Re: war
Sun Nov 09, 2008 11:03 pm
Bill Greenwood wrote:This topic is about the economy. We have been spending a $billion a month on Bush's war. It is certainly a major factor in our budget and our deficit and part of the topic of where we can cut spending. Bringing the troops home will not save the entire amount of money, but it would be big step.
Bill, you and I completely agree about bringing the troops home ASAP! The funny thing is that many do not realize that some of us "right-wingers" have been against the war from the get-go. True, many that are labeled "right-wing" have supported it, but the truth is that most of them are in reality more centrist Neo-cons - not the real right-wingers like folks from the John Birch Society and others have been against the war in Iraq from the start.
My only concern would be to find the way to do it with the most care so that we don't have significant losses in the process.
Ryan
Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:05 am
Bil Wrote:
This is still about the economy, because it's about money.
Bill where did you get that information? How much would we be spend on the same 150,000 troops if they were in the U.S.? 1 Billion/month? Sounds like a talking point out of Harry Reid's minutes.
We have been spending a $billion a month on Bush's war
This is still about the economy, because it's about money.
Bill where did you get that information? How much would we be spend on the same 150,000 troops if they were in the U.S.? 1 Billion/month? Sounds like a talking point out of Harry Reid's minutes.
Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:19 am
It's a billion dollars over and beyond what we would be spending if tey were back home sippin' pina coladas. When we pull these deployments el Jeffe always has to add supplemental spending to cover our costs, because our budgets only cover a very tiny amount of combat time--and taht usually goes to the navy for it's shake the spear costs. When the number of a billion or a jillion is touted as a wars costs, you can bet it's pretty much all supplemental spending.
Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:37 am
I doubt it, I believe that's more garbage coming from the drive by media
Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:50 am
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/75xx/doc7506/GWOT_Tables_2006_08.pdf
No, actually, you;'re wrong.
Our national defense budget is almost entirely eaten up by normal operations. The different branches almost always refuse to spend any of the money budgeted to them for operations on big events, because those bog events would end up causing basic operations to come to a standstill. The way the budget works is that anythign big gets a special appropriation. Iraq and Afghanistan etc. are all funded seperartely from basic militar operations. So when you see an appropriation for 14 billion for one year, that means the war is really costing 14 billion for that year. in additio to all the normal operating costs like pay, food etc. And it salso in addition to all the other budget costs hidden by other branches of govt like State departmenht stuff, and appropriations to companies liek haliburton etc are often serpate bils as well. This war could easily be costing us more than a billion a month, that's just the easy price tag to assign because it's the most easily pointed to. Fidn out who is paying blackwaters bills
It sure ain't the Army.
Mon Nov 10, 2008 1:43 am
Well 12-14 billion/year is very little compared to the 750 billion bailout. We started Iraq, now it must be finished in honor of our troops and the country. The left does not honor the country, and does not care about the flag, freedom, or honor. The left would rather make friends with Al Quaeda or enemies, because they are weak.
In fact the left would rather destroy America and turn it into a communist nanny state, so no wonder they want to make frineds with al quaeda and extremists so much.
In fact the left would rather destroy America and turn it into a communist nanny state, so no wonder they want to make frineds with al quaeda and extremists so much.
Mon Nov 10, 2008 2:37 am
A2C wrote: The left does not honor the country, and does not care about the flag, freedom, or honor. The left would rather make friends with Al Quaeda or enemies, because they are weak.
In fact the left would rather destroy America and turn it into a communist nanny state, so no wonder they want to make friends with al quaeda and extremists so much.
Son, I'm going to make you a suggestion. And I'm not going to make it because I am a nice person, or because I think you deserve a break. I'm not a nice person, and I don't give breaks. I'm only refraining from jumping all over you because I've been asked to quit it by people who are tired of me blasting their threads apart when people start spouting off crap like this.
You see, I am on the left, and I spent the first half of my life killing for our country, I've been wounded three times in the service of our country, and I've lost a number of friends doing the same. I am no traitor. If you were sitting next to me in a bar when you said that you'd be lucky to walk out with all of your teeth intact. Heck, I might not even let you walk out at all
Sometimes it's better just to be quiet rather than open up and let everybody know what's really boiling around in there. This is one of those times.
You seem to be drunk, and saying things I certainly hope you don't believe when you haven't had a skin full. Go to bed, now, and in the morning come back and look at what you just wrote.
You have a good night, now.
