NationStates Jolt Archive

Congress Expects Up to $1B Wartime Request

Tue Dec 13, 6:06 PM ET
WASHINGTON - The Pentagon is in the early stages of drafting a wartime request for up to $100 billion more for Iraq and Afghanistan, lawmakers say, a figure that would push spending related to the wars toward a staggering half-trillion dollars.

Reps. Bill Young, R-Fla., the chairman of the House appropriations defense panel, and John Murtha, D-Pa., the senior Democrat on that subcommittee, say the military has informally told them it wants $80 billion to $100 billion in a war-spending package that the White House is expected to send Congress next year.

That would be in addition to $50 billion Congress is about to give the Pentagon before lawmakers adjourn for the year for operations in Iraq for the beginning of 2006. Military commanders expect that pot to last through May.

The important question is, what's happening to the profit margin? They must have forecasted a maximum payout on this, are the variations eating into that zone, perhaps even pushing the project into a loss?

WOW!

*adds the Half-A-Freaking-Trillion-Dollars to "Reasons to Leave Iraq NOW" list*

:p - To all Republican-Robots who support their "God-Emperor" Bush no matter what.

WOW!

*adds the Half-A-Freaking-Trillion-Dollars to "Reasons to Leave Iraq NOW" list*

:p - To all Republican-Robots who support their "God-Emperor" Bush no matter what.
Oh goody, I suppose that means that we should drop SocSec, Medicare, and that new perscription drug plan as well yes? All of which cost more than the war, and in the case of SocSec and Medicare, astronomically more.

That's maddening! Damn! I say the U.S. adopts neutrality and sinks that money somewhere useful, like education or healthcare. This world police shit costs too much.

Regardless of profit or loss-
We MUST stabilize Iraq before anything else. We got ourselves in, we have to get ourselves out. World War Two cost more than that-Do you think they left just because it was costing $230 billion? I am disgusted by those who believe we must pull out of Iraq now. Rushing out of it like that would be as costly as rushing into the war like we did. I don't care about the reasons for our entry anymore-I care about getting the job done, and getting the job done RIGHT. Those who compare Iraq to Vietnam, if we do this right it won't be like Vietnam.

And honestly, I feel more comfortable with the Republicans leading this because they know what they want to do here. The Democrats only care about foiling the Republicans and without the entirity of the nation, we are going to all die.

And it will be the Democrat's fault for fighting with its little brother.

Say, who's gonna pay for all this?

Say, who's gonna pay for all this?
The Chinese.

Say, who's gonna pay for all this?

We're going to borrow it from ourselves...

We're going to borrow it from ourselves...
Right. ;) That always works. Just like printing more greenbacks works well http://www.ghostchatter.com/img/smiley/money.gif

Regardless of profit or loss-
We MUST stabilize Iraq before anything else. We got ourselves in, we have to get ourselves out. World War Two cost more than that-Do you think they left just because it was costing $230 billion? I am disgusted by those who believe we must pull out of Iraq now. Rushing out of it like that would be as costly as rushing into the war like we did. I don't care about the reasons for our entry anymore-I care about getting the job done, and getting the job done RIGHT. Those who compare Iraq to Vietnam, if we do this right it won't be like Vietnam.

And honestly, I feel more comfortable with the Republicans leading this because they know what they want to do here. The Democrats only care about foiling the Republicans and without the entirity of the nation, we are going to all die.

And it will be the Democrat's fault for fighting with its little brother.

Right. Dems complain and all, but I've not seen a plan from THEM. ON anything, not healthcare, not taxes, not social security, and not Iraq. The only roadside bomb Iraqi freedom is facing now is US Democrats. They're stalling everything here. If for once they would just shut up, we could finish faster.

Never mind that!

You realise that this war is 3 years old.

America was only in WWI for 1 year and in WWII for 4 years... and if they stay any longer, they'll have been in Iraq longer than they fought in WWII.

That's maddening! Damn! I say the U.S. adopts neutrality and sinks that money somewhere useful, like education or healthcare. This world police shit costs too much.

Let us remember what happened the last time the United States went through a bout of neutrality, shall we.

*Thinks of both World Wars*

Let us remember what happened the last time the United States went through a bout of neutrality, shall we.

*Thinks of both World Wars*

That was more to do with European politics, imperial thinking, the appalling end to the long 19th C., and resentment. America wasn't always as relevant to situations as it is now!

Even if it had been more internationally active, it's doubtful that history would have been very different.

Right. Dems complain and all, but I've not seen a plan from THEM. ON anything, not healthcare, not taxes, not social security, and not Iraq. The only roadside bomb Iraqi freedom is facing now is US Democrats. They're stalling everything here. If for once they would just shut up, we could finish faster.

