what else is new?

[46zilzal]

War Critics See New Resistance by Bush

By Jim Rutenberg / New York Times

WASHINGTON, Dec. 25 — Immediately after the beating his party took in November, President Bush indicated that he had received the message that voters wanted change, and that he would serve some up fast. He ousted his defense secretary, announced a full-scale review of his war plan and contritely agreed with critics that progress in Iraq was not happening “well enough, fast enough.”

But in the last two weeks, the critics and even some allies say, they have seen a reversal. Mr. Bush has shrugged off suggestions by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group that he enlist the help of Iran and Syria in the effort to stabilize Iraq. Countering suggestions that he begin thinking of bringing troops home, he has engaged in deliberations over whether to send more. And he has adjusted the voters’ message away from Iraq, saying on Wednesday, “I thought the election said they want to see more bipartisan cooperation.”

In a way, this is the president being the president he has always been — while he still can.

[skate]

and 45 being 44;

you say, "Bush indicated message received" and Bush to "change".

Hello, thats what is happening.


then you add "they have seen reversal". who are you talking about?

and you seem upset or put - off by saying Bush "shrugged off suggestions by ISG". what the heck are you thinking, should Bush just blindly run off to Iran and start to give up? i kinda figure that is exactly what you and the Koranys would smile over.

happens to be a big job Bush is doing and not a job for the Panty hose minded.

[46zilzal]

he wouldn't listen to rationality if it bit him in the butt

[skate]

im not sure that you know what his next move will be, and i aint gonna tell ya.

so as you wont go back and tell YOUR FRIENDS .

[kenwoodallpromos]

He's not getting more troops no matter how badly he wants them.

[Suff]

He's not getting more troops no matter how badly he wants them.

I'm not sure you understand exactly what breed of maniac your dealing with here.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------




A U.S. military 'at its breaking point' considers foreign recruits



WASHINGTON: December 26, 2006: The armed forces, already struggling to meet recruiting goals, are considering expanding the number of noncitizens in the ranks — including disputed proposals to open recruiting stations overseas and put more immigrants on a faster track to U.S. citizenship if they volunteer — according to Pentagon officials.

Foreign citizens' serving in the U.S. military is a highly charged issue, which could expose the Pentagon to criticism that it is essentially using mercenaries to defend the country. Other analysts voice concern that a large contingent of noncitizens under arms could jeopardize national security or reflect badly on Americans' willingness to serve in uniform.

The idea of signing up residents who are seeking U.S. citizenship is gaining traction as a way to address a critical need for the Pentagon, while fully absorbing some of the roughly one million immigrants that enter the United States legally each year
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/12/26/news/military.php

[JPinMaryland]

Discussion on another board I frequent pointed out that apparently three factors identified as contributing to the decline of the Roman empire were: a large trade deficit, reliance on foreign troops and inflation. If I recall correctly. Interesting.

[Tom]

1951 - early 1952.
Korean war - not popular. Truman had a job approval rating of 22%.
He refused to consider defeat.
He knew failure was not an option and hung in.

Today, S Korea - a democracy, stability in a bad region, 14th largest economy in the world. They were going through what Iraq is going through today - the hard move from disconnected tribal, feudal existence to a new democracy.

It worked.
N Korea, Russian and China combined could not stop it - because we did not cut and run.

Good thing YOU guys weren't around back then!

[skate]

Discussion on another board I frequent pointed out that apparently three factors identified as contributing to the decline of the Roman empire were: a large trade deficit, reliance on foreign troops and inflation. If I recall correctly. Interesting.

well, there you go JP;

1- our (USA) debt is very low.
2-everyother country counts on OUR military. cept France w/ foreign legion.
3- inflation been great.

of coarse, i think they could add some factors.

to me, the Crap on TV (nothing there, zero) and people just suck it up, this will have more to do with any downfall, just like the Romans. as soon as they go cable, baaamm, zippo, they became usless, unable to fight.

[46zilzal]

1951 - early 1952.
Korean war - not popular. Truman had a job approval rating of 22%.
He refused to consider defeat.
He knew failure was not an option and hung in.

Today, S Korea - a democracy, stability in a bad region, 14th largest economy in the world. They were going through what Iraq is going through today - the hard move from disconnected tribal, feudal existence to a new democracy.


seems to me that the FINAL line of demarcation in Korea was not much different that the one BEFORE thousands were killed. Another useless war.

[Tom]

seems to me that the FINAL line of demarcation in Korea was not much different that the one BEFORE thousands were killed. Another useless war. Not if you live in S KOrea - we held them back there, and, as I posted, today, they are reaping the benefits. 14th largest world economy. Useless, eh. I think not. You would have prefered they laid down and allowed the north to eat them up and today be a part of one of the world's worst contries? Gee, 46, I guess we define "useful" a bit differently.

[Secretariat]

well, there you go JP;

1- our (USA) debt is very low.
2-everyother country counts on OUR military. cept France w/ foreign legion.
3- inflation been great.

of coarse, i think they could add some factors.

to me, the Crap on TV (nothing there, zero) and people just suck it up, this will have more to do with any downfall, just like the Romans. as soon as they go cable, baaamm, zippo, they became usless, unable to fight.

I suppose it's masochism that urges me to respond to your absurd assertions.

"our debt is very low"

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

The estimated population of the United States is 300,564,306
so each citizen's share of this debt is $28,669.52.

The National Debt has continued to increase an average of
$1.25 billion per day since September 29, 2006!

We're almost 9 trillion in debt and growing. Is this the new conservatism? No thank you.

[highnote]

War Critics See New Resistance by Bush

By Jim Rutenberg / New York Times



http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1227/p09s02-coop.html

This article on lifting presidential term limits might be of interest. If Bush was up for re-election again, how would his decisions be affected?

Eisenhower said that term limits signal a loss of faith in our democracy. He felt the voters in the U.S. were smart enough to toss a bad president out and bring a new one in.

[skate]

I suppose it's masochism that urges me to respond to your absurd assertions.

"our debt is very low"

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

The estimated population of the United States is 300,564,306
so each citizen's share of this debt is $28,669.52.

The National Debt has continued to increase an average of
$1.25 billion per day since September 29, 2006!

We're almost 9 trillion in debt and growing. Is this the new conservatism? No thank you.

well just because i dinn't use the word Absurd, does not mean "its not being applied to Secism. ya, it is there, but you are not able to view "why you come up short".

you see, when i read what you say "9 billion...da da da , (how do i put this?) can you see that you say absolutally Nothing, without acknowledgement of any one of several refutes. one such being, the last i saw, the debt (which is nothing unless you compare compare compare "IT" to something) the last i saw the debt was 2% or less. does that do any sinking into your anxiety>?>?

now , i will respond more, got to run.

your figures hold NO weightas in weightless.

[skate]

I suppose it's masochism that urges me to respond to your absurd assertions.

"our debt is very low"

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

The estimated population of the United States is 300,564,306
so each citizen's share of this debt is $28,669.52.

The National Debt has continued to increase an average of
$1.25 billion per day since September 29, 2006!

We're almost 9 trillion in debt and growing. Is this the new conservatism? No thank you.

Secism;

okk ok here we go again, gees you put things out here, showing ONE side of a situation. ill give you ANOTHER example. you say the Citizens debt is $30,000, da. i have to ask, if that is there debt (you said) then what the keyrist is there WORTH?huh? geess, i trying not to call anyone stupid, been trying, but do you here me.
what do they (citizens) have, a debt only? or do they also have income, profit, Net Worth, because if they do (yes they do have worth) then YOU must include that and then compare that Net Worth with whatever you call DEBT.
oh, i guess, with all my absurdity., i'm suppose to think "debt debt debt debt debt debt smet fet, and NO WORTH> . hello!

ok, you think that way. i can give you many examples to counter what you are trying to put accross, JUST, please, don't include me in the Stupid Process.

one more thing, have you ever heard of Account Surplus Capital.

oh this should be good

[skate]

I suppose it's masochism that urges me to respond to your absurd assertions.

"our debt is very low"

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

The estimated population of the United States is 300,564,306
so each citizen's share of this debt is $28,669.52.

The National Debt has continued to increase an average of
$1.25 billion per day since September 29, 2006!

We're almost 9 trillion in debt and growing. Is this the new conservatism? No thank you.


Secism;
Debt is very veeeery good .

first, you act as if this were something new, it aint.

Many companys and growing economys spend more than they produce. How, they use bank loans, bonds from citizens and foreigners.
in turn, they add to the company or country, before they produce, simple.
cash is leverage, and when growing, you need cash.
bonds put the USA in position to invest more than they save, this contributes to the Deficit, which is Good.

now if the citizens net worth did not go higher, the investment would not be good, but you see the net worth of the citizens of the USA is very veeery much on the increase. thats what you forget, or what is it that you do with this information. im looking to see if you really know, not to see if you are stupid. as a mater of fact, i most likely have the lowest IQ on this board. im just looking for the truth. im not trying to outsmart.

Sept 29th, you say we are in debt (the citizens or who), because i did not sign any contracts, so i wonder just who it is that you think i owe that money .

look, one more point, your figures say we citizens are 9 trillion in debt right now, and i am looking at a figure that says the net USA household financial savings as of Sept 30th 2006, is $27 TRILLION.

looks to me, we are at around $18Trillion to the good. and that is because of our debt situation. Our debt has gone up and so has our Worth.

have you ever heard of "OUR ACCOUNT SURPLUS"? thank you very veeery much

[Secretariat]

Secism;
Debt is very veeeery good .

No it isn't. It is sometimes necessary, but anyone who declares debt is good means he doesn't have enough to foot the bill and is speculating that his investment will recoup enough to pay dead interest.

now if the citizens net worth did not go higher, the investment would not be good, but you see the net worth of the citizens of the USA is very veeery much on the increase.

No, it isn't. The median income of citizens of the country have not been able to keep up with inflation for years. What are you talking about? Go the Bureau of Labor and Statistics and check it for yourself.

as a mater of fact, i most likely have the lowest IQ on this board.

Thank you. This explains a lot.

[46zilzal]

Ford Disagreed With Bush About Invading Iraq

By Bob Woodward / Washington Post

Former president Gerald R. Ford said in an embargoed interview in July 2004 that the Iraq war was not justified. "I don't think I would have gone to war," he said a little more than a year after President Bush launched the invasion advocated and carried out by prominent veterans of Ford's own administration.

In a four-hour conversation at his house in Beaver Creek, Colo., Ford "very strongly" disagreed with the current president's justifications for invading Iraq and said he would have pushed alternatives, such as sanctions, much more vigorously. In the tape-recorded interview, Ford was critical not only of Bush but also of Vice President Cheney -- Ford's White House chief of staff -- and then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, who served as Ford's chief of staff and then his Pentagon chief.

"I just don't think we should go hellfire damnation around the globe freeing people, unless it is directly related to our own national security," he said.

[Tom]

And suddenll, Ford in an expert on world affairs?
Funny, he was pretty much an ineffective knucklehead when it counted.

46, everyone has an opinion......do you plan to post them all here?

An 89 year old guy, out the loop, probably not the sharpest tack in the box to begin with, sitting home watching the news.....yup. His opinion is golden. :lol: