I can't remember the exact quote from the Cairo speech, but Obama did say that Iraq is better off not that it would have been with Saddam.
Obama took over when the war was winding down.
Bush may have broken it, but according to Obama, it is fixed better than when the bull entered the china shop.
what is the expiration date for blaming George Bush for all our problems? Or do we just blame W until Obama is replaced in 2012 and then start blaming the new guy/girl.
Obama will get a free pass for his entire presidency, which I hope will only be four years.
Bush never got even a single day of a honeymoon, the left spent the first four years of his administration crying foul and claiming he wasn't really the POTUS. I bet you at least one of them will respond to this post and repeat the mantra.
of lowering expectations. Will the economy get better? Yes, but not in comparison with other Presidents who were faced w/a recession. By 2012 we will still have high employment compared to other cycles, anemic GDP growth, high inflation, and higher taxes for everyone, not just the top 5%.
P.S. So do you still like the commodity play? We've had a nice run for the past 3 months.
Everyone with an ounce of sense knows that hyperinflation is right around the corner. Even though I do believe that commodities are overbought, crude for example should be in the $50's not pushing $70. I still wouldn't count on the bull run in commodities to stop anytime soon. I would view any pull back as an opportunity to buy.
While I do feel badly for anyone facing a job loss, I have to confess I am doing great. This country is in for some serious problems, but I am a selfish bastard and I am going to do just fine. The Obama voters are going to get exactly what they deserve and I don't feel a bit of sympathy for them. The lazy asses who think socialization of our economy is going to be a panacea for them have another thing coming, but I'll be lying on a beach somewhere, enjoying my ill gotten wealth. lol
First, we probably? agree on a 9th. thing - the Lakers looked great last night & will probably win the series in 5 games...
Bush had around a 65-70% approval in early 2002....What happened after that was:
He. Blew. it.
Iraq, Katrina, Roberts/Ailito, Terri Shivao case, torture, spying, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Gonzales, Cheney, etc....
President Obama makes people proud, & not embarassed by the office...And people can finally have confidence in their president..
But President Obama won't be given a free ride...If he did something dumb like tax employee health care benefits, try to ban hand guns, or if some real scandal (not some phony creation by Sean Hannity) developed, etc. his approval would sink accordingly....
Furthermore, when you look at who's potentially waiting in the wings for Republicans in 2012, I sure want President Obama serving 2 terms....Gingrich, Palin (though I highly doubt she could ever win a general election), Jindal, & the politican I DESPISE more than ANYONE, Mitt Romney...
I don't see a thing that Obama is doing that makes me proud. Scared for this country yes, proud no. He is presiding over the biggest power grab this country has ever seen, not to mention exercising the weakest foriegn policy we have seen since Jimmy Carter.
Looking forward to 2012 Newt doesn't look so bad compared to a continuation of Obama's far left wing policies. Palin has had her 15 minutes, Jindal doesn't have enough charisma and Mitt Romney, well as far as Romney is concerned we have reached double digits on the things we agree on. lol Don't forget Huckabee, I would never vote for him myself, but he could still be a factor. (If it came down to Huckabee vs Obama I would seriously consider becoming an ex pat).
You just remember your words here, Obama will not only do something dumb like the possibilities you mention, he will go way past dumb with the support of Pelosi/Reid.
Now back to more important issues, Yes the Lakers looked great last night and yes I gave the 6 points, but after the thrashing they gave Orlando last night I would not be surprised if Orlando makes Sunday nights game a lot more interesting. The line is Lakers -6 1/2 or the money line -320/+260. I think I might take the points on Sunday.
in this collection of "doing the same things over and over and expecting different results", which was what Republican have been doing since Reagan.
I am very proud of Obama, he is getting the respect this country deserves. Expect few smart people over here everyone else in the world. mean it in the literal sense are idiots, according to your rationale.
I predict, Obama will solve the Israel/Palestine conflict, get Iraq to give up nuclear weapons and get this country back on its innovative track and weed the country out of drinking billions of barrels of gas every day.