I'm not a Democrat, so you can't paste me with your usual "Democrats R evil 2 so its ok!" logic.

My plan on healthcare? Privatize.

My plan on taxes? Stop wasting MY tax dollars on a pointless war.

Social security? A costly myth.

Iraq? Lets get the fuck out.

You people seem to think, "Yes, it was a bad decision to go there, so lets make the right decision by staying there!" Kind of like, "Yes, its morally wrong for me to rape an innocent woman, so the only solution is to CONTINUE raping her! Have to finish what you start!"

So whats your plan again? Tax the shit out of people for a war for Iraqi freedom while doing our best to limit American freedom?

Say, who's gonna pay for all this?

We figured you could pony up at least $20. Whatcha say? I'll give you the last slice of pizza!

Honestly, though, I can't wait to see the US holding out its collective hat and saying, "Brother can you spare a dime?"

I'll just have to shake my head sadly then look up into the sky and scream, "MENDOOOZAAAAA!!!!"

Mostly I'm just curious as to what the history books will say when my kids are in high school.

Oh goody, I suppose that means that we should drop SocSec, Medicare, and that new perscription drug plan as well yes? All of which cost more than the war, and in the case of SocSec and Medicare, astronomically more.

Speaking of which, would someone care to explain to me how the US manages to spend more per capita on health care than the UK, despite not having a national health service?

Speaking of which, would someone care to explain to me how the US manages to spend more per capita on health care than the UK, despite not having a national health service?

Simple: 99% of Americans care fuck all about 5 years from now. We got it, we spend it, fuck the next generation.

Simple: 99% of Americans care fuck all about 5 years from now. We got it, we spend it, fuck the next generation.

My question might have been better framed as 'what the fuck are Americans spending all that money on if they are still not providing a health service for everyone which is free at the point of delivery?'

So whats your plan again? Tax the shit out of people for a war for Iraqi freedom while doing our best to limit American freedom?
Some might say that was the plan all along. And they wouldn't be altogether wrong, either.

Now let me ring in that purchase for you. Papers, please.

You people seem to think, "Yes, it was a bad decision to go there, so lets make the right decision by staying there!" Kind of like, "Yes, its morally wrong for me to rape an innocent woman, so the only solution is to CONTINUE raping her! Have to finish what you start!"



That's quite the childlike thought process you got there. Brilliant idea really, "getting the fuck out". It sure worked in Somalia. We got the fuck out and were never attacked again. Same with Lebanon. But I'm just wasting my time here. You are now on record as comparing the liberation of a populous from a murderous dictator to rape. Turn on the TV. See those people voting? If you had your way they wouldn't be doing that. But I'm sure they're all just actors in some LA studio, and Chimsuit McHallihitler and FAUX News are just trying to brainwash us.

My question might have been better framed as 'what the fuck are Americans spending all that money on if they are still not providing a health service for everyone which is free at the point of delivery?'

Beats the hell out of me. Trust me, I detest living in a country where you're only entitled to free medical care if you're knockin' on death's door. (Incidently, that's the argument our right wing morons will give you - "If you walk into an emergency room with your eyeballs in your lap, they'll treat you!")

Yeah ...

Meanwhile, if I get the flu, I can do one of two things: Go to a doctor and pay hundreds of dollars to get treatment so I can still work and take care of my family ... OR ... I can let it run its 2 week course, during which I receive no pay and, hence, can buy no food for my 3 year old.

Oh, believe me ... you do *not* want me to get started on this issue. This would be a whole thread in and of itself. I live in a nation where the quality of your health care is solely dependent upon the size of your bank account and, frankly, I find that to be barbaric and repugnant. Need an example? If Terry Schiavo hadn't made the news, she would have been dead 12 years ago.

But, then, you're talking to a man who believes all basic life necessities should be free: Food, Clothing, and Shelter. 100% FREE. I don't just believe that because I'm poor (again, whole 'nother thread, sorry) [/hijack]

I wonder how much will actually go to the war and how much will go toward building football stadiums in New York and bridges in Alaska.

That's quite the childlike thought process you got there.

Is it? Huh, it's always good to know how my thought process relates to the validity of the opinion of some random and bitterly self-righteous person on the web.

Brilliant idea really, "getting the fuck out". It sure worked in Somalia. We got the fuck out and were never attacked again. Same with Lebanon.

When were we attacked in the first place by Iraq? We weren't. You're suggesting I'm saying we should get the fuck out so that we won't be attacked again, but I don't think us getting attacked has anything to do with it.


But I'm just wasting my time here. You are now on record as comparing the liberation of a populous from a murderous dictator to rape.

Oh, we're liberating the populous from a murdering dictator still? I didn't know that. I thought we caught Saddam and have him on trial. Guess I was wrong?

