Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Report says Bush wars cost average US family


Bob26003

Recommended Posts

Those would be "exit polls", which generally are in dispute as to whether they consist of useful polls or not.

Nope, the exit poll incident was another poll error. The first hour of election day, exit poll showed Keryy was going to win on a landslide.

Yet, if I recall correctly, literally every war that has been won or lost in the 20th century, not including the half-assed Gulf "War" I, was done so under the leadership of a Democratic President (Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Harry Truman, Lyndon B. Johnson/John F. Kennedy). Aside for Bush Sr. and his "war" in 1991, the last time a President came to term during an actual American War (Nixon) was the one who cut and ran. In fact, in spite of the saber-rattling by the Republicans on the war issue, they've generally only gone into wars when victory was 100% assured beforehand, like the Gulf War, or Grenada, whereas the Democrats have led through every major war of the past century.

Yes, Kennedy was the last true Great Democrat."Ask not what the country can do for you", remember that?

Then woodstock libs took over the party.

And by the way, you really have to admire Reagan. For he defeated the Soviet Union without firing a shot.

I noticed you didn't respond to my point about it being Bush Sr., a Republican President, who started the draw-downs after the end of the Cold War in terms of military force.

Draw down? I think it was more of restructuring the Military to be more ready for urban warfare.

Edited by AROCES
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 74
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • AROCES

    28

  • Bob26003

    12

  • Unlimited

    11

  • Atheist God

    6

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Were just glad you were not the decision maker then when Saddam took Kuwait, for now we know you would have gone to Aftrica instead.

No I would let the middle east settle their own problems and instead only send people into harms way when it is absolutely necessary as it should be. The second Iraq war now was not necessary like the first one was when Kuwait actually asked for NATO help.

Right now there are hundreds of thousand dead or dying asking for help as they are being slaughtered like cattle but of course stopping Iraq was top priority in 02/03.

You forget that this is not 1991 or the cold war and times have changed.

OK, then why don't we get rid of elections, and the President. We just take a poll on any decision for the country. :tu:

Polls are designed to get a general consensus from a said demographic in a said population nothing more.

Because the enemy always would want to be ahead or stronger than us, and we won't allow it.

Yet the US is falling behind in almost every area you can think of and it's competitors like China and Russia are steadily catching up in regards to technology.

Most of the money spent on the military goes to projects that rarely see the light of day. To put it simply the US can't afford to keep spending the way it does unless it is purposely trying to tank it's economy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of the money spent on the military goes to projects that rarely see the light of day. To put it simply the US can't afford to keep spending the way it does unless it is purposely trying to tank it's economy.

thats what I think they are doing...purposely destroying the economy....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No I would let the middle east settle their own problems and instead only send people into harms way when it is absolutely necessary as it should be. The second Iraq war now was not necessary like the first one was when Kuwait actually asked for NATO help.

Right now there are hundreds of thousand dead or dying asking for help as they are being slaughtered like cattle but of course stopping Iraq was top priority in 02/03.

You forget that this is not 1991 or the cold war and times have changed.

Then why the UN embargoes, sanctions, resolutions, no fly zone, weapon inspectors if we should have just let them kill each other and then wait for result?

Polls are designed to get a general consensus from a said demographic in a said population nothing more.

Meaning, we are a society that is not run and ruled by polls. correct?

Yet the US is falling behind in almost every area you can think of and it's competitors like China and Russia are steadily catching up in regards to technology.

Most of the money spent on the military goes to projects that rarely see the light of day. To put it simply the US can't afford to keep spending the way it does unless it is purposely trying to tank it's economy.

Actually, we always hear that we are falling behind whenever the Dem are not in power, it's just politics as usual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then why the UN embargoes, sanctions, resolutions, no fly zone, weapon inspectors if we should have just let them kill each other and then wait for result?

I don't support putting sanctions on other nations or cutting off trade etc unless a nation makes a direct threat against you. The US was so quick to get rid of Saddam who by the time this war started was no threat to anyone while the man responsible for not only threatening the US but took down it largest building and killed thousands walks free in Pakistan.

Meaning, we are a society that is not run and ruled by polls. correct?

Correct however polls are important as they provide a consensus for the said issue that the establishment should listen to as opposed to ignore which is what they do most of the time now.

Polling works great because it allows politicians to listen to the general publics opinion.

Actually, we always hear that we are falling behind whenever the Dem are not in power, it's just politics as usual.

Maybe it's not just politics as you think it is.

You simply can't blame the democrats or the republicans for the bombing economy as both are to blame. I have been saying the economy has been falling since Slick Willy was in office so stop trying to say thats people only say it because the democrats aren't in office.