Muddy
Last edited by muddyboots on Mon Nov 10, 2008 4:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
Mon Nov 10, 2008 4:39 am
RyanShort1 wrote:Marxism
The doctrines of Karl Marx and his associate Friedrich Engels on economics, politics, and society. They include the notion of economic determinism — that political and social structures are determined by the economic conditions of people. Marxism calls for a classless society in which all means of production are commonly owned (communism)
Socialism
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
(Definitions borrowed from Wikipedia and Websters)
By your OWN DEFINITION, Marxism calls for a classless society in which all means of production are commonly owned The Democratic party does not support this ideology, and has never supported this ideology. PLEASE BOTHER TO LOOK UP OUR POLITICAL STANCES BEFORE YOU MAKE CLAIMS ABOUT WHAT WE BELIEVE. You need to quit callling us communists, please. We're not.
BY YOUR OWN DEFINITION Socialism calls for the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. Deomocrats don't do this either. We call for a fair tax system and the use of that money for the common welfare. You need to quit callling us communists, please. We're not.
Just because the government owns or controls SOME OF the means of production doesn't make it a socialist or a communist government. It has to be ALL, amigo. Not even a majority, which the US isn't and the Democratic party has never suggested doing.
The democratic party does not espouse full control over all means of ANY form of business or production, nor do we espouse even majority control. We believe in capitalism like you do--we simply believe that capitalism is a rich enough provider that we can afford to ensure that everyone has a basic minimum of safety and health and education.
I'd appreciate it if you would look up what the democratic party actually espouses, instead of reading it on the back of a beercan. It's getting sort of irritating.
Now, I've been nice about this. I've also explained it repeatedly to you guys. I'd appreciate it if you would actually read the definition and bother to find out what the democratic party espouses before you get crap all over your hands trying to smear it on me. I'm sure these are the words your daddy uses to describe us, and I am sure you love your daddy. I'm also pretty sure your daddy would'nt be dumb enough to sit in a bar and call me a commie to my face. Would YOU? Then why do it here?
Even if I were, after all I've done for my country and you, do you really think it respectful to treat me this way? Just askin, cause...you know, I feel like I should give you a chance before I get pissed off and start throwing tools at you
As for your blessed John Birch Society, well, it fights the teaching of evolution and if it had its way, I would not be allowed to be an American because I don't believe in God. Sounds like a mighty fine political theory to me
Last edited by muddyboots on Mon Nov 10, 2008 5:05 am, edited 2 times in total.
Mon Nov 10, 2008 4:40 am
dp
fools
Mon Nov 10, 2008 5:37 am
Easy, Muddy, in our society everyone has the right to express an opinion, no matter how foolish, biased, or unfounded it is.
When the KKK goes out and gives speeches, they have that right. We also have to right not to listen,or if we listen, or not to believe.
When A2C wrote on this topic that Pres Clinton started Fannie Mae, he had that privilege.. And I had the right to doubt him and research on WIK where I found that it began in 1938, before Clinton was born, and was backed by Congress in 1968, 24 years before Clinton was elected. I wrote this info to A2C on this site,and never got a reply on this from him. That's his right.
If he wants to claim that we are not spending at least 1 $billion each month on the Iraq War, he can do so. If anyone wants to know, go ask the question on Google, as I just did and you find figures even higher, from $4 billion on up, per month.
To me there is at least two kinds of honesty. First the normal kind, of outright stealing. Now, neither you nor I know A2C, he does not give his name, etc. But I doubt if he would walk by my plane or car and steal a tool or a camera off the seat. There is another kind, that I'll call intellectual honesty, that of the integrity of your word. In our society one has the right to say or write something false, as long as it is not slander or libel. But we also have the right to judge that person, as to the quality of what he writes as true or false. There are of course many grey areas, many areas that are opinion, not just facts. It seems sad to me that in our society today so many are willing to write or say something false, in some cases they don't even seem to feel that it is dishonest. I lost respect for Palin when she said about Obama "paling around with terrorists" and I gained some respect for McCain when he corrected the old lady in the audience to the effect that Obama was a Christian. My Dad was very old school conservative, he was not much for dissent or discussion of ideas. But one thing I respect him for was that his word meant something, he had integrity. I try to have it also, and not write something that I know to be false, and to correct myself when I know I have been wrong. Let each person stand on their word and be known that way.
When the KKK goes out and gives speeches, they have that right. We also have to right not to listen,or if we listen, or not to believe.
