their own population, not fighting foreign military forces that are much better equipped and trained.

    You forget they fought Iraq for 10 years, without any international support, and while Iraq received massive USA arms and aid, Iran was winning.

    Iran was forced to accept terms when the US Navy entered the Gulf and threatened invasion.

    To under estimate the danger our forces are under in Iraq would be fatal to America.

    • USWeapon says:

      USWeapon said on June 24, 2009 at 4:35 am e

      Again I am throwing the BS flag here. You know I respect your intelligence, but you are flying blind on this one. You make some good points that would be better if they were relevant. You make some others that simply are not true.

      Let’s start with simply not true. “The Iranian Army would decimate the US.” Completely false. You know economics. I don’t question you in that arena. I know foreign military power, tactics, and abilities. And I know war. From what I have read from Danak he falls into the same category. We both agree that this is a false statement. The Iranian army fought with the Iraqi army for ten years. True. The Iraqis were supplied by the US. True. The Iranians were ALSO supplied by the US. Interesting that you left that part out. In fact we had an entire decade dominated by that scandal. The US military, flexing about 30% of its strength, walked a mudhole in the Iraqi army in about 100 hours. So maybe it would take them 200 hours to do the same to Iran. The Iranian Army is not strong. It’s equipment is old, and best intelligence estimates say only about 50% of its heavy equipment can even move at this point. Their soldiers are poorly trained, and most, like the Iraqi “elite Republican Guard”, have only seen real combat against their own citizens. There is a reason we use shock and awe. It is enough to remove 75% of their military from the game based on fear alone. They will run, surrender, and die as fast as the Iraqi army did.

      America’s Achilles heel is the dependence on fuel and lubricants. Every drop of fuel for every machine, tank, and armored vehicle needs to be transported on the Basra highway.

      False. American equipment does, in fact, depend on fuel and lubricants. But as someone who has fought in that region I can tell you that the rest of that statement is false. They do not rely on any highway. Our military fighting doctrine solved the issue of having supply lines broken in the desert 15 years ago. It is a problem should we fight in the jungle. It is a problem if we fight in the mountains, but it is not a problem in the majority of the middle east. Not to mention that by the time they figure out where the supply lines are, our mechanized infantry and armor will have eliminated theirs. You far underestimate our military and far overestimate theirs. That isn’t pride our hubris talking. That is mere reality trumping wishful thinking.

      Firstly, he has said no such thing. You are guilty of gullibility from MSN talking heads. He has said – “The Zionist regime in Israel cannot last and will be swept from the pages of time”. Where do you get ‘nuking Israel’?

      Correct. I fully agree that there is not a quote that he is going to nuke Israel. This is a runaway lie. He did not say that. But it does not mean that he doesn’t think it. He is a 12th-ist, and we know what they believe, don’t we? What his intentions are we can not know. He has not said that Israel will be wiped from the map. But he has made many statements that show his desire to have Israel gone. Again I point out that a government that will kill its own people isn’t one that you really trust has good intentions when it doesn’t like someone. They clearly don’t like Israel. The fact that he didn’t make the statement you referenced, does not mean that he has good intentions.

      Further, I agree. If Iran wanted to decimate the USA, she could do it – but it would cost her dearly too. But the reverse it true. Any action on Iran will cost the USA dearly.

      Really? I would say that you need to make up your mind on this one. Because you have made it clear that no country on earth, let alone Iran, can invade the United States at all, let alone decimate her. Iran has a one in a million chance of beating the US militarily. And even that chance in fleeting and would take a ton of lucky breaks. DEFEATING Iran is another story altogether. Beating a country militarily is far different from beating it outright. Iran wouldn’t last a couple weeks militarily against us. But they would be difficult to truly defeat. As for Iran beating the US…. would never happen. Again, not pride or hubris. Just reality. I know that you love that David vs Goliath stuff where every country out there can stand up to us, but that stuff only lives in theory. When we decide to flex, there might be one or two that could hang, but that is it. This is just like you saying that a militia could defeat a Chinese invasion. Absolute nonsense.

      As for your references to historical upsets against larger armies. Great reading and it certainly provides fodder to send the vastly outgunned to their deaths, but completely irrelevant to today’s world. The delta between weapons was relatively small during those times when compared to the difference between the US military weaponry and most of the world, with a very few exceptions. Give Custer a single Bradley fighting vehicle and not a single indian walks away from that confrontation. You have a penchant for bringing in historical facts like this that don’t apply when viewed more critically. You should stop that.

      Do remember, in war games, Iran sank our two fleets in the Gulf…twice… (a second time when the war game was restarted and the fleet brought back to life). After the second time, the rules of the game were changed.

      Somewhat true and somewhat not. First, the US Fleet in this war game was not using an implemented doctrine or proven methods. They were TESTING a new high-tech joint force doctrine. The opposing general, van Ripen, used low tech all the way and beat them. Fabulous, but this proved nothing that Mitchell hadn’t already proven 60 years ago. It proved nothing that the history of naval warfare hasn’t shown many times. It proved nothing that we didn’t already know. All it proved is that giant floating surface vessels are sitting ducks against even low tech airplanes with bombs or missiles. We learned that in Pearl Harbor. It has long been said that the only safe naval vessel is the submarine.

      The wargame rules also did not allow for many different deterrents that would have been effective such as laying naval minefields and a vastly increased air support. It also put the vessels in harms way prior to initiating the air strikes that we have made a signature of our method of operation. The preceding air strikes would eliminate almost the entirety of the small boats and planes that van Ripen was allowed to start with intact. So it is nice fodder for folks like you to throw out as evidence that Iran will beat us, but it wasn’t rooted in the reality of how such a conflict would play out.

      You forget they fought Iraq for 10 years, without any international support, and while Iraq received massive USA arms and aid, Iran was winning. Iran was forced to accept terms when the US Navy entered the Gulf and threatened invasion.

      Funny, why didn’t they just use their cessnas and fishing boats and sink the fleet? I already addressed the international support part.

      The bottom line, BF, is that Iran militarily would be decimated by us. There is nothing they could do to stop us. Despite your fervent wish that this wasn’t true, it simply cannot happen.

      That being said, attacking Iran would be a disaster for us in many different ways that have nothing to do with military strikes and casualties. World condemnation, economic consequences, region destabilization. All these things would be bad. And beyond that, we have no right to interfere in the business of sovereign nations. The UN has that power through the use of a world vote and subsequent sanctions. But the US has no right. And that is why I say we should keep our nose out of it.

      • SFC Dick says:

        BOYS! fight nice now.

        damn it you two, now you are going to make me refind all my source links and research, crap.

        I hate fighting one of you on a point, now I’m forced to prove you both underinformed ( nice huh, think I’m gonna come gunnin’ straight out of the gate with a word like WRONG, nay) on several points.