Although I will blame the republican white house for outright lying in regards to the economy. They say it's all good while the dollar steadily declines along with the economy, the numbers don't lie and if you believe that America is and always will be number 1 in the world you need get out of the 1950's mentality when America was number 1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The war will end and that will be it.

IF you really believe that when a war is over, "that will be it", you need to brush up on your history. Wars, and most especially modern wars, continue to drain economies for many years. Unpopular wars drag on recruiting and rearming. The cost of this debacle will be felt for a very long time - we still are paying for Gulf War I. There won't be money for social programs because we'll be busy paying for Bush's current wars in the future. You're taxes won't go down, in fact, they will increase in order to pay this massive debt. The American people have been sold a huge lie. That trillions of dollars are ok to spend on the military and we don't have to pay it back. I call BS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't support putting sanctions on other nations or cutting off trade etc unless a nation makes a direct threat against you. The US was so quick to get rid of Saddam who by the time this war started was no threat to anyone while the man responsible for not only threatening the US but took down it largest building and killed thousands walks free in Pakistan.

So let's get rid of the UN. If Iraq one day threatens Kuwait again then let Kuwait alone put a sanction and cut off trade with Iraq.

US was so quick??? !10 years of UN mandates and 2 years was given for Saddam or anyone to clear Saddams WMD threat, that was so quick? So, we should have given him another 12 years while he continue on corrupting and buying the UN itself??? :blink:

Correct however polls are important as they provide a consensus for the said issue that the establishment should listen to as opposed to ignore which is what they do most of the time now.

Polling works great because it allows politicians to listen to the general publics opinion.

But it can't be a basis for decision makers, for we all don't have the info that decision makers have.

Maybe it's not just politics as you think it is.

You simply can't blame the democrats or the republicans for the bombing economy as both are to blame. I have been saying the economy has been falling since Slick Willy was in office so stop trying to say thats people only say it because the democrats aren't in office.

Although I will blame the republican white house for outright lying in regards to the economy. They say it's all good while the dollar steadily declines along with the economy, the numbers don't lie and if you believe that America is and always will be number 1 in the world you need get out of the 1950's mentality when America was number 1.

Unemployment is at 4.5%, Wal Mart just posted a better than expected profit, SUV sale up 1st quarter of 2007. That is all a lie by the White House?

Whoever said America will always be #1? The sad thing for you folks is that you won't get to see when America is not #1 anymore.

Edited by AROCES
Link to comment
Share on other sites

IF you really believe that when a war is over, "that will be it", you need to brush up on your history. Wars, and most especially modern wars, continue to drain economies for many years. Unpopular wars drag on recruiting and rearming. The cost of this debacle will be felt for a very long time - we still are paying for Gulf War I. There won't be money for social programs because we'll be busy paying for Bush's current wars in the future. You're taxes won't go down, in fact, they will increase in order to pay this massive debt. The American people have been sold a huge lie. That trillions of dollars are ok to spend on the military and we don't have to pay it back. I call BS.

Of course, after the war you make sure peace is preserved. Now, you find that expensive?

We are already spending billions and billions on social programs. I really wonder why you folks are so scared of not getting another billion for the next fiscal year as if we will all die if only 1 billion is added instead of 2 billion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whoever said America will always be #1? The sad thing for you folks is that you won't get to see when America is not #1 anymore.

The policys over the last seven years have made china number one...you just dont understand economics, or the chinese war machine...thats why you focus on iraq....and pretend the red chinese arent breathing down your neck...well they are..the long march is on..

post-28981-1195311907_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The policys over the last seven years have made china number one...you just dont understand economics, or the chinese war machine...thats why you focus on iraq....and pretend the red chinese arent breathing down your neck...well they are..the long march is on..

I guess the Insurgents are winning propaganda didn't fly, now on to the Chinese have passed the US and stronger Militarily.

The long march? Tell me who needs who more, you ever notice how most goods here now are made in China? You think the Chinese wants to destroy their market?

I say get out of the doom and gloom world you are into.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The long march? Tell me who needs who more, you ever notice how most goods here now are made in China? You think the Chinese wants to destroy their market?

destroy their market of poison goods..ok. If it means world domination ..I think they could do without our business..they are using all the money we give them on their military...the US estimates the chinese spent 45 billion on their military last year..i say closer to 2.5 trillion was spent..but keep your head buried it's safer..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

destroy their market of poison goods..ok. If it means world domination ..I think they could do without our business..they are using all the money we give them on their military...the US estimates the chinese spent 45 billion on their military last year..i say closer to 2.5 trillion was spent..but keep your head buried it's safer..

Well, they are still a communist nation and Military spending is always a priority for them. Why you so surprise about it all of a sudden???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, they are still a communist nation and Military spending is always a priority for them. Why you so surprise about it all of a sudden???

why the dramatic buildup...who's the enemy?...i've been watching this situation for years not all of a sudden..the red army owns most the companys we do business with..your funding your own demise..the chinese are gonna kick ur butts...even the news are a bunch of commie sympathizers...look at the situation with Iran..who's in the drivers seat china, or the US?..china is dictating the policy towards Iran not bush...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

why the dramatic buildup...who's the enemy?...i've been watching this situation for years not all of a sudden..the red army owns most the companys we do business with..your funding your own demise..the chinese are gonna kick ur butts...even the news are a bunch of commie sympathizers...look at the situation with Iran..who's in the drivers seat china, or the US?..china is dictating the policy towards Iran not bush...

Why the build up? They are communist country, and I'm sure they saw what happened to the USA when it decided to decrease it's Military might in the 70's.

You remember what Madeline Albright stated Nationally? That it is not good that the US is the lone Superpower.

Well, here we are, I guess this is good after all.

There is one thing you seem to take for granted. China is still a communist country, that alone makes the United States have the edge over them.

Edited by AROCES
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So let's get rid of the UN. If Iraq one day threatens Kuwait again then let Kuwait alone put a sanction and cut off trade with Iraq.

US was so quick??? !10 years of UN mandates and 2 years was given for Saddam or anyone to clear Saddams WMD threat, that was so quick? So, we should have given him another 12 years while he continue on corrupting and buying the UN itself???

Saddam never had WMDs when the coalition moved in and took him out.

There is absolutely no justification for invading Iraq this time. There may have been the first time but this time no way, every reason that was given turned out to be a lie or misinformation and people were duped into supporting it.

But it can't be a basis for decision makers, for we all don't have the info that decision makers have.

In regards to things like the economy we do the only information we don't have are things like classified materials from organizations like the NSA and CIA etc. Everything else is public domain.

Unemployment is at 4.5%, Wal Mart just posted a better than expected profit, SUV sale up 1st quarter of 2007. That is all a lie by the White House?

Whoever said America will always be #1? The sad thing for you folks is that you won't get to see when America is not #1 anymore.

Wal Mart profits are due to global expansion in Europe and Asia. SUV sales mean nothing and the first quarter of 07 was significantly better in terms of the US financial situation.... Besides how many of those SUVs sold ended up being repossessed because people never made the payments. As for unemployment I have proven before that the 4.5% was a manipulated figure and had shown you why and was ignored upon doing so.

America in many regards is not #1 and hasn't been for a long time now. The proof of this is in the education system, health care and now the dollar which people are starting to drift away from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saddam never had WMDs when the coalition moved in and took him out.

Of course, we all know that now since we went in and verified it.

There is absolutely no justification for invading Iraq this time. There may have been the first time but this time no way, every reason that was given turned out to be a lie or misinformation and people were duped into supporting it.

How about Saddam duped everyone making us believe he has one for he does not want to look weak among his supporters and enemies.

And besides, he was sucesssful in buying and corrupting 2 key allies and the UN itself that you all try to downplay.

In regards to things like the economy we do the only information we don't have are things like classified materials from organizations like the NSA and CIA etc. Everything else is public domain.

Oh really, how many of the population do you think can understand and analyze a thick book economic report and indicator the way the Chairman of the Federal reserve can?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spend and Bleed, Spend and Bleed, Spend and Bleed, Spend and Bleed.......................................

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wal Mart profits are due to global expansion in Europe and Asia. SUV sales mean nothing and the first quarter of 07 was significantly better in terms of the US financial situation.... Besides how many of those SUVs sold ended up being repossessed because people never made the payments. As for unemployment I have proven before that the 4.5% was a manipulated figure and had shown you why and was ignored upon doing so.

I have not heard Wal Mart laying off workers locally because of poor business, have you?

SUV sales means nothing, and you assuming those who bought are idiots and they really can't afford them to make your argument. :rolleyes:

So, everytime it is Bush unemployment report it is manipulated, but when it was Clinton is was accurate.

Give me a break here! LOL :D

America in many regards is not #1 and hasn't been for a long time now. The proof of this is in the education system, health care and now the dollar which people are starting to drift away from.
Education I agree for it is in control of the Liberals.

Alright, who is #1 then?

Edited by AROCES
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, we all know that now since we went in and verified it.

There’s no doubt Iraq hasn’t fully complied with its disarmament obligations as set forth by the Security Council in its resolution. But on the other hand, since 1998 Iraq has been fundamentally disarmed: 90-95% of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction capacity has been verifiably eliminated… We have to remember that this missing 5-10% doesn’t necessarily constitute a threat… It constitutes bits and pieces of a weapons program which in its totality doesn’t amount to much, but which is still prohibited… We can’t give Iraq a clean bill of health, therefore we can’t close the book on their weapons of mass destruction. But simultaneously, we can’t reasonably talk about Iraqi non-compliance as representing a de-facto retention of a prohibited capacity worthy of war. (page 28)

We eliminated the nuclear program, and for Iraq to have reconstituted it would require undertaking activities that would have been eminently detectable by intelligence services. (page 32)

If Iraq were producing [chemical] weapons today, we’d have proof, pure and simple. (page 37)

[A]s of December 1998 we had no evidence Iraq had retained biological weapons, nor that they were working on any. In fact, we had a lot of evidence to suggest Iraq was in compliance. (page 46)[7]

Scott Ritter

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Ritter#...7s_lack_of_WMDs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There’s no doubt Iraq hasn’t fully complied with its disarmament obligations as set forth by the Security Council in its resolution. But on the other hand, since 1998 Iraq has been fundamentally disarmed: 90-95% of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction capacity has been verifiably eliminated… We have to remember that this missing 5-10% doesn’t necessarily constitute a threat… It constitutes bits and pieces of a weapons program which in its totality doesn’t amount to much, but which is still prohibited… We can’t give Iraq a clean bill of health, therefore we can’t close the book on their weapons of mass destruction. But simultaneously, we can’t reasonably talk about Iraqi non-compliance as representing a de-facto retention of a prohibited capacity worthy of war. (page 28)

We eliminated the nuclear program, and for Iraq to have reconstituted it would require undertaking activities that would have been eminently detectable by intelligence services. (page 32)

If Iraq were producing [chemical] weapons today, we’d have proof, pure and simple. (page 37)

[A]s of December 1998 we had no evidence Iraq had retained biological weapons, nor that they were working on any. In fact, we had a lot of evidence to suggest Iraq was in compliance. (page 46)[7]

Scott Ritter

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Ritter#...7s_lack_of_WMDs" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Ritter#...7s_lack_of_WMDs</a>

The missing 5-10 % is about 2 or 3 nukes only then?

Same question that I have asked before, why did the UN or Hans Blix simply have OFFICIALLY declared that Iraq was not a threat anymore and pulle dall sanctions and resolutions if they were so certain that the US invasion is not neccesary. IT WOULD HAVE STOPPED THE WAR.

Edited by AROCES
Link to comment
Share on other sites

CIA Told Bush There Were No WMD In Iraq In 2002

Remember that joke film clip that President Bush made for the Radio and Television Correspondents' dinner in 2004 wherein he made a mockery of the search for WMD's...looking under a chair in the Oval Office and so forth? Well, it turns out that that was about as seriously as he took the CIA and their intelligence that there were no WMD's in Iraq before he sent us to war. This is according to an exclusive in Salon.com by Sidney Blumenthal.

On Sept. 18, 2002, CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, according to two former senior CIA officers. Bush dismissed as worthless this information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam's inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail. Tenet never brought it up again.

Nor was the intelligence included in the National Intelligence Estimate of October 2002, which stated categorically that Iraq possessed WMD. No one in Congress was aware of the secret intelligence that Saddam had no WMD as the House of Representatives and the Senate voted, a week after the submission of the NIE, on the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq. The information, moreover, was not circulated within the CIA among those agents involved in operations to prove whether Saddam had WMD.

On April 23, 2006, CBS's "60 Minutes" interviewed Tyler Drumheller, the former CIA chief of clandestine operations for Europe, who disclosed that the agency had received documentary intelligence from Naji Sabri, Saddam's foreign minister, that Saddam did not have WMD. "We continued to validate him the whole way through," said Drumheller. "The policy was set. The war in Iraq was coming, and they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy, to justify the policy."

Now two former senior CIA officers have confirmed Drumheller's account to me and provided the background to the story of how the information that might have stopped the invasion of Iraq was twisted in order to justify it. They described what Tenet said to Bush about the lack of WMD, and how Bush responded, and noted that Tenet never shared Sabri's intelligence with then Secretary of State Colin Powell. According to the former officers, the intelligence was also never shared with the senior military planning the invasion, which required U.S. soldiers to receive medical shots against the ill effects of WMD and to wear protective uniforms in the desert.

Instead, said the former officials, the information was distorted in a report written to fit the preconception that Saddam did have WMD programs.

Here's the money quote:

"The president had no interest in the intelligence," said the CIA officer. The other officer said, "Bush didn't give a **** about the intelligence. He had his mind made up."

The distorted report was also used as the basis for briefing members of Congress in the debate over the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, basically cooking the books to convince even the skeptics that Saddam Hussein had WMD's.

Even a leading opponent such as Sen. Bob Graham, then the Democratic chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, who had instigated the production of the NIE, declared in his floor speech on Oct. 12, 2002, "Saddam Hussein's regime has chemical and biological weapons and is trying to get nuclear capacity." Not a single senator contested otherwise. None of them had an inkling of the Sabri intelligence.

So when the supporters of the president claim that even Democrats voted for the war, we now know that they were doing so based on fraudulent evidence and that the president knew it.

On Sept. 8, 2006, three Republican senators on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence -- Orrin Hatch, Saxby Chambliss and Pat Roberts -- signed a letter attempting to counter Drumheller's revelation about Sabri on "60 Minutes": "All of the information about this case so far indicates that the information from this source was that Iraq did have WMD programs." The Republicans also quoted Tenet, who had testified before the committee in July 2006 that Drumheller had "mischaracterized" the intelligence. Still, Drumheller stuck to his guns, telling Reuters, "We have differing interpretations, and I think mine's right."

One of the former senior CIA officers told me that despite the certitude of the three Republican senators, the Senate committee never had the original memo on Sabri. "The committee never got that report," he said. "The material was hidden or lost, and because it was a restricted case, a lot of it was done in hard copy. The whole thing was fogged up, like Curveball."

While one Iraqi source told the CIA that there were no WMD, information that was true but distorted to prove the opposite, another Iraqi source was a fabricator whose lies were eagerly embraced. "The real tragedy is that they had a good source that they misused," said one of the former CIA officers. "The fact is there was nothing there, no threat. But Bush wanted to hear what he wanted to hear."

The Bush apologists will now blame the CIA and George Tenet for getting it all wrong, and Dick Cheney will mutter something about Syria and secret caves.

We've gone beyond ridiculous to the criminally insane.

http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/bobby/61793/

Edited by Bob26003
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have not heard Wal Mart laying off workers locally because of poor business, have you?

No they just hire illegal immigrants and treat their employees like crap. Other businesses lay off as a result of Wal Mart especially in smaller areas where Wal Mart due to it's cheap Chinese imports destroys local economies.

SUV sales means nothing, and you assuming those who bought are idiots and they really can't afford them to make your argument.

Many people who buy new cars likewise with new houses cannot afford them... remember not everyone is wealthy.

So, everytime it is Bush unemployment report it is manipulated, but when it was Clinton is was accurate.

It wasn't accurate under Clinton either...

I don't support the democrats anymore then you do, I also don't support the republicans because both parties lie cheat and steal.

Education I agree for it is in control of the Liberals.

Alright, who is #1 then?

There is no #1 country in the world contrary to what you might believe.

Of course, we all know that now since we went in and verified it.

It was supposedly verified that they did have them before they went in. You wonder why a majority no longer support the war, it is really as simple as they found out they were lied too.

You can spin it anyway you want and it doesn't change fact.

How about Saddam duped everyone making us believe he has one for he does not want to look weak among his supporters and enemies.

And besides, he was sucesssful in buying and corrupting 2 key allies and the UN itself that you all try to downplay.

Then why not punish those who took his money? There is also no proof that Saddam bought the entire UN as you claim.

Bribing people is not justification for killing people and war.

How come the US doesn't go to war with China and Russia for stealing it's military secrets which is clearly an act of war.

Oh really, how many of the population do you think can understand and analyze a thick book economic report and indicator the way the Chairman of the Federal reserve can?

You would be surprised... I can understand an economic report and I know many others who can.

Every independent report I have read tells a different story then what your government tells you in regards to the stability of the US economy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh gee! You have to dig all the way to Australia for a report that no one paid any attention too?

The problem you have is you don't know how to distinguish a tabloid from legitimate report. Unless you doubt it yourself but you like it anyway????? :huh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh gee! You have to dig all the way to Australia for a report that no one paid any attention too?

The problem you have is you don't know how to distinguish a tabloid from legitimate report. Unless you doubt it yourself but you like it anyway????? :huh:

Actually, I believe it was CBS that originally reported it. Give it up Aroces. Everyone in the WORLD knows we were lied into this War.

Everyone except you. :hmm:

Edited by Bob26003
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.