When A2C wrote on this topic that Pres Clinton started Fannie Mae, he had that privilege.. And I had the right to doubt him and research on WIK where I found that it began in 1938, before Clinton was born, and was backed by Congress in 1968, 24 years before Clinton was elected. I wrote this info to A2C on this site,and never got a reply on this from him. That's his right.
If he wants to claim that we are not spending at least 1 $billion each month on the Iraq War, he can do so. If anyone wants to know, go ask the question on Google, as I just did and you find figures even higher, from $4 billion on up, per month.
To me there is at least two kinds of honesty. First the normal kind, of outright stealing. Now, neither you nor I know A2C, he does not give his name, etc. But I doubt if he would walk by my plane or car and steal a tool or a camera off the seat. There is another kind, that I'll call intellectual honesty, that of the integrity of your word. In our society one has the right to say or write something false, as long as it is not slander or libel. But we also have the right to judge that person, as to the quality of what he writes as true or false. There are of course many grey areas, many areas that are opinion, not just facts. It seems sad to me that in our society today so many are willing to write or say something false, in some cases they don't even seem to feel that it is dishonest. I lost respect for Palin when she said about Obama "paling around with terrorists" and I gained some respect for McCain when he corrected the old lady in the audience to the effect that Obama was a Christian. My Dad was very old school conservative, he was not much for dissent or discussion of ideas. But one thing I respect him for was that his word meant something, he had integrity. I try to have it also, and not write something that I know to be false, and to correct myself when I know I have been wrong. Let each person stand on their word and be known that way.
honor
Mon Nov 10, 2008 6:37 am
A2C, the figure I gave of at least $1 billion per month spent on the Iraq War is commonly given and reported on TV and in the press. It was used by the Democrats in the campaign and not challenged by the other side, not even by right wing talk shows. Therefore I assumed it was true, even though I did not check. After reading your doubts about it, I went on Goggle and found a number of sources that are even higher, a recent one from ABC of $4 billion monthly. So, I think your information is wrong and your opinion not based on fact. And this is just the $$ cost. The real cost for me is our people, our soldiers. I am no expert on Iraq history. But it seems to me, particularly with Sadaam gone, that if the Iraqis really want their country to be free and democratic( with a small d), then it is up to them to put aside their tribal religious hatreds and build their own society. We have given them enough of our young men and women.
As for "the left not honoring our flag" or freedom or our country, that's your opinion, and I think it is ignorant and wrong. I honor our country when it does what is right, when we live up to principals of democracy and decency. I do not honor our flag or our country when we enslaved a whole race of Negroes or murdered Indians or started the Vietnam and Iraq wars based on lies. When our soldiers shot women and infants at My Lai or unarmed students at Kent and Jackson. When I look at our current war, honor is not the first or most obvious thing I see. I see the 4500 dead, and I see the 40,000 or so young men and women coming home without arms or legs or eyes or brains. No amount of bravery or sacrifice by soldiers can make a cause just whether it is done under Hitler or Hirohito or Nixon or Bush, unless the cause is right on its own. I don't see honor in our govt that invaded Vietnam, nor that sent John McCain to bomb them as a young man and absolutely No honor in letting him rot as a POW all those years because Nixon wanted to prove how macho he was. I do see honor in that we had a free enough society and press that finally Woodward and Bernstein and the Post were able to expose Nixon and get him out of office. As white Southern boy, I saw honor in a young Black minister who had violence all around him and cruelty even toward children in church; yet he had enough character and enough smarts to fight back without violence. I do know of a country where almost all the people must have felt honor for everything their govt , their soldiers, their president did because they reelected him with almost 100% of the vote. That country was Iraq under Sadaam
As for "the left not honoring our flag" or freedom or our country, that's your opinion, and I think it is ignorant and wrong. I honor our country when it does what is right, when we live up to principals of democracy and decency. I do not honor our flag or our country when we enslaved a whole race of Negroes or murdered Indians or started the Vietnam and Iraq wars based on lies. When our soldiers shot women and infants at My Lai or unarmed students at Kent and Jackson. When I look at our current war, honor is not the first or most obvious thing I see. I see the 4500 dead, and I see the 40,000 or so young men and women coming home without arms or legs or eyes or brains. No amount of bravery or sacrifice by soldiers can make a cause just whether it is done under Hitler or Hirohito or Nixon or Bush, unless the cause is right on its own. I don't see honor in our govt that invaded Vietnam, nor that sent John McCain to bomb them as a young man and absolutely No honor in letting him rot as a POW all those years because Nixon wanted to prove how macho he was. I do see honor in that we had a free enough society and press that finally Woodward and Bernstein and the Post were able to expose Nixon and get him out of office. As white Southern boy, I saw honor in a young Black minister who had violence all around him and cruelty even toward children in church; yet he had enough character and enough smarts to fight back without violence. I do know of a country where almost all the people must have felt honor for everything their govt , their soldiers, their president did because they reelected him with almost 100% of the vote. That country was Iraq under Sadaam
Last edited by Bill Greenwood on Mon Nov 10, 2008 8:05 am, edited 2 times in total.