        “Our military fighting doctrine solved the issue of having supply lines broken in the desert 15 years ago”
        uh, yeh, it might have solved it, written it down, trained on it, tattooed it on its collective anus but we still were showing what happens when you don’t keep, or plan for, or adjust to , your supply lines. The push to Baghdad is the prime example. Our vaunted generals out ran the supply line and its tanks ( ya know, reading that line it sounds as if, just too much good luck. Nay, read that line with this subtext, failed to properly plan/did not plan on some things all together/ froze into hours and days of indecision from something that happens on the battle field as commonly as fat dudes farting in sports bars and some showed complete grasp of war) then did, or should I say, continued to do big stupid. I have to look this back up, but I think they pushed in light, fell back and showed paralysis on getting the tanks up there. SEC-DEF Rumsfield had to use the marines and their tanks for the push because the US Army (command) said they couldn’t move their tanks up for , I think 12 days, Marines said “we can do it in 2, and did”

        The news footage of a support company fighting off a numerically superior Iraq force from under some overpass gave me a great big chub when I first saw it, then I had a bad feeling, but couldn’t put my finger on it. I soon enough could. The whole Jessica Lynch, hero war god thing happened. Yeh, I get it, wrong turn, wrong part of town, bad day all around but…
        The whole new maneuver warfare doctrine has been adjusted to “prove’ its worth against Iraq, as opposed to followed and evaluated. What we saw was an undisciplined sprint that fell apart much, but because of two things, didn’t produce the disastrous results it could have, even in Iraq.

        1. US soldiers and more specifically NCOs and a good portion of the junior officers corps was able to FIX bad plans on the fly and in combat. This is possible when attacking through an enemy that lacks depth and coordination of effort, it will not prove as effective against depth and coordinations in the form of counter attack from supporting/reserve elements and supporting fires. You can see this in the cities on several occasions, not so much from grand planning on Iraq’s part, but just because of the nature of so many bad guys reeling from the initial shock of US ground attack (which, I am completely satisfied is a bad bad thing to be on the wrong side of) falling back into and among other fighters in improved/prepared positions. It was kinda happen stance, but provided defense in depth that cost us dearly on several occasions, Fallujuh 2X, and the other towns don’t come to mind.

        2. We were fighting Iraq.

        We had several big indicators of screw ups. We never intended/planned/welcomed having outrun or support in such a way that they are now moving in enemy territory. This is a huge, I mean HUGE flaw that we got away with in Desert storm but cost soldiers lives in OIF. I couldn’t put my finger on it, first feeling the big “hurray team” at seeing a support company close and destroy an Iraqi ground unit, then I realized this was not the plan. This support company was moving naked, at a full out sprint in unsecured bad guy country. This wasn’t the Ardennes where everyone was pushed into ground combat, no, this was a command that left their guys to the wolves. There are so many military truisms out there, “never allow the enemy in your rear” “amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics” “always secure your MSR” that this is , well, indicative of a real bad thing. This has not been fixed, I’ll leave it at that.

        We have supposedly evolved from Air-Land Battle doctrine to maneuver warfare, well…
        I was Borne and raised under A/L-W and I can tell you this, there was much emphasis on Air coordination. You aren’t supposed to “evolve” from something until its mastered, the Air coordination was reported to be NONE on the push into, scratch that, the what was supposed to be , the initial push into Baghdad. The C-17 was developed from A/L with a great big role as forward support, being able to operate on unimproved runways, come on now. I am not going to detail more here.

        USweapon posts

        “Not to mention that by the time they figure out where the supply lines are, our mechanized infantry and armor will have eliminated theirs”

        Yeh, probably not, I’m batting 1,000 when I do escort duty for a move. Been hit every time, granted, Iran is not Afghanistan.

        And lastly, then I’ll quit picking on you US, and this is more of a philosophical thing

        USWeapon posts

        “The bottom line, BF, is that Iran militarily would be decimated by us.”

        I, uh, I just can’t share your optimistic view there, maybe, but I see way too much that say to me “we aint gonna be able to get away with that against anything or anyone that has all their poop in one boot.”
        Would we leave a smoking hole where the Iranian army once was, yup, but that’s because we have the ability to suffer a real bad, real real bad day at work.

        Now Black Flag it is your turn

        Black Flag posts

        “It wouldn’t be the first time an Army, with superior numbers and firepower, are defeated by supply lines.”

        Blah Blah Blah, Napoleon didn’t have the ability to resupply by air or as quickly as we. Plus, worst case scenario, us running out of supplies only delays us, maybe guarantees a stalemate, it doesn’t guarantee us a loss. I point to Dien Ben Phu and our own Khe San for a more modern look at warfare and problems with supply, be it men or material.

        Blag Flack posts

        “Our forces would have absolutely no place to go – literally, every one Iraq would attack our forces. A hundred thousand troops surrounded by 28 million Iraqis and 60 million Iranians”

        More Blah Blah Blah. I’m pretty shure there’s at least one blind dude in Iran and am most positive there are a few Iraqis with out legs, so as far as every one? Come on BF Anielewicz, we aren’t exactly talking about rolling into the Warsaw ghettos here. I do believe we might even have one or two dudes, locals, on the ground now that would be most willing to help; pretty darn sure of that. But, we need to invade Iran like we need another housing/bank/auto bail out, or war.

    • Black Flag says:

      USWeapon

      BF: What country has Iran invaded int he last 300 years?”
      USWEP: Lebanon.

      :blink: :blink:

      That is the most bizarre statement I’ve seen you make.

      Iran has not invaded Lebanon.

      Facts:
      The 1978 South Lebanon conflict (code-named Operation Litani by Israel) was an intervention in Lebanon up to the Litani River carried out by the Israel Defense Forces in 1978. It was a military success, as PLO forces were pushed north of the river.

      However, objections from the Lebanese government led to the creation of the UNIFIL peacekeeping force and a partial Israeli withdrawal.

      First Lebanon War, began on 6 June 1982, when the Israel Defense Forces invaded southern Lebanon.

      Surrounded in West Beirut and subjected to heavy bombardment, they negotiated passage from Lebanon with the aid of Special Envoy Philip Habib and the protection of international peacekeepers.

      the Second Lebanon War was a 34-day military conflict in Lebanon The conflict started on 12 July 2006 with the invasion of Lebanon by Israel, and continued until a United Nations-brokered ceasefire went into effect in the morning on 14 August 2006.

      Perhaps you got your spelling wrong …its IS, then RA-no N – but E A L that has invaded Lebanon.

      You take a very narrow view and assign the US as the only villain in every scenario, BF.

      Not true, old friend.

      I’ve stated – many times – the problem was instigated in the roots of European Colonialism, which was reinforced by the wicked treaties post-WW1.

      I’ve also stated that the American Empire has purposefully by policy picked up the Colonialist Mercantile Systems of Britain and France.

      I’ve also shown that this policy forces violent intervention against national political movements, including democratic ones.

      America suffers Mercantilism, inherited from the Europeans – mostly from Britain and France.

      This policy is enforced by an attitude of a ‘with me or against me’ – thus, America fears that such movements – which are statements of a national self-determination – will always end up with enemies of America – because self-determination threatens American mercantilism.

      This attitude is no different the the European Colonialists like Britain – whose entire Empire was built on mercantilism.

      Thus, American policy does not support self-determination (though it mouths this goal) -unless it also comes with a carte blanche agreement in favor of US business interests- but supports any government, no matter how tyrannical, that is a ‘friend’ of America (ie: allows American business interests to flourish – mercantilism)

      If you take pause, and review every international action from that point of view, quickly the events and actions make sense.

      America’s support of Israel makes no sense outside of this context.

      However, if you see that Israel gives America a secure operational base to enforce its business interests (ie: oil) in the Middle East, and that without Israel, it would be next to impossible to enforce such a hegemony, the unwavering support of even atrocities sudden becomes clear, too.

      I can see where America makes its mistakes and where it sticks its nose where it should not be, but you seem to lack the ability to see the reality of what other countries do.

      Au contraire.

      You are measuring mistakes incorrectly.

      Every ‘nose sticking’ – if you review the historical actions – is an act of mercantilism.

      Since you, like most citizens, find it vile to die for someone else’s pocket change, the political machine changes the tune – ie: defend freedom, etc. – though any reasoning and watching of the actions proofs such tunes as ridiculous.

      If you are a mercantilist, America has made no mistakes – it has, occasionally, been incapable of enforcing such (Vietnam, Korea) but that isn’t a ‘mistake’ – it is merely an unsuccessful attempt.

      Take off your rose colored glasses, USWep and smell the coffee –

      To use your own title against you – WAKE UP!

      • USWeapon says:

        Iran has not invaded Lebanon

        You know exactly what I meant by that statement. You took it literally only to try to make a point. Point taken. Iran has had its hands in the situation with Lebanon and Palestine for quite a while. They supplied weapons and personnel to the conflicts there. Sure they didn’t technically invade Lebanon, but we didn’t technically invade Iran in the 50’s either. In both cases invasion wasn’t necessary to have made an impact. This is what I mean by you only see it when the US does it and ignore it when someone else does it.

        Since you, like most citizens, find it vile to die for someone else’s pocket change, the political machine changes the tune – ie: defend freedom, etc. – though any reasoning and watching of the actions proofs such tunes as ridiculous.

        If you are a mercantilist, America has made no mistakes – it has, occasionally, been incapable of enforcing such (Vietnam, Korea) but that isn’t a ‘mistake’ – it is merely an unsuccessful attempt.

        On the contrary, I have done as I stated. I am willing to hear the arguments for why America has been wrong in every action you want to put forth. In many instances I see your argument and will agree, at least to an extent. But you refuse to do the same. Iran has its paws in all kinds of things outside of Iran. So this claim that Iran is a peaceful country that has not attacked anyone for 300 years is literally true but patently false, and you know it. I just don’t know why you can’t admit it. They are not a nice country. They are a bad guy. That doesn’t make it right to attack them. But failing to admit the truth is nearly as bad as lying about it.

        I like rose colored glasses. I do not allow them to cloud my view, however.

    • Black Flag says:

      Black Flag said on June 24, 2009 at 3:11 pm e

      USWep

      Let’s start with simply not true. The Iranian Army would decimate the US. Completely false. You know economics. I don’t question you in that arena. I know foreign military power, tactics, and abilities. And I know war. From what I have read from Danak he falls into the same category. We both agree that this is a false statement. The Iranian army fought with the Iraqi army for ten years. True. The Iraqis were supplied by the US. True. The Iranians were ALSO supplied by the US. Interesting that you left that part out. In fact we had an entire decade dominated by that scandal.

      Again, you’re fooled by the illusion of mirrors.

      Iraq was publicly supported by the US. We sent diplomats and Secretaries of Defense and State to shake hands with Saddam.

      It was a corrupt business decision that caused the Iran/Contra Affair. There was no public nor private support of Iran.

      Further, I did not say the Iranian Army would decimate the US. They have no Navy to reach the continent.

      I said that the Iranian Army is well positioned to decimate the US Army in Iraq. By merely looking at a map, it is bluntly obvious as to why.

      I said that the Iranian Armed Forces is well positioned to provided massive, asymetrical response, to US military force against Iran.

      Iran has very limited military capability outside of its immediate region. It has no viable response, militarily, to an attack by either Israel or America. It can, however, decimate the global economy – and America with it.

      Some information quotes as background:

      Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen told the Wall Street Journal that Iran’s ability to strike back “has not maxed out at all.”

      …established a doctrine of deterrence that calls for a disproportionate response against the U.S. and Israel in the event of any attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, no matter how limited. The doctrine stipulates that anything less than a large-scale response would risk the credibility of the Iranian regime — and its survival. And importantly, it does not draw a distinction between Israel and the U.S., if for no other reason than Israeli jets have to fly across U.S.-controlled Iraqi airspace to hit Iran.

      Lt. General Paul Van Riper led a hypothetical Persian Gulf state in the 2002 Millennium Challenge war games that resulted in the destruction of the Fifth Fleet.

      His experience and conclusions regarding the vulnerability of the Fifth Fleet to an asymmetrical military conflict and the implications for a war against Iran have been ignored.

      Iran has sufficient quantities of cruise missiles to destroy much or all of the Fifth Fleet which is within range of Iran’s mobile missile launchers strategically located along its mountainous terrain overlooking the Persian Gulf.

      The most sophisticated of Iran’s cruise missiles are the ‘Sunburn’ and ‘Yakhonts’. These are missiles against which U.S. military experts conclude modern warships have no effective defence.

      Iran has purchased sufficient quantities of both the Sunbeam and Yakhonts to destroy much or all of the U.S. Naval Fifth Fleet anywhere in the Persian Gulf from its mountainous coastal terrain.

      Millennium Challenge War games

      The “Millennium Challenge” was one of the largest war games ever conducted and war games involved 13,500 troops spread out at over 17 locations. The war games involved heavy usage of computer simulations, extended over a three week period and cost $250 million.

      Millennium Challenge involved asymmetrical warfare between the U.S military forces, led by General William Kernan, and an unnamed state in the Persian Gulf.

      According to General Kernan, the war games “would test a series of new war-fighting concepts recently developed by the Pentagon.”

      Using a range of asymmetrical attack strategies using disguised civilian boats for launching attacks, planes in Kamikaze attacks, and Silkworm cruise missiles, much of the Fifth Fleet was sunk.

      The games revealed how asymmetrical strategies could exploit the Fifth Fleet’s vulnerability against anti-ship cruise missiles in the confined waters of the Persian Gulf

      In a controversial decision, the Pentagon decided to simply ‘refloat’ the Fifth Fleet to continue the exercise which led to the eventual defeat of the Persian Gulf state.

      The sinking of the Fifth Fleet was ignored and the war games declared a success for the “new war-fighting concepts” adopted by Gen. Kernan.

      This led to Lt General Paul Van Riper, the commander of the mythical Gulf State, calling the official results “empty sloganeering”.

      In a later television interview, General Riper declared “when the concepts that the command was testing failed to live up to their expectations, the command at that point began to script the exercise in order to prove these concepts. This was my critical complaint.”