Turn on the TV. See those people voting? If you had your way they wouldn't be doing that.

Turn on the TV. See those people bombing each other constantly? If you had your way they'll be doing that for decades to come with us getting a front row seat.


But I'm sure they're all just actors in some LA studio, and Chimsuit McHallihitler and FAUX News are just trying to brainwash us.

Nah, it's just you falling for the rhetoric that invading and occupying Iraq somehow prevents terrorism or has anything to do with 9/11.

Is it? Huh, it's always good to know how my thought process relates to the validity of the opinion of some random and bitterly self-righteous person on the web.
When comments are made in an untilligent matter it makes their validity extremely suspect. Work on it.

When were we attacked in the first place by Iraq? We weren't. You're suggesting I'm saying we should get the fuck out so that we won't be attacked again, but I don't think us getting attacked has anything to do with it.
Did you ever watch the news? Read the paper? The internet? The President and others have gone into this, and I grow tired of explaining it to people. So I hope this will be the last time I have to, though I honestly doubt it. We'll go step-by-step. Read each slowly, and out loud if it helps.

1) Terrorists attacked America on 9/11.
2) Those terrorists were from the Middle East.
3) LOTS of people in the Middle East wanted to kill Americans before Iraq.

Still with me?

4) Saddam Hussein was an enemy of America.
5) Saddam Hussein payed the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.
6) Saddam Hussein tried to have a former president assassinated.
7) Saddam Hussein was generally not a nice person.

Therefore...

8) It is not entirely out of the question that Saddam Hussein would give aid to the people in the Middle East who wanted to kill Americans in whatever manner he could.


Oh, we're liberating the populous from a murdering dictator still? I didn't know that. I thought we caught Saddam and have him on trial. Guess I was wrong?

You're the one who used a rape analogy. Unless the rape started with consensual sex, your analogy was flawed.

Turn on the TV. See those people bombing each other constantly? If you had your way they'll be doing that for decades to come with us getting a front row seat.

If I had my way we would be hunting those groups down while training Iraqis to take over eventually. Hold on...*checks internet*...Well gee whiz, that's what we're doing now!

Nah, it's just you falling for the rhetoric that invading and occupying Iraq somehow prevents terrorism or has anything to do with 9/11.

*points to above*

8) It is not entirely out of the question that Saddam Hussein would give aid to the people in the Middle East who wanted to kill Americans in whatever manner he could.


Ah, so we were being systematically lied to then with all that WMD malarky then? That wasn't the real reason for war, but just a handy pretext in order to jsutify some tenuous suppostion which was 'not entirely out of the question'? Thanks for clearing that up for us.

If I had my way we would be hunting those groups down while training Iraqis to take over eventually. Hold on...*checks internet*...Well gee whiz, that's what we're doing now!

Hang on, one of those groups are the coalition forces. Should we also be hunting them down?

6) Saddam Hussein tried to have a former president assassinated.

So, Fidel Castro, who has been the target of numerous assassination attempts by the US, would be justified in invading your country then?

Santa Barbara, I think what Green Sun meant when he said we need to get done what little good we can actually do by being in Iraq and not leave in a way that would cause more damage to Iraq. A more correct analogy for the war would have been this : Yes, its morally wrong to rape an innocent women, the only solution is to stop raping her and let her go to a hospital.

And Korrithor, even though Saddam paid suicide bombers, it's not like tons of other countries haven't done the same thing. More than likely, we picked Iraq because it was weak and had lots of oil, and the administration tried to back it up with bullshit rationale that most of America bought.

You people seem to think, "Yes, it was a bad decision to go there, so lets make the right decision by staying there!" Kind of like, "Yes, its morally wrong for me to rape an innocent woman, so the only solution is to CONTINUE raping her! Have to finish what you start!"

You fucking pig, that's not even a realistic comparison. We leave, we'll be back in 10 years. Plain and simple.

Take the liberalness and shove it up your ass.

1) Terrorists attacked America on 9/11.
2) Those terrorists were from the Middle East.
3) LOTS of people in the Middle East wanted to kill Americans before Iraq.

Still with me?

4) Saddam Hussein was an enemy of America.
5) Saddam Hussein payed the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.
6) Saddam Hussein tried to have a former president assassinated.
7) Saddam Hussein was generally not a nice person.

Therefore...

8) It is not entirely out of the question that Saddam Hussein would give aid to the people in the Middle East who wanted to kill Americans in whatever manner he could.