Fire way. This is my opinion and I am sticking to it.
I would have let you point out all the inaccuracies in Kerry's post.
I'm not sure if he is:
a) drunk
b) stoned
c) stupid
d) caught whatever TJLoonytunes has.
Or I guess it could be e) All of the above. lol
I've nearly given up on trying to converse with him, although I'm sure he'll one day outdo himself once again and I'll have no choice but to pipe up.
But this post of his was so ridiculous I couldn't stop laughing long enough to respond before I had to leave for a while.
RWU is just plain stupid.
but I will try to muddle through it.
You are your left wing ilk might be proud of Obama, but you basically hate America to begin with. Maybe hate is a strong word, but you do blame America first and make excuses for every petty despot in the world like Chavez and Ahmadinejad.
Obama is not going to fix the conflict in the ME, nor is it going to be solved in our lifetime. I am assuming you meant Iran will give up nukes, not Iran (just one of the reasons you appear drunk to me) Iran and Kim are both laughing at Obama, he is the quintessential paper tiger, and this country uses about 20 million BOPD of oil, not billions.
Please come back when you sober up. This is your most factually incorrect post since you claimed that Haliburton stock had increased by 25,000%.
and eating funny mushrooms.
There is nothing unintelligible about it Gag unless, your petrified brain is unable to think beyond your myopic self serving views.
Both you and RWU are clueless about Macro Economic effect on a society. Cutting taxes, letting financial institutions and auto companies go bankrupt will serve the country and economy well, according to you clueless ilk. Stick with your petroleum crap and don't talk commodities in general and inflation because neither of you have fucking clue about economics beyond Econ 101 and you both forgot 90% of it.
Yep Haliburton 250,000,000%. Got it anything else?
kerrakles , 6/5/2009 5:19:00 PM
"I predict, Obama will solve the Israel/Palestine conflict, get Iraq to give up nuclear weapons and get this country back on its innovative track and weed the country out of drinking billions of barrels of gas every day.
Fire way. This is my opinion and I am sticking to it."
I hadn't heard Iraq was still working on Nukes..
in picking up simple errors and harp on it?
Iran not Iraq, happy. Some people at KGL and everything has to literal and spelled out. Just looking for slip ups.
Thank you for pointing out a huge error that would have possibly started a 3rd World War.
LOL. It DID start a war.
Your ability to be so far off on the facts is mind boggling. Billions of barells of oil??? The entire world only uses about 80 million, Iraq instead Iran, Haliburton increasing by how many percent??? You just can't seem to get anything right.
Why should we take you seriously when you can't get the most basic of facts correct, and you use these same falsehoods as the basis of your arguments?
I just typed "Q" instead of an "N". IRA(Q)/(N). Get it.
On account of Haliburton, they actually went up 250,000,000%.
You think, you have the facts correct, and you are talking about Iraq blocking oil flow, shows how little you know about ROW. When and which Intellectual book you read regarding the world?
Probably none in the last 10 years. You must also get your news from Bill O'Rielly like your buddy.
Haliburton went up nowhere near 25,000% much less whatever bullshit number you are quoting today.
The Iraq/Iran fuckup I will stipulate as a typo.
The world only uses 80 million BOPD of oil. The USA uses approximately one quarter of that amount, a far cry from the "billions" of barrels that you cited.
I don't know WTF happened to you in the last few months, you used to make sense. I have no idea what you are trying to say anymore except that you seem to blame the Republicans for everything wrong in the world in general and your life in particular. I truly hope whatever has gone wrong in your life over the last few months works itself out. You use to be a pleasure to talk to, now you are as bitter as Bill Maher.
This is only a bullshit political board for escorts and patrons of escorts, I seriously hope your "real" life gets better. You have begun to sound like a very, very unhappy person.
George Bush the first was warned about Irag, "If you break it, you own it." He heeded. GW didn't.
I can't remember the exact quote from the Cairo speech, but Obama did say that Iraq is better off not that it would have been with Saddam.
Obama took over when the war was winding down.