      The US military, flexing about 30% of its strength, walked a mudhole in the Iraqi army in about 100 hours. So maybe it would take them 200 hours to do the same to Iran. The Iranian Army is not strong.

      You make the same, typical, mistake of equating Iraqi military with Iranian military.

      Further, you evaluate Iranian capability on the same terms as the American capability – that is, ability to project military power beyond national borders.

      Thus, in your evaluation, you ignore the grave threat Iranian military places upon American forces in the region.

      It’s equipment is old, and best intelligence estimates say only about 50% of its heavy equipment can even move at this point.

      I’ll repeat this as a rebuttal to your contention:

      Iran has purchased sufficient quantities of both the Sunbeam and Yakhonts to destroy much or all of the U.S. Naval Fifth Fleet anywhere in the Persian Gulf from its mountainous coastal terrain.

      I offer this as a further rebuttal:

      Iran yesterday confirmed that Russia had agreed to deliver the S-300 air defence system,

      The S-300 had a range far superior to that of the US Patriot system, experts said. It could also shoot down cruise and ballistic missiles, they added.

      True, if you compare the number of air craft carriers Iran has vs. the USA, they’ll quite a bit behind.

      But again, you’re missing the strategic goal and capability.

      Their soldiers are poorly trained, and most, like the Iraqi “elite Republican Guard”, have only seen real combat against their own citizens.

      Bizarre amnesia.

      Ever hear of the Iraq/Iran War?

      There is a reason we use shock and awe. It is enough to remove 75% of their military from the game based on fear alone. They will run, surrender, and die as fast as the Iraqi army did.

      Such assumption, which fortunately is NOT the assumption of the JCoS, would risk the American Army of Iraq.

      You forget that the current Iranian regime was put into place by popular revolution – unlike Saddam, who seized it.

      Saddam thought the same as you when he invaded in 1980 – the Iranians would overthrow the government – and he was as wrong as you are.

      > America’s Achilles heel is the dependence on fuel and lubricants. Every drop of fuel for every machine, tank, and armored vehicle needs to be transported on the Basra highway.

      > False. American equipment does, in fact, depend on fuel and lubricants. But as someone who has fought in that region I can tell you that the rest of that statement is false. They do not rely on any highway. Our military fighting doctrine solved the issue of having supply lines broken in the desert 15 years ago. It is a problem should we fight in the jungle. It is a problem if we fight in the mountains, but it is not a problem in the majority of the middle east. Not to mention that by the time they figure out where the supply lines are, our mechanized infantry and armor will have eliminated theirs. You far underestimate our military and far overestimate theirs. That isn’t pride our hubris talking. That is mere reality trumping wishful thinking.

      “Amateurs talk strategy; professionals talk logistics.” — Gen. Omar Bradley

      I leave facts on the table for the rest of your audience to make their own assessments.

      1). The US military – on its own – consumes more fuel than Greece.

      2). “The Third Army (of General Patton) had about 400,000 men and used about 400,000 gallons of gasoline a day. Today , in Iraq, the USA has about a third that number of troops in Iraq yet they use more than four times as much fuel.”

      3). The U.S. military now uses about 1.7 million gallons of fuel a day in Iraq. … each of the 150,000 soldiers on the ground consumes roughly nine gallons of fuel a day. This measn in Iraq each day 40,000 b/d of oil is consumed by the US military.

      4). The US Army used 1.88 billion gallons of fuel were consumed within the U.S. Central Command’s area of responsibility during Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm (ODS/S), between August 10, 1990 and May 31, 1991.” Any operation against Iran would exceed this.

      5). In 2008, more than 68 million gallons of fuel, on average, were supplied by DOD each month to support U.S. military forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

      6). For electrical power generation ALONE, a 2008 Defense Science Board Task Force report noted that Army generators consume about 26 million gallons of fuel annually during peacetime but 357 million gallons annually during wartime.

      Finally,

      These forces are wholly dependent on a supply line based on two roads on either side of the Euphrates which stretch some 400 miles (about 650 km) from Kuwait north towards Baghdad.

      It is along these roads that gasoline, food, ammunition, and all other sinews of war must be transported by truck convoy.

      Two roads of 400 miles each add up to 800 miles of highway to defend an impossible proposition in the face of a sustained people’s war by the Shiites of the lower Euphrates.

      The Iraqi resistance understood early on that these truck convoys represented a grave vulnerability for the occupation forces, and this has been the key to their most effective weapon so far, the improvised roadside bomb or IED.

      This vital aorta of supplies could now be cut in several places at once by the Shiite guerrillas of the Mahdi army or related groups.

      An assault on Iran – regardless of how limited – would most likely cause the Mahdi Army to deploy all along the supply line.

      Firstly, he has said no such thing. You are guilty of gullibility from MSN talking heads. He has said – “The Zionist regime in Israel cannot last and will be swept from the pages of time”. Where do you get ‘nuking Israel’?

      > Correct. I fully agree that there is not a quote that he is going to nuke Israel. This is a runaway lie. He did not say that. But it does not mean that he doesn’t think it.

      :blink:

      So, your argument here is you know what another person thinks.

      Whew! You got me beat hands down with that one!

      . But he has made many statements that show his desire to have Israel gone.

      Untrue.

      In fact, he has offered time and time again to negotiate with Israel – but not with the Zionists regime.

      You combine Zionism and Israel – but they are not the same thing.

      I would say that you need to make up your mind on this one. Because you have made it clear that no country on earth, let alone Iran, can invade the United States at all, let alone decimate her. Iran has a one in a million chance of beating the US militarily.

      Again, you’ve missed the power of asymmetrical response. Iran doesn’t need to invade the USA.

      She can cripple the nation economically by merely shutting down the Gulf.

      And even that chance in fleeting and would take a ton of lucky breaks.

      You’re trapped – like many in the military – in understanding what ‘victory’ means in the context of warfare in the Middle East.

      By your anaylsis, we won in Iraq and Afghanistan. But I wonder why we are still fighting there 8 years later, then….

      The delta between weapons was relatively small during those times when compared to the difference between the US military weaponry and most of the world, with a very few exceptions. Give Custer a single Bradley fighting vehicle and not a single indian walks away from that confrontation. You have a penchant for bringing in historical facts like this that don’t apply when viewed more critically. You should stop that.

      They are absolutely pertinent.

      If, in fact, your point was valid – how can you explain Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan failures?

      The wargame rules also did not allow for many different deterrents that would have been effective such as laying naval minefields and a vastly increased air support. It also put the vessels in harms way prior to initiating the air strikes that we have made a signature of our method of operation. The preceding air strikes would eliminate almost the entirety of the small boats and planes that van Ripen was allowed to start with intact. So it is nice fodder for folks like you to throw out as evidence that Iran will beat us, but it wasn’t rooted in the reality of how such a conflict would play out.

      Of course, like a poker hand, the play won’t be known until the end of the play. So who “knows” how it will play out.

      However, you neglect a critical point.

      To launch an attack, US bases are and US ships MUST enter within the range of Iranian missiles.

      As demonstrated by the Falklands War, even the older Exocet missiles were devastating.