Mon Nov 10, 2008 7:32 am
Dang you commrads you was on a vodka drinking binge last night.............. Look at all the rammbeling. You must have wasted a few hours coming up with all the B.S. not to mention researching socialist web sites. 
Mon Nov 10, 2008 7:40 am
MY land is in south central Mississippi. Half of it is indeed inherited. And the rest I bought while still a PV2 in the US army. When it;s going for 200 Dollars and ACRE because its a swamp, well...you can buy a lot of acres
I only pmed you cause I didn't want to start a cross fight in Bil's thread again. But you can, as always, come see me any time you like, dipstick addy:
865 Channing Lane Brandon Mississippi, 39047.
Now you hurry up and buy that ticket sweety And bring a NEW wrench.
Now is that nice?
I only pmed you cause I didn't want to start a cross fight in Bil's thread again. But you can, as always, come see me any time you like, dipstick addy:
865 Channing Lane Brandon Mississippi, 39047.
Now you hurry up and buy that ticket sweety And bring a NEW wrench.
Now is that nice?
Mon Nov 10, 2008 8:10 am
muddyboots wrote:By your OWN DEFINITION, Marxism calls for a classless society in which all means of production are commonly owned The Democratic party does not support this ideology, and has never supported this ideology. PLEASE BOTHER TO LOOK UP OUR POLITICAL STANCES BEFORE YOU MAKE CLAIMS ABOUT WHAT WE BELIEVE. You need to quit callling us communists, please. We're not.
From my post on page 8:
I don't necessarily think that muddyboots or you really want a totally Communistic system, but the terminology and language you are using is very similar to what these systems teach and desire the people to believe.
Let me clarify this. I think that as you have proclaimed, that you love our country and really want what is best for it. I DON'T call YOU a commie, but I do say you've adopted some of the doctrines that true Marxists espouse.
Just because the government owns or controls SOME OF the means of production doesn't make it a socialist or a communist government. It has to be ALL, amigo. Not even a majority, which the US isn't and the Democratic party has never suggested doing.
By that definition, then I guess China really should no longer be considered a Communist country... even though their leadership is still fully committed. People don't realize that the Marxists have adapted and re-prioritized their agendas to retain or gain power in various situations.
The democratic party does not espouse full control over all means of ANY form of business or production, nor do we espouse even majority control. We believe in capitalism like you do--we simply believe that capitalism is a rich enough provider that we can afford to ensure that everyone has a basic minimum of safety and health and education.
In short - wealth redistribution, which is not true capitalism..
I'd appreciate it if you would look up what the democratic party actually espouses, instead of reading it on the back of a beercan. It's getting sort of irritating.
Same goes for the Republican Party. I know a lot of disillusioned Republicans who's candidates have said one thing and signed on to the party platform, but have not followed it.
As for your blessed John Birch Society, well, it fights the teaching of evolution and if it had its way, I would not be allowed to be an American because I don't believe in God. Sounds like a mighty fine political theory to me
Haha. My "blessed John Birch Society"? I wasn't saying I agreed with everything they espouse, but that Bill might be surprised if he could actually read some of their articles on the Iraq War, Al Quaeda, economics and corruption in big corporations, and and other things. And they would allow you to be an American, because they do still believe in the First Amendment and strongly oppose the passing of laws like hate speech legislation.
Ryan
Mon Nov 10, 2008 10:04 am
From the off topic section descriptor....
Since people seem to think that the off-topic section is for political discussion, something that is frowned upon, I have temporarily closed the section. ANY political discussions in any other forum will be deleted and the user suspended. I have had it with the politically motivated comments.
It's nice to know that the moderators can take a weekend off and you guys can be trusted to follow the rules.
Enough.
Since people seem to think that the off-topic section is for political discussion, something that is frowned upon, I have temporarily closed the section. ANY political discussions in any other forum will be deleted and the user suspended. I have had it with the politically motivated comments.
It's nice to know that the moderators can take a weekend off and you guys can be trusted to follow the rules.
Enough.