Bush may have broken it, but according to Obama, it is fixed better than when the bull entered the china shop.
interpretation.
Who is being creative? I would like to think I am, but I don't think I am that creative.
Obama's exact words were, "Although I believe that the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein."
How would you interpret them?
This is pretty close to what I was saying, if you will give me some slack for trying to paraphrase things I hear the day before.
According to The Obama, things are better. And they will get better. And in 2027 they will have lived 25 years without torture chambers and professional rapists. They will have lived for 25 years with more free elections supervised by the UN (unless Iraq kicks them out also) than any other Islamic nation in the world. They will control their own oil, and it won't be used to build 1 palace a year with gold plated bathroom fixtures.
Yeah, they have a terrible 3 or 4 years. And they now have the chance for a good 100 years.
100, 604 civilan deaths in Iraq from the start of the war in 2003 until May 2009, according to the Iraq Body Count website.
Not sure these souls would agree with you that "things are better."
for Saddam to remain in power?
Depending upon the source, Saddam was responsible of many 10’s of thousands to several 100 thousand deaths. Millions if you include the Iran-Iraq War that he started. He and his son’s were on a path to continue their propagation of “unhappy souls” for many more decades. I think it was an excellent trade.
the pre-war deaths caused by Saddam to say thngs are better off now in Iraq.
Phil effectively was offering a cost benefit analysis and concluding that “things are better.” But if you are going to highlight the benefits you have to consider the cost that achieved those benefits.
The pre-deaths by Saddam are not part of this equation. Further, while he probably would have killed some number had he remained in power, it is pure speculation to say he would have killed anywhere near as many as the Bush war – which cannot be justified by any reasonable analysis except mistake (opps, we thought he had weapons of mass destruction) - caused.
And while Phil is correct that a lot of the number killed were killed by insurgents, as a lawyer he knows that the real question is what was the proximate cause of these deaths -and that was the war. It is no excuse to say the US did not kill them. Under the law, if I run you over with my car and they take you to the hospital where the doctor makes your injuries worse by committing malpractice, I am liable for his malpractice. Same principle here.
Two conclusions seem irrefutable to me
1. the war cannot be justified on a defense of the homeland theory bc Saddam had no ability to harm the homeland; and
2. the war cannot be justified on a cost benefit basis to Iraq when the costs are added in
You would still be making the case against the revolutionary war. lol
We certainly can't go running around the world overthrowing every dictator that is killing his own citizens by the thousands, but that doesn't make it wrong when we do so. Not to mention the fact that Saddam had been thumbing his nose at US and the UN for over a decade.
Since when does the loser get to dictate terms to the winners? Your conclusions are specious. Without inspections it was impossible to know what Saddam capabilities were and it will be impossible to judge the actual cost benefit basis for many years to come. Even if Iraq becomes the model of democratic freedom I suspect you would still call it a failure simply because of partisan politics.
in June 2009.
Fact – we know in June 2009 the war cannot be justified on a defense of the homeland theory bc we know today for a certainty that Saddam did not have WMD; the war can only be justified on an “opps, we made a mistake, sorry” theory, if you are willing to justify war on that basis.
Fact - the war cannot be justified as of June 2009 on a cost benefit theory to Iraq because the certified costs to date – the 100,000 plus dead outweigh any benefits I’ve seen. To put any weight in the benefit category aside from getting rid of Saddam you have to speculate that the current weak and corrupt Iraq government will survive when we leave (my prediction -an Irag civil war).
If you are going to label these conclusions specious, you really ought to make a better argument than the one you made.
All you have advanced is the punishment theory, the mistake theory, and the speculation that the government will be a model of demoncratic freedom.
No reasonable person would order than war today if the facts were known based on your rationales.
-- Modified on 6/6/2009 9:54:52 AM
with people driven merely by selfish myopic views which does not see past the tip of their noses while pretending to be a worldly intellectual.
Would rather bicker about insignificant % lost through some mutual fund investment in Chrysler bonds.