      Here is the fact:
      The Argentine Navy had only 5 of the air-launched AM.39 Exocet anti-ship missiles when the war began.

      3 hit their targets, resulting in the sinking of two ships.

      The Iranian missiles are massively more superior in ability and in numbers.

      A loss of an aircraft carrier or other major vessel would be the most significant military loss since WW2.

      The US, in modern times, has not suffered battlefield losses as experienced by the British, French, Russians, Iranians nor Iraqis.

      The last major, sudden, battle field loss of that magnitude was Kasserine Pass – where US forces lost 6,500 men in a day – which politically threatened the American moral and war effort. (See the very interesting book ‘Kasserine Pass – Baptism of Fire’)

      Note – Midway, the US lost 550 men…..

      A modern carrier loss could claim thousands….

      But of concern – in contradiction to your claim regarding the war game – was the official conclusion – repeated here:

      The sinking of the Fifth Fleet was ignored and the war games declared a success for the “new war-fighting concepts” adopted by Gen. Kernan

      ’nuff said.

      • USWeapon says:

        Oh… I forgot how good you are at twisting things around and using wording to make it sound better than it is. 😉

        I will reply in a bit when I have time.

      • USWeapon says:

        Iraq was publicly supported by the US. We sent diplomats and Secretaries of Defense and State to shake hands with Saddam.

        It was a corrupt business decision that caused the Iran/Contra Affair. There was no public nor private support of Iran.

        Which is it? Iraq and Iran battled for ten years with Iraq having our support and Iran not having anyone’s or we gave Iraq nothing while doing “business” with Iran? You seem to be having an identity crisis.

        Further, I did not say the Iranian Army would decimate the US. They have no Navy to reach the continent.

        Go back and read your comments. Yes you did. But you clarified it with this response so we can let it go. Your position as redefined here is at least more plausible.

        Bizarre amnesia. Ever hear of the Iraq/Iran War?

        Yes I have. Go and do some more research. 80% of the Iranian troops that took part in direct combat in the Iran/Iraq war are no longer a part of the Iranian national army. Best intelligence estimates put about 40% of their army as 18 month term draftees who have poor training and little loyalty. Let’s not forget that the revolution in 1979 saw roughly 60% of the Iranian military deserted. The Iran/Iraq war is estimated to have used roughly 40% of the adult male population as soldiers. Can’t get much more than that realistically. You should know better than to think that I don’t know the numbers to back up my position. Amnesia my butt.

        “Amateurs talk strategy; professionals talk logistics.” — Gen. Omar Bradley

        A couple of issues here. First, are you suggesting that a General inherently is not wrong, and that an “amateur” such as myself cannot possibly be right? I hope that you don’t apply that level of critical analysis to your own positions or you won’t be able to believe yourself. Interesting that you see the General as an authority.

        :blink: So, your argument here is you know what another person thinks.

        No sir, I specifically said just because he said it does not mean that he doesn’t think it. I don’t know what they man thinks. I made that clear. I know enough of what he has said to understand at least some of what he thinks though.

        In fact, he has offered time and time again to negotiate with Israel – but not with the Zionists regime.

        He has offered to negotiate with them on his terms only. And with his outcome the only outcome possible. Just because he used the nice word negotiate” doesn’t mean that is what he actually wants to do. You know better than this. I am not sure why you are making silly claims when you know he is not a good guy, a fair guy, or a “negotiating” guy.

        You combine Zionism and Israel – but they are not the same thing.

        Far point. I concede on this one. You are correct they aren’t the same thing. Which proves my point above. He won’t negotiate with the zionist regime. Which means he is willing to negotiate only if Israel shuns the US for him. That isn’t a fair offer of negotiation.

        If, in fact, your point was valid – how can you explain Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan failures?

        Vietnam – bad policies, bad politics, and idiotic military maneuvers. It wasn’t that we couldn’t beat them.
        Iraq – We did win. Game over. We are now in a different phase of war, the one where we secure it to ensure the madness doesn’t start as soon as we leave.
        Afghanistan – Taliban… out of power and hiding in caves. I guess if you call that a victory, I have no answers. And this is in spite of horrible decisions being made at high levels that tie the hands of soldiers to wage war the way it should be waged. American wuss-pots demand the war be fought civilly. The opponents have no such constraint. When you measure success in terms of how many innocent people you blow up at the local market, success sure seems easy.

        To launch an attack, US bases are and US ships MUST enter within the range of Iranian missiles

        .

        Not true. The attack doesn’t have to come from ships at all so they can remain out of range until safe. We can launch strikes from anywhere we like.

        The sinking of the Fifth Fleet was ignored and the war games declared a success for the “new war-fighting concepts” adopted by Gen. Kernan

        First, the definition of success is at question here. The war games were a success because they learned a lot from them. That is how I se that statement. You choose to see it differently. Oddly, despite your claims, our military did not adopt the doctrine tested in the war games in question. So I think my interpretation of his quote was more likely to be true.

        Second. Which is it? Generals are incompetent fools or genius’s to be listened to? In one part of your post you praise the report written by a general as being an official striking down of my amateur opinion. Then later you seem to think a General is too dumb to win a war. I guess generals are genius when they say something that you agree with and pure idiots when they say something that don’t agree with. Again with that identity crisis.

  21. Black Flag says:

    JayDickB

    In any event, my point is that Bush did not use violence as a first resort.

    Really?

    If I demand you give up your furniture and car to prove that you have no guns, and if you don’t I’ll blow your house – would you claim that a ‘first attempt’ at resolving a dispute?

  22. Black Flag says:

    “But what counter-insurgency really comes down to is the protection of the capitalists back in America, their property and their privileges. US national security, as preached by US leaders, is the security of the capitalist class in the US, not the security of the rest of the people.”– Philip Agee, CIA Diary, p562

  23. Black Flag says:

    USWep:

    Iran has not invaded Lebanon
    You know exactly what I meant by that statement.

    I surely hope that you were literal.

    If mere financial and armament support (and meager at best, if you are suggesting Iran) is your definition of invasion or ‘rogue’ status, there is no greater rogue then the USA by magnitude of 100x.

    Careful with your definitions, sir.

    • USWeapon says:

      Nope I said what I meant and meant what I said. As I stated, I know that makes the US not such a good and fair player in many eyes. I am quite capable of seeing America with all of her faults, including possibly being a rogue by a magnitude of 100x. I certainly see many instances in history of where the US has acted inappropriately. The question was whether you were going to admit the same about a nation that does it as well, such as Iran. They aren’t all smiles and rainbows, despite your claim that they just want to keep to themselves.

  24. Black Flag says:

    USWeapon

    Which is it? Iraq and Iran battled for ten years with Iraq having our support and Iran not having anyone’s or we gave Iraq nothing while doing “business” with Iran? You seem to be having an identity crisis.

    Hardly.

    USA shipped Iraq arms and WMD’s. USA publicly and politically isolated Iran.

    You truly can’t be serious in equating another deal – for cash in trade of mere parts – desperately hidden from public view – in an effort to covertly fund another vicious mercantilism venture as support??!?