1.) Yes, yes they did. Terrorists who were all, surprisingly, from Middle Eastern nations allied with the United States.
2.) See 1.
3.) See 1.
4.) Because George I didn't have the testicular fortitude to have Saddam removed from office when he had the chance.
5.) That would make it an Israeli problem. Not an American one.
6.) You act surprised. Assassinated heads of state is just another way of doing business.
7.) Nor is Kim Jung-Il, the Kings and Princes of Saudi Arabia, Fidel Castro, or any other of a hundred despots who committed worse acts than Hussein.
8.) It's perfectly acceptable to invade a nation because of something they might do. For instance, the US should invade Japan because the Xbox360 isn't selling as well as it should, which obviously means the Japanese might be trying to ruin our economy. Or maybe we should invade France. They speak out everyday against Israel and they might decide to take their anti-semitism/Americanism to the next step. We should invade Russia, too, because they might go Communist and decide to go nuclear on us.

You're the one who used a rape analogy. Unless the rape started with consensual sex, your analogy was flawed.

The stripping was consensual, yes. The sex wasn't. No means no. Whether it's before or during penetration. The Iraqis have said, overwhelmingly, no.

The whole war has been one big mess up. From birth to abortion. The whole thing. It's been run half-assed, with fewer troops than needed, by a President who was incompetent then and whose incompetence only becomes more apparent with every passing day.

Had President Bush tried selling the war in Iraq as a humanitarian mission, had he deployed enough troops, and had he any idea what he was doing in the first place (other than avenging Daddy), we wouldn't be in this fiasco. Period.

You fucking pig, that's not even a realistic comparison. We leave, we'll be back in 10 years. Plain and simple.

Take the liberalness and shove it up your ass.

Ah, nothing like intelligent debate.

When comments are made in an untilligent matter it makes their validity extremely suspect. Work on it.


You're calling the comment unintelligent because you disagree with it, not because theres anything unintelligent about it.


Did you ever watch the news?

..this same news you called "FAUX News?" Thats what I should be watching?

Read the paper? The internet?

Yes. You're saying "the paper" and "the internet" all make your point for you? So you don't actually need to be arguing. That's good.

The President and others have gone into this, and I grow tired of explaining it to people.

Oh, you poor thing.


1) Terrorists attacked America on 9/11.
2) Those terrorists were from the Middle East.
3) LOTS of people in the Middle East wanted to kill Americans before Iraq.
4) Saddam Hussein was an enemy of America.
5) Saddam Hussein payed the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.
6) Saddam Hussein tried to have a former president assassinated.
7) Saddam Hussein was generally not a nice person.

Therefore...

8) It is not entirely out of the question that Saddam Hussein would give aid to the people in the Middle East who wanted to kill Americans in whatever manner he could.

No it's not ENTIRELY out of the question, but its far from proven either, and in any case it means jack-all for the fact that we HAVE Not A Nice Guy Hussein in custody and on trial but we're still occupying Iraq.


You're the one who used a rape analogy. Unless the rape started with consensual sex, your analogy was flawed.


No, the analogy goes like this. I'll do it step by step, so you'll understand.

1) Many people, including people who were against the war but continue to support us remaining in Iraq, say that the invasion of Iraq was in the first place done for WRONG reasons and was WRONG.

2) Rape is done for WRONG reasons and is also WRONG.

3) Therefore, people are saying that even though what they are doing is wrong, it should be continued to be done.

This is basically doing something you know is wrong for no other reason than so we can say "We finished what we started."

And yes, unfortunately some rapes DO begin consentually and end up violent and nonconsentual. The analogy holds.

If I had my way we would be hunting those groups down while training Iraqis to take over eventually. Hold on...*checks internet*...Well gee whiz, that's what we're doing now!

No, we're occupying a country whose military - before we invaded - was every bit as capable of fighting terrorists. Furthermore, theres the good possibility that those groups wouldn't even BE there if we the US was not there. Or I should say it's "not out of the question."

When were we attacked in the first place by Iraq? We weren't.
Did you ever watch the news? Read the paper? The internet? The President and others have gone into this, and I grow tired of explaining it to people. So I hope this will be the last time I have to, though I honestly doubt it. We'll go step-by-step. Read each slowly, and out loud if it helps.

1) Terrorists attacked America on 9/11.
2) Those terrorists were from the Middle East.
3) LOTS of people in the Middle East wanted to kill Americans before Iraq.

Still with me?

4) Saddam Hussein was an enemy of America.
5) Saddam Hussein payed the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.
6) Saddam Hussein tried to have a former president assassinated.
7) Saddam Hussein was generally not a nice person.

Therefore...

8) It is not entirely out of the question that Saddam Hussein would give aid to the people in the Middle East who wanted to kill Americans in whatever manner he could.
8) It is not entirely out of the question that the King of AMOBC would give aid to the people in the Middle East who wanted to kill Americans in whatever manner he could.

when are we invading his Kingdom? [/massive Uber Sarcasm]

BTW... u r pathetic.

Hang on, one of those groups are the coalition forces. Should we also be hunting them down?

BWO .... I love you and you're fighting the good fight, but you're arguing against the "AMERICA RULES!!" la-la-la crowd.

It basically means that you're arguing against a crowd of people who believe Bush should veto the torture bill because it says "or" and not "and".

Give up. Trust me ... I have.

You fucking pig, that's not even a realistic comparison. We leave, we'll be back in 10 years. Plain and simple.

Take the liberalness and shove it up your ass.

I like when the commies call me a fascist and folks like you call me liberal. I guess I just can't please everybody.

I don't care if we're back in 10 years. If we are, we'll be doing something we're good at - making war - instead of using our military as a Terrorist Attraction Network and pretending we're instilling democracy in Iraq. The way we're going, we'll be there in 10 years anyway, and every year in between. You may think I'm liberal because I'm against a war, I say you're a communist because you think it's alright to bleed the taxpayers dry as long as you get to see military might on television.

My question might have been better framed as 'what the fuck are Americans spending all that money on if they are still not providing a health service for everyone which is free at the point of delivery?'

yet another yatch for the insurance company execs, mostly. those fuckers have so much money at this point they've run out of rational things to spend it on and moved on to sheer silliness. like the big insurance company headquarters here in sheboygan, which decided that a football field sized* american flag on a 50 meter pole would make a good investment. so much so that they did it again after the original attempt fell over.

*only a slight exaggeration

like the big insurance company headquarters here in sheboygan, which decided that a football field sized* american flag on a 50 meter pole would make a good investment. so much so that they did it again after the original attempt fell over.

*only a slight exaggeration

I assume that the original flag was burnt ceremoniously after being dishonoured by touching the actual stinking and dirty soil of the country it represents?

BWO .... I love you and you're fighting the good fight, but you're arguing against the "AMERICA RULES!!" la-la-la crowd.

It basically means that you're arguing against a crowd of people who believe Bush should veto the torture bill because it says "or" and not "and".

Give up. Trust me ... I have.

Meh. I've seen pro-war posters come and I've seen pro-war posters go. I've seen them say that we are at war because of WMDs, and then to liberate the Iraqi people, and then to smash Al-Qaeda, and then because we are so mired down in shit that we can't turn back. The faces change and the rationales change, leaving me wanting to see some consistent reason for the war which will stand the test of the next month, never mind posterity or history. I've all the time in the world.

We're waste deep in the Big Muddy/And the damn fools kept yelling to push on. (http://www.dickalba.demon.co.uk/songs/texts/bigmuddy.html)

I like when the commies call me a fascist and folks like you call me liberal. I guess I just can't please everybody.
LMFAO! Don't you love it? Can't wrap his little mind around the concept of anything outside the tired old left/right dichotomy. :p

LMFAO! Don't you love it? Can't wrap his little mind around the concept of anything outside the tired old left/right dichotomy. :p

To be fair, its a very prevalent way of thinking and even I sometimes find myself calling someone a "liberal" or "leftist" sometimes.

Still, the idea that being against the war is 'liberal' in even the modern sense of, well, Democrats = liberal, is just plain false. I know plenty of Reps who also want us to get out of Iraq.

I assume that the original flag was burnt ceremoniously after being dishonoured by touching the actual stinking and dirty soil of the country it represents?

it was before my time here, but one can only assume. it is a filthy whore of a land, after all.

said insurance company also hired this flamboyant pirate glass blower to make a whole pile of huge, elaborate chandeliers.
http://www.dianefarrisgallery.com/artist/chihuly/chihuly.jpg

Still, the idea that being against the war is 'liberal' in even the modern sense of, well, Democrats = liberal, is just plain false. I know plenty of Reps who also want us to get out of Iraq.

Presumably the insurgents who want to see the speedy removal of Coalition forces from Iraq are also liberals.

Or maybe we should invade France. They speak out everyday against Israel...
No they don't.

I have a simple solution for the war in Iraq: Declare a Crusade for Baghdad. Let the conservatives (especially the Relgious Right) bear the cross of Christ, take up their rifles and invade and occupy Iraq. Allow any troops who wish to join the Crusade remain behind and with draw the rest. They can convert and/or slaughter Muslims to their hearts content with out having to worry about what the Left has to say and we peace-loving hippies can sit comfortably in our new, more liberal United States of America. Which might have a three or even four party system to replace the old two party one. Everyone wins!

I have a simple solution for the war in Iraq: Declare a Crusade for Baghdad.

...

Everyone wins!

Except the people of Iraq. Oh, hang on...

No they don't.

That explains why France has the highest rates of anti-semitism outside of the Arab world. It also explains all the placards with "Star-of-David=Swastika".

Except the people of Iraq. Oh, hang on...

The people of Iraq, whose fighters would be seasoned veterans, would probably wipe out the Crusading Americans. Especially since they would get Syria and Iran to help and the United States wouldn't send so much as a dime to aid the American Crusaders. That these Crusaders would be wiped out was supposed to be ignored, in the hopes that the religious right would actually be convinced by its legitimacy and try it on for size.

The people of Iraq, whose fighters would be seasoned veterans, would probably wipe out the Crusading Americans.

So, are you claiming that killing American ex-pats can be a positive learning experience?

That explains why France has the highest rates of anti-semitism outside of the Arab world. It also explains all the placards with "Star-of-David=Swastika".
It does?

Where do they calculate these "rates of anti-semitism"?
As for the placards...you'll have idiots everywhere. Whether you go to Russia, Germany, France or America, there'll be idiots who do these things. But one thing is certain: The French government has laws against denying the Holocaust for example. It does not do anything anti-semitic, and it has been trying very hard to treat every religion and ethnic group equally...with the unexpected results we've seen recently.

And other than generally demanding that countries (ie Israel) play by the rules, I really don't think you can say that France is somehow an enemy of Israel, Judaism or the various Jewish peoples around the world. Indeed, France is home to the largest Jewish community in Europe (600,000), which is the largest after the US I believe.
And I might add that the fastest-growing Jewish population is in Germany.

So, are you claiming that killing American ex-pats can be a positive learning experience?

I'm saying that their fighters are expirienced from fighting against the US Army and Marines.

As for the whole killing American ex-pats being a positive expirience, that would depend on what the definition of 'is' is.

It does?

Where do they calculate these "rates of anti-semitism"?
As for the placards...you'll have idiots everywhere. Whether you go to Russia, Germany, France or America, there'll be idiots who do these things. But one thing is certain: The French government has laws against denying the Holocaust for example. It does not do anything anti-semitic, and it has been trying very hard to treat every religion and ethnic group equally...with the unexpected results we've seen recently.

And other than generally demanding that countries (ie Israel) play by the rules, I really don't think you can say that France is somehow an enemy of Israel, Judaism or the various Jewish peoples around the world. Indeed, France is home to the largest Jewish community in Europe (600,000), which is the largest after the US I believe.
And I might add that the fastest-growing Jewish population is in Germany.

France's anti-semitism is, sadly, innate. France is one of the most racist nations on earth, regardless of what it's laws say. (I might point out that one probable cause of the recent riots has been France's laws concerning employment, which make it almost impossible for an ethnic Frog to be fired and ergo almost impossible for a Muslim to be hired.) I know many people who have been there, and they tell me the same thing. The French simply cannot concieve of anything more intelligent than a Frenchman.

The idea that anti-semitism is gone is a happy ideal concieved of by Americans, where it is largely gone. France is not alone in Europe. Germany and Scandinavia also have very large, very thriving anti-semitic and pro-facist movements. It's become such a problem in Germany that they can't even ignore it in text books intended to teach American university students about the German language. Not even their culture or history, their language.

As for the whole killing American ex-pats being a positive expirience, that would depend on what the definition of 'is' is.

Cease dawdling on the semantics of a word which I didn't even use in my post, and cut to the chase.

Cease dawdling on the semantics of a word which I didn't even use in my post, and cut to the chase.

OK, the chase is this:

I'm sick and tired of people who won't fight in the War in Iraq trying to sell it to others and push it on our military. If they want to liberate Iraq, they should do it themselves, pay for it themselves, not make the rest of us pay for it.

8) It is not entirely out of the question that the King of AMOBC would give aid to the people in the Middle East who wanted to kill Americans in whatever manner he could.

when are we invading his Kingdom? [/massive Uber Sarcasm]

BTW... u r pathetic.

1) Forgive my ignorance but what the hell is AMOBC?

2) uzn fu ltrz z teh ub3r k3w1!

France is not alone in Europe. Germany and Scandinavia also have very large, very thriving anti-semitic and pro-facist movements. It's become such a problem in Germany that they can't even ignore it in text books intended to teach American university students about the German language. Not even their culture or history, their language.
This is all news to me, and I have spent most of my life there.
Anti-Semitic...well, as I said, you'll find some idiots. Fact of the matter is that in most circles, mentioning anything that could even remotely be construed to sound anti-semitic will get you shunned, and I know, because I wrote the wrong kind of review of Anne Frank's diary in Eighth Grade.
As for Pro-Fascist, anything of the sort is illegal in Germany. People go to jail for that sort of thing. The problems you will find are located in the poor areas, especially but not exclusively in the East, where the current economic trouble has left young people disorientated, disappointed and angry. It has nothing to do with the culture of the people in Germany, nor with the government.
Personally I can tell you no more. If you want to judge a country of 85 million sensible and friendly people by the actions of maybe 10,000 Skinheads, then feel free. I'm not one to stop you, but I must say that I am disappointed that they would even push that sort of image at American schools.
But I guess if it makes the learning experience more interesting...:rolleyes:

This is all news to me, and I have spent most of my life there.
Anti-Semitic...well, as I said, you'll find some idiots. Fact of the matter is that in most circles, mentioning anything that could even remotely be construed to sound anti-semitic will get you shunned, and I know, because I wrote the wrong kind of review of Anne Frank's diary in Eighth Grade.
As for Pro-Fascist, anything of the sort is illegal in Germany. People go to jail for that sort of thing. The problems you will find are located in the poor areas, especially but not exclusively in the East, where the current economic trouble has left young people disorientated, disappointed and angry. It has nothing to do with the culture of the people in Germany, nor with the government.
Personally I can tell you no more. If you want to judge a country of 85 million sensible and friendly people by the actions of maybe 10,000 Skinheads, then feel free. I'm not one to stop you, but I must say that I am disappointed that they would even push that sort of image at American schools.
But I guess if it makes the learning experience more interesting...:rolleyes:

Making something illegal doesn't make it go away, it only drives it underground. Germany is a Mecca for American (and other) neo-Nazis, where they meet and form worldwide contacts before going back home. And often, those contacts include Germans.

Now, I never said the German people were evil, mean, malign, or anything of the sort. What I said was that anti-semitism is still a problem in Germany. It's still a problem, here in the US, but that doesn't make us evil or mean either (although plenty of Europeans will call us evil because of one man: Bush). I apologize if I offended you in this way.

Germany is a Mecca for American (and other) neo-Nazis, where they meet and form worldwide contacts before going back home. And often, those contacts include Germans.
I'm thinking you're confusing Germany with the internet. But you might like to also read about AntiFa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifa#Contemporary_Antifa), which is a movement probably just as big as the Neo-Nazi movement, but strangely gets no mention at all outside the country. I wonder why that is.

What I said was that anti-semitism is still a problem in Germany.
Okay, I accept that. Personally I prefer my Neo-Nazis on the ground with a boot on their neck.

It's still a problem, here in the US, but that doesn't make us evil or mean either (although plenty of Europeans will call us evil because of one man: Bush).
I'm not sure whether they would use the word "evil", because that is precisely one of the reasons "we" don't like him.
The world is more complex than good and evil - and the same goes by the way for the French policy with regards to Israel. It is not simply a choice of "with us or against us".

I'm thinking you're confusing Germany with the internet. But you might like to also read about AntiFa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifa#Contemporary_Antifa), which is a movement probably just as big as the Neo-Nazi movement, but strangely gets no mention at all outside the country. I wonder why that is.

The hell if I know.


Okay, I accept that. Personally I prefer my Neo-Nazis on the ground with a boot on their neck.

Not that I mean to one-up you, but I prefer mine dangling from a rope suspended from the nearest telephone pole.

I'm not sure whether they would use the word "evil", because that is precisely one of the reasons "we" don't like him.

The word may not be used, but often Europeans seem to attack Bush as being a luny on the issue of Iraq (among other things). Not that I disagree with them, but Americans often find themselves being victims of guilt-by-association.

The world is more complex than good and evil - and the same goes by the way for the French policy with regards to Israel. It is not simply a choice of "with us or against us".

Agreed. However, Israel is constantly locked in a struggle for its very survival. As the saying goes, in a war of survival, there can be no bystanders, those who will not stand by your side must be destroyed. Or words to that effect. Though it may not be true, it probably feels like it to one under such an attack (I believe the Palestinians, under the same pressure from the Israelis, feel the same way about the US as the Israelis feel about France).

The trick then, I suppose, it trying to accomodate views of both black and white and 18% grey.

You people seem to think, "Yes, it was a bad decision to go there, so lets make the right decision by staying there!" Kind of like, "Yes, its morally wrong for me to rape an innocent woman, so the only solution is to CONTINUE raping her! Have to finish what you start!"

I think a better analogy would be a driver(the U.S.) who rams his car into another person's(the Iraqi people) house(Iraq). The driver has a responsibility to repay(keep the peace) for damaging his house, and now has to have his car repaired which cost money(the national debt). Still, its far from a perfect analogy, but I think many people think the U.S. is obligated to help Iraq because it caused this mess.

Trans-human']I think a better analogy would be a driver(the U.S.) who rams his car into another person's(the Iraqi people) house(Iraq). The driver has a responsibility to repay(keep the peace) for damaging his house, and now has to have his car repaired which cost money(the national debt). Still, its far from a perfect analogy, but I think many people think the U.S. is obligated to help Iraq because it caused this mess.To carry your analogy a little further, the car ran into the kitchen and the contractor brought into to rebuild it has charged 10 times the prevailing rate and destroyed the living room and two bedrooms in the interim.

Not to mention burning half of the house trying to take care of a roach infestation, to carry the analogy even further still.

No insurance company (after they've been taken to court and made to pay, that is), would stomache the kind of incompetance that the American tax-payer is being asked to.

Iraq- Secure elections, then leave

Healthcare- Secure for private industries

Taxes- Can't pay for foreign wars. think of what around 500 billion dollars could have bought.....
(Major tax cuts, educational grants, enviormental protection, welfare- in general, etc.)

Bush- Excellent domestic policies, tax cuts, social security etc, poor foreign policy (ironic, republicans usually have the upper-hand in foreign policy and dems domestic)

What I suggest- Wait for next elections, and elect Condi to office, or McCain.

World police? Yes and no. Sure the US sticks our nose where it should not be, and it ends up in unsurmountable debt. Perhaps we should follow the german armed forces example. Instead of large armored divsions, we split our forces into expeditionary corps, meant for foreign interest. In each conflict, gather support, and then dispatch limited number of troops.

Iraq- Secure elections, then leave

Healthcare- Secure for private industries

Taxes- Can't pay for foreign wars. think of what around 500 billion dollars could have bought.....
(Major tax cuts, educational grants, enviormental protection, welfare- in general, etc.)

Bush- Excellent domestic policies, tax cuts, social security etc, poor foreign policy (ironic, republicans usually have the upper-hand in foreign policy and dems domestic)

What I suggest- Wait for next elections, and elect Condi to office, or McCain.

World police? Yes and no. Sure the US sticks our nose where it should not be, and it ends up in unsurmountable debt. Perhaps we should follow the german armed forces example. Instead of large armored divsions, we split our forces into expeditionary corps, meant for foreign interest. In each conflict, gather support, and then dispatch limited number of troops.

Healthcare should be socialized/nationalized/federalized. Even my Republican father agrees on that.

If you want to judge a country of 85 million sensible and friendly people by the actions of maybe 10,000 Skinheads, then feel free.

Hey why not? It's ok to judge 1.5 billion Muslims on the actions of less than 100. Broad brush painting is widely accepted in the US.

Hey why not? It's ok to judge 1.5 billion Muslims on the actions of less than 100. Broad brush painting is widely accepted in the US.

And it's clearly accepted elsewhere, as well.

The important question is, what's happening to the profit margin? They must have forecasted a maximum payout on this, are the variations eating into that zone, perhaps even pushing the project into a loss?

lol, another baseless "war for oil" argument.

fact: Iraqi people voted today
fact: they would not have been able to vote without the efforts of the coalition forces to take down Saddam's regime

have you missed these salient points?

Is freedom worth nothing to you? Or do you think that no one ever had to make sacrifices to give you your freedom? Imagine the number of people who've died to make your country safe for you to do as you (more or less) please. Now imagine you're an Iraqi shi'ite who voted for the first time in his life today with a real choice, as opposed to being forced to vote for someone who might murder or torture you at the whim of his sociopathic personality.

(i don't mean to sound so adamant/pissed-off... I just can't believe there are people who haven't given in to the fact that a lot of good has been done for the Iraqi people... scratch that: for the peaceful/non-Jihadist Iraqi people.)

Is freedom worth nothing to you? Or do you think that no one ever had to make sacrifices to give you your freedom?

Freedom's worth quite a bit to me. But Bush didn't sell the war as being an operation to bring the Light of Freedom into dark places. If he did that, then we'd have to start with a number of our own allies, first (Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc.). He sold it on the premise that Iraq was a clear and present danger to the United States. That they had WMD (false) and that they would sell those weapons to al-Qaeda (their sworn enemies). I didn't believe Bush then, and I don't believe him now.

Imagine the number of people who've died to make your country safe for you to do as you (more or less) please.

The people who've died to make my country safe for me all wear dark blue, drive cars with red-and-blue lights, and carry badges.

Now imagine you're an Iraqi shi'ite who voted for the first time in his life today with a real choice, as opposed to being forced to vote for someone who might murder or torture you at the whim of his sociopathic personality.

Now imagine you're a Kurd or Shi'a Muslim. Bush has just told you to rise up in rebellion against Saddam Hussein. You do. Had you been given weapons and support, you could have overthrown him. Instead, the United States stabs you in the back and your family dies in a cloud of gas. A decade later the United States returns and takes Saddam out of power. You remember how the US betrayed you the first time. And to make things worse, they want to keep the Sunnis, the people who gassed you, in a position of power in Iraq. How would you feel? 44% of Iraqis support the US occupation. That makes for 56% who don't. (Stats taken from TIME Magazine from this past week.)