Haliburton plus 250,000,000. RWU you should have invested in HAL, you would not have cared about Chrysler!
concerning,
"Would rather bicker about insignificant % lost through some mutual fund investment in Chrysler bonds."
The SCOTUS is about to join the "bickering".
is only insignificant when it belong to someone else.
Putting the unions ahead of secured creditors flies in the face of all laws regulating commerce in this country. It makes me wonder, What's next?
I don't think Kerry has anymore money. I truly believe he was either downsized, lost all his money shorting Haliburton stock, or was wiped out by medical bills. Those are the only explanations I can think of for his change into this bitter, partisan hater of all things Republican that I have seen in the last several months.
If you would look back on his posts from a year or so ago, you would find a quite different person. I don't know what happened, but he now sounds as bitter as they come.
the murders and wrongful death by the Sadam family would NOT have continued. There was a distinct history of his savagery. There was NO history of his repentance or rehabilitation.
I had said anything like that but since I actually said "he probably would have killed some number had he remained in power"
I'm left scratching my head.
You guys are the ones who are speculating wildly - I'm just giving you the historical facts and asking you to balance the facts with your speculation before you reach a conclusion.
You of all people should appreciate that approach RWU.
Keeping you guys focused is half the battle....
Go fix all the savagery occurring in the world here and now. Pointless statements without rationale.
It was mistake, it will be a mistake, and it is wrong when considering the fact that, more innocent Iraqui's were killed with the invasion while, letting the real criminal regroup and letting him run free.
Have to wait and see what happens in the Grave Yard of Empires.
Accepting that number, arguendo, the Iraq people and the Moslems are still better off as a nation.
Saddam killed far, far more and there was no reason to believe he would stop. It is estimated he killed 100,000 Kurds alone. He killed thousand of Iraqis a year. It wouldn't take too long for him to reach the 100K mark.
Second, even if 100,000 died, the nation is still better off as millions can live free for 100 years. Assuming Saddam would have killed another 50,000, an incredibly low figure, at the cost of 50K, they have the chance for children to be free.
(Hey, they may blow it, but that isn't our fault. We led them to the chance of freedom. It is theirs now.)
Finally, the majority of those were killed my other Moslems. This is one thing that is very funny. Accepting the fact that we started it, insurgents then violate every law of war by blowing up civilians in a market or mosque, who they targed AS civilians, and we get blamed for the death.
Since targeting civilians is a war crime, maybe the criminal should be held accountable. No, I take it back. The insurgents bow up a cafe. It must be us.
Again, how much is freedom worth? Look at those in North Korea and they way they live. Were the sacrifices of the lives of the South worth it? Are they better off for those deaths? I think so.
1978-1979
Up to 7,000 Iraqi communists were executed by orders of the Ba'athist regime.
1982
The specific atrocity for which Saddam was hanged: 148 Shias were murdered in the village of Dujail.
1984
Up to 4,000 political prisoners in Abu Ghraib jail were tortured and killed. Saddam's favoured methods of torture included cutting off genitalia, gouging out eyes and acid baths.
1980-1988
Some 1.7m died on both sides during the Iran-Iraq war, started by Saddam.
1987-1989
At least 100,000 Kurds were slaughtered in the so-called Anfal campaign. Some were gassed, others cast alive into mass graves.
1988
On March 16, in the worst single atrocity of the Anfal campaign, 5,000 Kurds were killed when Saddam ordered planes to drop a mixture of mustard gas and the nerve agent sarin on the town of Halabja.
1990-1991
About 25,000 Iraqi troops are thought to have died in the seven-month Gulf War, which began when US-led forces entered Iraq following Saddam's invasion of Kuwait on August 2, 1990. Estimates of Iraqi civilian deaths have varied wildly - up to 200,000. The coalition death toll was 378 and many troops suffered from the unexplained "Gulf War syndrome".
1991
Tens of thousands were killed as Saddam attempted to put down a popular rebellion following his defeat by the US-led forces in February 1991. More than 100,000 Shias were killed; a similar number of Kurds died. About 200,000 Marsh Arabs were killed or made homeless.