    But you clarified it with this response so we can let it go. Your position as redefined here is at least more plausible.

    In review, I definitely was unclear on that point – thanks for your grace.

    Bizarre amnesia. Ever hear of the Iraq/Iran War?

    Yes I have. Go and do some more research.

    You said “Republic Guard” – not the army.

    But grace for grace….

    I do not agree with your assessment of Iranian capability. You degrade them too much whilst minimizing the territory of battle.

    If you think Iran will sit and wait for the USA to invade while the USA builds up its forces – like Saddam did – you need an electric shock.

    “Amateurs talk strategy; professionals talk logistics.” — Gen. Omar Bradley

    A couple of issues here. First, are you suggesting that a General inherently is not wrong, and that an “amateur” such as myself cannot possibly be right? I hope that you don’t apply that level of critical analysis to your own positions or you won’t be able to believe yourself. Interesting that you see the General as an authority.

    Generals are often wrong – but on that point, I believe him to be right.

    .
    Far point. I concede on this one. You are correct they aren’t the same thing. Which proves my point above. He won’t negotiate with the zionist regime. Which means he is willing to negotiate only if Israel shuns the US for him. That isn’t a fair offer of negotiation.

    In fact, he has invited the USA to participate. He is not stupid – “when there is a dragon in your midst, best include it in your plans” – is a Persian quote.

    Iraq – We did win. Game over.

    My point exactly. Same as Vietnam. The perception of victory in the American mind is not nearly the same as in their mind.

    Vietnam proved it. Iraq will prove it. Afghanistan will prove it. America will not understand it at all.

    Not true. The attack doesn’t have to come from ships at all so they can remain out of range until safe. We can launch strikes from anywhere we like.

    I disagree. All air strikes need bases and they need to be in range. Iran easily can strike them all. Iran has missiles that can hit 100,000+ feet – so B-52’s are also vulnerable.

    And, though without direct proof, I am confident that Russia has offered the same technology as they provided Serbia capable of detecting US “stealth” aircraft.

    Second. Which is it? Generals are incompetent fools or genius’s to be listened to?

    Both – as in these matters, the one who uses the best reasoning or gets lucky gets the medals.

    The other kills his men.

  25. SFC Dick says:

    Black Flag, Uh…

    “If you think Iran will sit and wait for the USA to invade while the USA builds up its forces – like Saddam did – you need an electric shock.”

    Well, I guess US had better get zappin, we’re here geography boy ( that’s the best I could come up with) and we’re building up and building infrastructure. Any one who thinks we are going to be out of either place in the next 10 years needs electro shock with a lithium chaser.

    Here’s the clincher though, I think we could mass much in the form of an assault force and I do not believe Iran would make a first strike, first strike in a conventional state actor way. They are doing their level best in the 4GWF way though. They’re patient and I think they realize something that some don’t. yeh, we might invade the hell out of ya, but we still do it in the old school honor way. We warn and Warn, WARN some more.. Look Geography Boy, we even warned Afghanistan. Yeh, yeh, I get it. Warn a country to do something against its national interests or, just something they don’t feel like doing doesn’t justify and invasion, got it. Never said it did, just saying for all our merchintilian ways, we still give folks a heads up. That’s something.

  26. SFC Dick says:

    one more thing, I just lost about 3 paragraphs on this, I’ll sum it up.

    I think the Iranians badly want to love us. I see them as a huge oportunity for a brand new good friend. I think a big oveture by us and one or two election cycles by them and we have what everybody is fighting wars over here for, but will never get, a peaceful, modern society whose friendship would greatly benifit both. It can be done with out turning our back on Isearel, another personal fave in the neighborhood. It will take a US president with vision and power, not military power, but power of persuasion and a displayed commitment to each party. I think it is very possible and we are waging 2 wars that won’t give us what we are hoping for but a friendly Iran has been there, waiting for us for over 20 years. It’s both sad and amazing how this all has turned out.

    The whole US hostige thing. I’m a warrior, I fight wars. I will fight against you if my Army tells me to. That’s how that works. I don’t believe I need to point out any hawk boni fides. I think the hostage thing was like a teenage kid throwing a fit at its parents, that it still, down deep loved.

    They held , HELD our folks, never beheaded and then gave them back. were they ready to join up on the “we love America” band wagon right then. Nope. Was this one of the birth points of the Islamist movements we see right now, yes, but i believe we could have stoped that movement.

    The more I work around and with these people over here, it all becomes so obvious and begins to make sense.

    Folks, just give that a thought. I know it seems that they are enemy number one with a nuke, or near nuke and a finger on the trigger for Isreal but I get the “way” they are trying to achieve what they want. I don’t think them a threat, I think them an allie in much anticipated waiting.

  27. Black Flag says:

    Getting into a fight with an SFC …. one better know how do dodge and weave…. 😉

    “It wouldn’t be the first time an Army, with superior numbers and firepower, are defeated by supply lines.”

    Blah Blah Blah, Napoleon didn’t have the ability to resupply by air or as quickly as we.

    Famous words of:
    Goering – Stalingrad
    Oleg Kalugin – Kabul, as his transports were weaving around Stingers.

    There is no way and no how the US Airforce could deliver two million gallons a fuel of day. Period.

    Plus, worst case scenario, us running out of supplies only delays us, maybe guarantees a stalemate, it doesn’t guarantee us a loss.

    I point to Dien Ben Phu and our own Khe San for a more modern look at warfare and problems with supply, be it men or material.

    Those were company level engagements – where the majority of the army was sitting in supply.

    Reverse that – where the majority of the Army is out of supply and only small units (who have stashed up their supplies) are moving.

    “Our forces would have absolutely no place to go – literally, every one Iraq would attack our forces. A hundred thousand troops surrounded by 28 million Iraqis and 60 million Iranians”

    More Blah Blah Blah. I’m pretty shure there’s at least one blind dude in Iran and am most positive there are a few Iraqis with out legs, so as far as every one? Come on BF Anielewicz, we aren’t exactly talking about rolling into the Warsaw ghettos here. I do believe we might even have one or two dudes, locals, on the ground now that would be most willing to help; pretty darn sure of that. But, we need to invade Iran like we need another housing/bank/auto bail out, or war.

    Ok, you found two.

    Watch out for the other 100 million.

    The assault on Iran would do the most amazing thing in Islamic history – unify the Sunni and Shiite against a single enemy.

    I, personally, would not depend on ‘local support’.

    “If you think Iran will sit and wait for the USA to invade while the USA builds up its forces – like Saddam did – you need an electric shock.”

    Well, I guess US had better get zappin, we’re here geography boy ( that’s the best I could come up with) and we’re building up and building infrastructure. Any one who thinks we are going to be out of either place in the next 10 years needs electro shock with a lithium chaser.

    Yes, I know that.

    But those forces are there to pacify Iraq – when another 200,000 troops land in the ME (after the usual viral rhetoric of the USA and impossible ‘diplomatic’ demands) – the first bomb burst, watch the missiles fly.