1993-1998
About 3,000 prisoners were machine-gunned to death at Mahjar prison in central Baghdad.
2003-2006
Iraqi casualties since the March 2003 invasion have been estimated at 650,000 by Johns Hopkins University. America has lost 3,000 troops and Britain 127.
(I haven't seen anyone supporting John Hopkins's figure of 650K)
caused by violence from the start of the war till May of 2009 as specified on the Iraqi Body Count website. Your figure presumably includes military deaths but seems a little high especially as it ends in 2006.
But the point on the death statistics is that the Bush decision to invade Iraq most certainly is the proximate cause of a great number of the 100,000 civilian deaths and most of the military deaths; but the decision had no bearing on the staggering pre war deaths you attribute to Saddam.
Hence the pre war deaths would play no role in a cost benefit analysis as to whether the Iraq war can be justified on grounds that things are better in Iraq.
Let’s use your number of civilians killed (100,775) as a result of Bush’s efforts. It’s a simple as this. Far more than that were killed by Sadam. Regardless what you think, it’s not unreasonable to conclude that left unchecked Sadam and his descendants would have eventually AGAIN killed far more than 100,775. Call it speculation it you like, it doesn't change the reasonableness.
Just because you choose to analyze things a certain way does not mean that a different analysis is without merit. Yet that’s exactly your claim, that “it doesn’t fit your equation”. I can’t be responsible for your inability to perceive a different equation.
Saddam may have killed that many or more but what gives US the right to go attack sovereign country?
Genocide is going on in Darfur for many years, why haven't the so called compassionate do gooders hasn't lifted a finger?
Why?
Haliburton up by 250,000,000% !
If you honestly believe the war can be justified by mere speculation of future consequences, then you have placed yourself squarely in the Bush -Cheney camp.
And the beauty of this position is that almost anything can be justified to the public- torture? sure, he might know something that will harm our country. Indefinite confinement in Gitmo without due process? Sure, it might prevent the bad guys from causing trouble. Warrantless wiretapping of international calls? Sure, we just might luck into hearing about some new terrorist plot. Send more troops to Iraq? Sure, it might quell the violence (well that one turned out to be pretty much true).
As a matter of policy, I want my leaders to have something more than speculation when they make decisions of this nature that either put American lives at risk or violate the Constitution.
Oh, and I'll buy that it is reasonable to speculate that Saddam unchecked would have killed at least 100,000 if you'll agree that it is equally reasonable that Haliburton stock will some day appreciate... well you know.
The only thing wrong with that war was too much faith in Rumsfeld that totally blew the "after war", which was 95+% of our cost.
I am TODAY (after the fact) JUSTIFYING the war (in one more way) by analyzing the numbers of the aftermath. Some years from now I might need to reexamine them. I understand your reasoning for your c/b reasoning. I was simply approaching it from a different direction.
Concerning,
"As a matter of policy, I want my leaders to have something more than speculation when they make decisions of this nature that either put American lives at risk or violate the Constitution."
Let's quit trying to re-write history.
For the upteenth time, the entire free world's intelligence and governments AND U.S. DEMOCRATS REASONABLY speculated right along Bush and AGREED with him.
Concerning,
". . . is equally reasonable that Halliburton stock will some day appreciate"
Certainly. Yes it will. Maybe even 25,000%, but now kerry's new target is 250M%, LOL.
but can anyone imagine the havoc that Saddam could have caused last year when oil prices skyrocketed into the $140 bbl range? He could have brought the world economy to it's knees.
Anyone who claims that oil is not worth fighting a war over has no grasp on either economics or history. Millions have died for less important matters, and for anyone who claims I am claiming 20/20 hindsight, I have been saying the same thing here for over five years.
The war in Iraq was necessary. It was managed badly, but that doesn't change the fact that it was necessary.
Not going to get into a discussion about right and wrong regarding the war.
What I am interested in pointing out is that, for the average citizen in Baghdad, they still don't have reliable electricity, water, and sewage/waste disposal. This is 6 years after we took control of the city.
To the average resident of Baghdad that simply wants to go to wake up, go to work, come home and spend time with the family, the lack of the basic services must be more everyday important than many of the high minded issues that the politicos discuss.
All they see is the world's largest super-power coming in and not even being able to restore power enough to keep the lights on and the refrigerators running. They must think the US simply doesn't care or doesn't want to fix things. How else explain the current deplorable situation?
It is frustrating enough to read about it over here. How much more incredibly frustrating for them to live it every day.
Sorry, I couldn't resist.
Before the war, services you describe were hideous in most parts of the city. Sadr City was not uncommon with its lack of services.
Shortly after the war started, a journalist was flying in and was surprised to see that there were so many lights on at night. They explained that most people had private generators. The thing they forgot to mentioned was that people had them before the war also. Now, why would they have private generators before.
I am not denying that a lot of things were damaged. But one reason why the Super Power was not able to resotore everything was because we would fix something and "insurgents" would blow it up. Part of the strategy of the insurgents was to make life bad for the people, who would then rise up. Who do you think was blowing up mosques, markets, schools, ect.
Finally, you may disagree, but the statement that Iraqis are better of is backed by the current president of the United States.
I will check it later today, but I don't think anyone has called the current president a neo-Con, or any similar label.
According to President Obama, the Iraqis are better off. (Shakespeare Merchant of Venice i. iii. 93)
The Republicans are still blaming Clinton for everything fucked up during the Bush years so by my count we get to kick W around for at least 8 more years.
or for me NEVER. Republicans still blame DEMS for Vietnam and they were right to blame them. Welfare is still blamed on Dems and rightly so. So why not blame Republicans fot for the mess now!!
The "war" on drugs is one of them. The assault on the Bill of Rights is another. The folly of wasting resources trying to legislate morality is another. I also blame the Republicans in general and Bush in particular for wasting time and resources trying to pass a constitutional ammendment against Gay Marriage.
Iraq is quite another matter IMO. I still believe going into Iraq was the right thing to do. How we managed the war after we got there is a different story, but the actual war in Iraq was inevitable. Saddam Hussein was never going to stop thumbing his nose at the rest of the world and sooner or later we were going to have to put an end to him.
Unlike the other despots and petty tyrants that populate the globe, Saddam was in a unique position to bring the world economy to its knees WMD's or not. He had already proven his willingness to invade his neighbors and refused to cooperate with the UN inspectors. In a post 9-11 world the risk was simply too great.
As far as the economy there is plenty of blame to go around, but our system has worked for a long time and under it we have become the dominant economy in the world. Nationalizing industries and trying to imitate the Socialist economies of Europe is not the answer. Government will never fix the economy, Government will only exacerbate the problems. The market will fix itself if only Government will stop meddling. We need Government oversight, we don't need Government meddling
Have any rational answer besides " I think'?"
Getting our soldiers killed, getting them maimed altering rest of their lives along with many Irqai's worth what? "you think"?
Cheney logic exactly.
I listed several reasons that supported my opinion that Saddam needed to be stopped, just because you don't agree with them doesn't alter that fact.
Nobody can prove what would or would not have happened if we had not invaded Iraq, so any conversation has to rely on speculation to a certain degree. Do we know for a fact that Saddam would have kept murdering his own citizens? Do we know that he would have kept trying to acquire WMD's? Do we know that he would have interupted the flow of oil from the region completely crippling the world economy? No, we don't "know" any of these things for sure, but in a post 9-11 world the possibilities for all these thing to have happened were too great to ignore.
Blaming any particular politician or party misses the point.
A close examination yields that the parties really have no disagreements on principle, only on degree.
Republicans and Democrats don't disagree that government has a right to a huge cut of what I earn; they just disagree on the details.
Republicans and Democrats don't disagree on using military force to kill innocent people; they just disagree on the details.
Republicans and Democrats don't disagree on whether or not we should all be under surveillance, they just disagree on the details of where to put the cameras and why.
True wisdom lies in figuring out WHY there is no real principled disagreement about any of this stuff.