    Here’s the clincher though, I think we could mass much in the form of an assault force and I do not believe Iran would make a first strike, first strike in a conventional state actor way. They are doing their level best in the 4GWF way though. They’re patient and I think they realize something that some don’t.

    Yeah, remember the prophetic words of the Mullah Omar.

    Before the first American bomb fell, he said, “We will lose the government and lose Kabul, but it doesn’t matter.”

    I think the Iranians badly want to love us. I see them as a huge oportunity for a brand new good friend. I think a big oveture by us and one or two election cycles by them and we have what everybody is fighting wars over here for, but will never get, a peaceful, modern society whose friendship would greatly benifit both. It can be done with out turning our back on Isearel, another personal fave in the neighborhood. It will take a US president with vision and power, not military power, but power of persuasion and a displayed commitment to each party. I think it is very possible and we are waging 2 wars that won’t give us what we are hoping for but a friendly Iran has been there, waiting for us for over 20 years. It’s both sad and amazing how this all has turned out.

    In Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, Mr. Spock quotes what he says is an old Vulcan proverb:

    “Only Nixon could go to China.”

    But it is true – and someday perhaps another President will suck it up and put his foot on the ground in Persia.

    • SFC Dick says:

      AP. Tehran, june 24, 2021.

      President Dick, affectionately known as “Uncle Dick” by an adoring public, met with Iranian President Kies Madullagolba today, in what is a start of an unprecedented reconciliation of the two nations as friends and allies. While participating in a rough local game of Buzkashi Uncle Dick was heard to say “This is great, every American boy would love this as there is no better thing than being able to play with your food”.

      Uncle Dick has rebounded in the polls after a rocky 100 days where he pushed such legislation as “ a gun for every kid, grown ups buy your own” and the controversial statement that “ God doesn’t need to be in American schools, he’s everywhere anyway, but John Wayne does” thus mandating that 3 foot by 4 foot portraits of John Wayne, in his various movie characters, be place at the head of every public school class room. When asked about the controversy that arose from church groups Uncle Dick responded “If ya gotta ask what would Jesus do?, you’re probably on the wrong track anyway, but before you take any decision, ask yourself what would John Wayne do?, then do your level best to do that thing, and I know for a personal fact that God is a big John Wayne fan, Jesus tends to go with Chuck Norris though”

  28. Bob,

    You said “I am not being sarcastic and very serious, I would love to hear the evidence you have gathered about the threat Saddam posed to our countries. “”

    So, I guess this means you are privy to the classified information that President Bush had access to? I take it that you have the qualifications and experience to accurately assess this information? What US Government agency do you work for? What level is your Security Clearance? I’m not being saracastic here, but I am making a point. You don’t KNOW anymore than the rest of us. You’re just letting your ideology/BDS get the better of you. I don’t know the what the truth is because I wasn part of the meetings and don’t have access to the truth. So, I’m saying none of us will ever know THE TRUTH, and should just move on and figure out the best way to salvage whatever is left of our country. You non US people, really don’t figure into that so far as I’m concerned. Ya’ll can have your BS Bush bashing parties and trials, but at the end of the day, your opinions mean nothing to the US UNLESS we surrender our sovreignity to the UN. Thus, if that’s what all this is about, just come out and say so.

    • SFC Dick says:

      CyndiP, Ma’am

      some people have short memories.

      The gassing of Halabja by Iraqi forces

      March 16-17 1988

      “The attack involved multiple chemical agents, including mustard gas and the nerve agents sarin, soman, tabun and VX.[5] Some sources have also pointed to the blood agent hydrogen cyanide. The survivors said people died in a number of ways, suggesting a combination of toxic chemicals: some “just dropped dead” while others “died of laughing”; still others took a few minutes to die, first “burning and blistering” or coughing up green vomit”

      http://www.ask.com/bar?q=irag+gases+kurds&page=1&qsrc=19&ab=0&u=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FHalabja_poison_gas_attack

      I remember this one and it had us scrambling to figure out what was used because some appeared to die in an instant, a “flash”. That one had us worried because all recognized nerve agaent was markedly slower in killing. Matter of fact, much slower, as in getting sprayed by human bug spray; we started calling this stuff the “flash”. In a weird way it gave me some comfort, better to be gassed by the flash, effects so fast you are still looking down your rifle sight than the 2 minutes of agony from V or VG; but what we didn’t take into account was that with this cocktail of delivered agents there might have been a synergy effect, but some ruled that out, and rightly so, as blister agent and blood agent don’t really compliment a nerve agent in it’s central nervous system effects.

      So to cry foul that US forces didn’t find a big pile of nerve agent is to tell the cop ‘sorry dude, you found no gun on that dude. Yes, we all saw him shoot those people, then run into his house, but by the time you got here and searched him you found no gun, so we pronounce “bad guy had no gun”

      The government put the great big squash on a story run once, ONCE, on a national network, I don’t recall which, of a video taken by a soldier in a tracked chemical detection vehicle . He was part of a chemical detection team. He sent the video to the network and I saw it run once then it just dropped off the face of the earth.

      I am very familiar with this vehicle, its mission and its team. The video began and instantly I got a chill and the hair on the back of my neck stood up, I heard the “alarm” sounding in the vehicle. The video was rolling as the senior man was conducting the recognition protocol where he is reading off the sensor information, one by one, identifying the agents and concentration. I belive he identified nerve agents V and VG. Then, as protocol dictates, they readied to send a man out with a detection kit to get readings on the ground. Man,…..yeh. The video ended that point.

      Was that an honest to God chemical attack? Was that the result of us blowing up a bunker and the agents being carried in the wind? Who knows. Why does the government keep quiet? Because or stated, unequivicol response to weapons of mass destruction is nuclear response. Can’t “not” nuke some one because it was more convenient and then admit that when our credibility for deterence is at stake.

      Nerve agent is extremely volatile, in the dry and the heat of the dessert it would dissapate quickly, maybe even minutes. I would suspect that is why in attack of Halabja many agents were used, to include “persistant” agents like blister and Choking.

      • Cyndi P says:

        SFC Dick,

        I take it your comments are for the benefit of our UK friend Bob? He’s the one who is convinced Bush and Blair ‘knew’ Saddam didn’t have WMD and then then conspired to lie to the world about it. I called BS on him, because he couldn’t possibly know what really happened in the meeting. He wasn’t there when it took place. He’s simply relying on anti-Bush propaganda. I know Saddam used chemical weapons on the Kurds. If I recall, I was still on active duty in Germany at the time. I remember seeing video of dead Kurdish villagers, mostly women and young children. To this day, I believe Saddam had some WMDs wehn Bush II invaded, maybe not huge stockpiles, but some tactical stuff. Again my point is: we will never know for sure what happened in the meeting because we were not there. The media is not trustworthy, neither is the present government. So, if you didn’t see it with your own eyes, and you can’t get it from a trustworthy source, how do you KNOW?

  29. Black Flag says:

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-06-25-iran-money_N.htm

    U.S. grants support Iranian dissidents

    ….

    By USWep’s definition, the US has invaded Iran.

    ( 😉 ) Just bustin’ your chops, ol’ friend.

  30. Black Flag says:

    Sorta nails Bush’s coffin of Iraq Invasion

    WASHINGTON – Saddam Hussein feared Iran’s arsenal more than a U.S. attack, and even considered asking ex-President George W. Bush “to protect” Iraq from its neighbor, once secret FBI files show.

    The FBI interrogations of the toppled tyrant – codename “Desert Spider” – were declassified after a Freedom of Information Act request.

    The records show Saddam happily boasted of duping the world about stockpiling weapons of mass destruction. And he consistently denied cooperating with Osama Bin Laden’s Al Qaeda.

    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2009/06/24/2009-06-24_former_iraqi_leader_saddam_hussein_feared_iran_more_than_us_secret_fbi_files_sho.html#ixzz0JZ3V9eJ1&D

  31. Black Flag says:

    Cyndi P

    Saddam wasn’t a blood covered lunatic. He was a brutal dictator with predictable behavoir. I understand why we supported Saddam against Iran. We used him to keep the Iranians busy, so they wouldn’t be exporting islamic terrorists all over the world like they do now

    Wrong, wrong, wrong, and SO VERY WRONG, Cindy.

    We supported Iraq so that Iran would fall, and the US could place another put into place there.

    • Black Flag says:

      Put = Puppet.

      So that the US could put its PUPPET there instead.

    • Cyndi P says:

      Okay BF. I’ll go with that one, but wouldn’t it have been a puppet that didn’t export islamic terrorism and not screw with the oil supply? Ideally, I would really love it if all the nations of the world would just hold hands, sing love songs to each other and work together for the betterment of all people. Unfortunately, that’s not going to happen. Ever. Human nature doesn’t allow it. So, isn’t it possible that the US Government decision makers, of the time, would put the reality based option into play? It may have blown up in all our faces, but I think they believed they were doing what was in the best interest of America, at least in the short term. The American economy is based on cheap energy. Without it, we wouldn’t have the prosperty we do/did. Look at what happened when the price of oil went to about $150 a barrel. So the question now is what to do about the oil problem. I believe you’ve already stated that we don’t have any better alternative energy sources. I’ll go with that one, too. So now what? We all live like third world paupers? I LIVE in a third world country. I cringe at the thought of living like the indigenous population. I live on a US military base. We ride bikes everywhere because we’re not allowed to have personal vehicles. Actually, I’m okay with one as I get some much needed excersize 😆 but I’ve seen how the people live on other islands out here and I find it very upsetting. There is garbage in the streets. You can smell raw sewage as you walk though the neighborhoods. People live in shacks! A proper house is the exception to the norm. The kids tend not to be well kept, some even run around naked! I go into the shops and look at the prices on the basics. The prices are pretty high. I’m surprised things aren’t worse for the people. Back on my island, we have limited shopping opportunties and it takes ages to get something that can’t be mailed. An example, my boyfriend and I ordered a large storage shed back in the first week of Novemeber and it still hasn’t arrived! The batchelor quarters we live in hasn’t had air conditioning of five days, with no estimated fix date because the repair part isn’t on island. Its miserable inside. Fortunately, we still have elctricity, so I can run a fan, but all that does is blow hot muggy air around. Now, I understand full well where I am and Im not complaining as I’m here by choice. My point is that without the modern conviniencies our soceity depends on, life is a lot less pleseant.

      • Black Flag says:

        Cyndi P

        Okay BF. I’ll go with that one, but wouldn’t it have been a puppet that didn’t export islamic terrorism and not screw with the oil supply?

        By ‘screw’ with the oil supply, I bet you mean actually sell it for the value its worth, instead of some mercantilism notion of “I get it for free!”

        So, isn’t it possible that the US Government decision makers, of the time, would put the reality based option into play?

        So you agree with the notion that the USA has the right to attack, invade, pervert or in anyway disrupt another People’s or Nations own self-interest within their own country if that self-interest is counter to some corporations profits?

        It may have blown up in all our faces, but I think they believed they were doing what was in the best interest of America, at least in the short term.

        So, no matter what, as long as the best interest of the USA is at hand, we have the right to seize, kill, bomb or destroy another country – even if they do not threaten us?

  32. Cyndi P says:

    I don’t think the Arab world has been screwed out of their oil. Last I noticed they have plenty of cash, so Im not sure what you’re talking about on that one.

    I agree that a nation has the right to what it feels is required for it to survive. I’m sure you can understand that one because you feel the Palestinian’s violence against Israel is justifed in order for them to survive. So, modern society needs a secure and predictably priced source of oil. America is not the only country to benefit from cheap oil. Pretty much the whole has benefited in some form, even the Arabs. Personally, I’d love to tell the muslim world to pump that oil up their asses and go to hell, but that’s not going to happen. So each nation must do what if feels it must to survive, or a nation can decide to self destruct just like the US is apparently doing now.

    • Black Flag says:

      A few criminals, like the House of Saud, have done very well, indeed.

      But the People have certainly be screwed out of the oil

      Palestinian initiation of violence on Israel is unjustified. The have a right to defend their homes from invasion. Sadly, Israel has been attacking and killing Palestinians for 75 years.

      Whether one benefits or not from ones actions does not make such action MORAL.

      Doing what is necessary to survive does NOT allow one to use immoral means to survive. That is the core difference between savages and civilization.

      Which society do you support, one of ‘necessity’ and savagery OR one ‘moral’ and civilization?

  33. Well, BF, we agree on something. I too believe that the House of Saud is criminal and is screwing the common folk. I don’t know what’s to be done about it.

    Please tell me how Palestinians launching thousands of rockets into Isreali civilian neighborhoods is considered defending against invasion? As I recall, the last incursion into Gaza was AFTER the thousands of rockets rained down on civlian neigborhoods. I guess a good offense counts as defense, right? BTW, isn’t Israel about 60 years old, not 75? Muslims have been killing Jews since the days of Mohammed, and Jews have been defending themselves since, but that’s a lot longer than 75 years, so now I’m cofused since all this violence is supposed to be about the creation of the state of Israel and not something like religeon.

    Since I’m a bit of savage myself, I support the necessary savagery option. I’m not too fussed about the moral civilization because that won’t be around long. Western Civilization has become too civilized to survive. I’ve come to that conclusion on account of what’s happened in Iran. I’m sure that the anti government protesters were/are very moral people. And now many of them are dead, severely beaten or incarcerated. Of course the world is horrified by the brutality and complains a bit and nothing more. So much for morality. What was that about Osama bin Laden and the strong horse versus the weak horse?

  34. Black Flag says:

    Cindy,

    Review this map, and then come back and tell me who is invading who.

  35. BF,

    Arab made maps don’t impress me. My mind was made up about the Palestinians on 11 Sept 2001. I saw them celebrating in the streets. So far as I’m concerned they can all go to Hell and the sooner the better. Here’s some reading for you.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/06/nonie_darwish_an_arab_for_isra.html

%d bloggers like this: