Bush wants 87 Billion to fight terror

[nilodor]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030908/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq&cid=544&ncid=716

Link Above

WASHINGTON - President Bush (news - web sites) said Sunday night he will ask Congress for $87 billion to fight terrorism in Iraq (news - web sites) and Afghanistan (news - web sites), appealing for troops and money from other countries, even those who opposed the U.S.-led war.


Bush, in a speech from the Cabinet Room, said the United States would not intimidated into retreat by violence.


"The terrorists have cited the examples of Beirut and Somalia, claiming that if you inflict harm on Americans we will run from a challenge," Bush said. "In this they are mistaken."


Bush spoke just four days before the anniversary of the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. Seeking support for his policy, he said, "The surest way to avoid attacks on our own people is to engage the enemy where he lives and plans.


"We are fighting that enemy in Iraq and Afghanistan today, so that we do not meet him again on our own streets, in our own cities."


Bush addressed the nation from the Cabinet Room in his first major speech on Iraq since May 1 when he stood on the deck of the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln and declared an end to major combat operations. Since then, more Americans have died in Iraq than were killed during the war. The overall death count is 287 — 149 since May 1.


The violence — including four major bombing attacks in a month — have raised alarms about Bush's handling of Iraq. Republicans and Democrats alike have urged Bush to change course and seek more troops and money from other countries.


Questions also have been fueled by the administration's failure to find any of Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s alleged illegal weapons or Saddam himself.


Bush said Iraq and the Middle East are critical to winning the global war on terror. Bush's plan for Mideast plan appeared to be unraveling after Saturday's resignation of Mahmoud Abbas, the U.S.-backed Palestinian prime minister.


Bush described Iraq as the central front in the war against terror and said that "enemies of freedom are making a desperate stand there, and there they must be defeated.


"This will take time and require sacrifice," he said. "Yet we will do what is necessary, we will spend what is necessary, to achieve this essential victory in the war on terror, to promote freedom and to make our own nation more secure."


Bush said the current number of U.S. troops in Iraq — 130,000 — is sufficient but that more foreign troops are needed. He said two multinational divisions, led by Britain and Poland, are serving alongside the United States, and that American commanders have requested a third multinational division.


Some countries have asked for an explicit U.N. peacekeeping authorization, and Bush said Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites) would seek a Security Council resolution to authorize deployment of new forces.


Referring to France, Germany and Russia, Bush said that "not all of our friends agreed with our decision (to) ... remove Saddam Hussein from power. Yet we cannot let past differences interfere with present duties."



Hey its only what, 300 dollars a person. Who cares about education, food and housing. No one needs the essentials.

edit: correct a formating issue

[Buccaneer]

Hey its only what, 300 dollars a person. Who cares about education, food and housing. No one needs the essentials.

And what is the federal govt's role in education, food and housing besides feeding the bureaucracy? Seems like everyone wants to prevent 9/11 from happening again but are unwilling to pay for it or accept the actions to reduce the threat of terrorism. That is an awful lot of money but what are the consequences of not doing it?

[sabotai]

"That is an awful lot of money but what are the consequences of not doing it?"

And an awful lot of money has already been spent. A hell of a lot more than the $87 billion. My question is what will this $87 billion do that all the money spent before did not do?

[Bonegavel]

Think what you will about this, but this is actually one of the areas the federal government is supposed to do something about. Education is a state issue, food and housing are personal responsibility issues.

[Buccaneer]

Originally posted by sabotai
"That is an awful lot of money but what are the consequences of not doing it?"

And an awful lot of money has already been spent. A hell of a lot more than the $87 billion. My question is what will this $87 billion do that all the money spent before did not do?

Why doesn't everyone state that same valid question for all of the trillions they have spent/wasted for domestic and foreign programs? With something like this (keeping a strong hand in the Middle East), it is unfortunate (and expensive) but better, imo, than giving it over to the UN and their appeasement towards terrorism, in which we would be back to where we started.

[Buccaneer]

Originally posted by BoneGavel
Think what you will about this, but this is actually one of the areas the federal government is supposed to do something about. Education is a state issue, food and housing are personal responsibility issues.

That was what I was getting at. I would ask the question to nilodor (who probably can be excused for being from Canada) and to many others: why do you automatically assume (or want) the federal govt to be responsible for those things?

[Swaggs]

Originally posted by Buccaneer
And what is the federal govt's role in education, food and housing besides feeding the bureaucracy? Seems like everyone wants to prevent 9/11 from happening again but are unwilling to pay for it or accept the actions to reduce the threat of terrorism. That is an awful lot of money but what are the consequences of not doing it?

The president ran on a "No Child Left Behind" domestic platform, so whether or not he is feeding the bureaucracy, he either needs to allocate some money to improving education or he can be considered a liar or an ineffective president.

I am disappointed that people are beginning to blur the 9/11 attackers into the former Iraqi administration. There are dozens and dozens of more sound ties to the terrorists than Saddam Hussein, so why try to frighten people into thinking that unless we pay tons of money, we are going to get attacked again unless we rebuild Iraq?

[Bonegavel]

Originally posted by Buccaneer
That was what I was getting at. I would ask the question to nilodor (who probably can be excused for being from Canada) and to many others: why do you automatically assume (or want) the federal govt to be responsible for those things?

Just "watching your back", Bucc.

[Buccaneer]

Swaggs, isn't there recent intelligence saying that Al-Qaeda is rebuilding in Iraq? Iraq nowadays would seem to be a logical place for increased terrorism and terrorist training, esp. if we were to pull out and have the UN "take over".

As far as the domestic platform, I am of the opinion that he should not have run any promises for increases in domestic programs (but instead to reduce the role of the feds and give more responsbilities to local and state govt). But it seems that a majority of the country as so f'n brainwashed in wanting to hear a president (or a presidential candidate) saying and promising these things. As with all noble intentions, it nearly all become so politicized and bureaucracisized (I know, that's not a word) that it renders return on costs to be so minimal (yes, military programs included). But when you got Kennedy et al screaming that much more money is needed (for everything, apparently), it truly becomes a wasteful money pit. I just wish many people would see that and be appalled at the incredible waste for very little return.

[nilodor]

Originally posted by Buccaneer
That was what I was getting at. I would ask the question to nilodor (who probably can be excused for being from Canada) and to many others: why do you automatically assume (or want) the federal govt to be responsible for those things?

Your right, I totally forgot how different the social structure is in the United States compared to Canada.

[sabotai]

"Why doesn't everyone state that same valid question for all of the trillions they have spent/wasted for domestic and foreign programs?"

Well, I for one do. And I see no reason why they need to spend $87 billion more on this. But then again, that's because no one has shown what the $87 billion will go towards. "To fight terrorism" is not good enough. HOW is it going to fight terrorism? That's the question.

"he either needs to allocate some money to improving education or he can be considered a liar or an ineffective president."

I vote for both.

[Swaggs]

Bucc, I have not heard that Iraq has become any more of a breeding ground or not, but it would not suprise me. The nation has been thrown into disarray, with the power outages and food supply altered. I was against the war from the start, but believe it was probably for the best of the people of Iraq in the long run, but one of the risks we now have is that for every person killed, or that every family displaced, or that every family that has now fallen on hard times--these folks are going to be searching for a cause and will be easy prey for terrorist recruiters. I am much more feaful of seeing small, random terrorist attacks in small town, USA (a al the type seen in Israel) now, than I have ever been. It is interesting (from a historical perspective) that we are trying to build a "sphere of influence" in the Middle East to combat terrorism, much as we did during the Cold War to combat Communism.

As for your second paragraph, I will accept and respect that you believe the more Republican-based model of government is a more effective way to run the country, but I obviously disagree. Mostly because I have seen the way my home state of West Virginia (and other states) has been critically damaged through "self-governing." I know half the people in the country feel that local government should govern, rather than federal, but when big business monopolize a region or a state, then the people are not governing, the dominant businesses are, and that is a toss up situation, in my opinion.

One other point that you raise, from a different perspective. :) I have been keeping a semi-close eye on the CA recall/election situation and amazed at how revolted the conservatives in CA are by Arnold proclaiming himself as Pro-Choice. The only way I can see that any state governor's pro-life/pro-choice preference would have any value (and it is far removed) is when the appoint judges who may, someday, become Supreme Court Justices. Interesting that the issue is such a sticking point and may become a factor in the election (should the recall pass).

[sterlingice]

Originally posted by sabotai
"he either needs to allocate some money to improving education or he can be considered a liar or an ineffective president."

I vote for both.

Not that I want to get into this, but I thought the same thing my first time though reading this. Actually, a couple of lines from Sports Night came to mind:

Dan: Is this guy drunk or a moron?
Casey: Like there's no chance he could be both?

SI

[sabotai]

Sports Night was an awesome show. Any situation can be boiled down to a Sports Night quote. :)

[sterlingice]

Originally posted by sabotai
Sports Night was an awesome show. Any situation can be boiled down to a Sports Night quote. :)

It seems too short a show for that (not even two full seasons) but I can do that with a Simpsons quote. Don't get me wrong- Sports Night is the only show I have DVDs of and I loved it (mostly- there are a couple of abysmal subplots in the second season, but I won't go there), it's just that it was so short.

SI

[Blackadar]

Yup, Bush wants $87 billion to fight more wars.

To drive gas prices up, so his buddies in the oil industry can make even more profits.

[The Afoci]

Originally posted by Blackadar
Yup, Bush wants $87 billion to fight more wars.

To drive gas prices up, so his buddies in the oil industry can make even more profits.

That is exactly it. The man loves to watch American Soldiers die. They probably don't even die in wars, he takes them to the white house and torchures them with really expensive gas. He is a cruel man. What I love is that we invaded Iraq for cheap gas, he gets ripped for helping his buddies out, now that gas is expensive he gets ripped because his buddies are raping us. What do you want?

On a side note, I am just wondering, does Bush just get to say, give me $87 Billion or does it have to be passed by Congress? It is tough to put the blame all on one guy when he has over half of Congress agreeing to some extent with his plan.

On another side note, it is funny how quickly people forget 9-11. Not that it happened, but it can happen again. Wasn't that long ago you could see American flags hanging from nearly every house and car. They have now been replaced by football flags. Not long ago (nearly) everyone agreed we needed to stop terrorism, now we want to, but lets just wait until something happens again, because I think the first time was lucky. We basically have come to a point now, we have 2 choices, keep dumping money into schools that use it to build new schools that are excessively fancy and hire 15 principals and we can all listen to teachers complaining that they are making 30k-50k a year and get over 3 monthes off. It isn't like teachers were paid 100k 10 years ago, so stop bitching. It is like a priest bitching he can't get laid by anyone other than alter boys and ex-slut nuns. It is part of the job. The other choice we have is the change a little, try to be ahead of terrorism and stop just allowing it to happen elsewhere. It isn't happening here, but we have soldiers in Iraq right now who would probably be more than happy to see some funding go towards stopping the terrorist activities in Iraq right now.

Now reply like so. Bush is evil. The schools are underfunded. How much do we need to dump into terrorism? The republican congress blindly follows Bush.

Then after another place in the US blows up and 10000 people die, blame bush! What did he know? People will scream only 2 years ago he said he was going to stop this! What happened? Yep, I wish my high school had 1 more assistant principal whose only job appeared to be the worst sub teacher in the history of the school, but god damn he looked good a school board meetings. The man ran a mean power point.

Time to drink some more paint thinner.

[Buccaneer]

Swaggs, you are from a state that has been led by the King of Pork, Sen. Byrd.

Plus, please don't call it a Republican model because it is more of a Libertarian model.

[CamEdwards]

Originally posted by sabotai
"Why doesn't everyone state that same valid question for all of the trillions they have spent/wasted for domestic and foreign programs?"

Well, I for one do. And I see no reason why they need to spend $87 billion more on this. But then again, that's because no one has shown what the $87 billion will go towards. "To fight terrorism" is not good enough. HOW is it going to fight terrorism? That's the question.

"he either needs to allocate some money to improving education or he can be considered a liar or an ineffective president."

I vote for both.

How much money should be spent on fighting terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan?

How is it going to fight terrorism? I'm assuming that the money will be used to pay for the continuing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. I could be wrong. We might buy 87 billion dollars worth of daisies to hand out to Al Queda members. Or maybe 86.9 billion dollars worth of daisies... then spend a million dollars on a big party in Kabul so we can engage Al Queda in "dialogue" in a festive setting.

As to the lying, ineffective man in the White House... how did he lie? And how has he been ineffective? This isn't meant as flame bait, but as a legitimate question. I constantly read comments like this, but I rarely hear explanations given, and I don't think I've ever seen anybody offer up a better plan for dealing with the economy or terrorism.

[Butter]

So, Bucc, you're ok with $87 billion being spent (on top of the billions already spent) to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan but you're not for it to be spent on education or housing for Americans, because that's not the federal government's responsibility?

Just checking to see if I'm right.

And Cam, the reason you have never seen anybody offer a better plan for dealing with the economy is because you must believe that tax cuts are a cure-all. Otherwise, there are plenty of better ideas for dealing with the economy out there.

[CamEdwards]

typical answer. "Oh, there are better ideas. Just don't ask me to name them." :)

[CamEdwards]

dola: some of the 87 billion might be spent on rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan, but the president specifically said that the money would be used to fight terror in Iraq and Afghanistan. To me, that doesn't mean it's going to be used to rebuilt infrastructure.

[Butter]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
typical answer. "Oh, there are better ideas. Just don't ask me to name them." :)

Well, when you're starting with one of the worst possible ideas, where else can you go but up?

And I am just avoiding the typical arguments on here by not stating the other arguments, 'cause then Bucc will come in and talk about how states need to pay for everything and then it'll just be a big mess. Besides, we already know each other's position, so let's just assume the arguments have been made and heard.

:p

[Dutch]

Fighting terrorism half a world away is expensive.

But here's the deal, we are either pro-active or reactive. You choose.

In a reactive world, things are cheap. We do nothing. We wait for a terrorist to shoot a shoulder fired rocket at a civilian airliner in Chicago. Then, instead of being proactive, we react, we spend 25 billion dollars on anti-air defenses on all civlian planes. With additional 2 or 3 billion dollars a year (forever) on refitting and maintenance and new plane additions.

Perhaps next the terrorist place a dirty bomb in the New York subway. Now we spend 20 Billion dollars on high-tech Chemical Detectors in airports, train stations, bus stations, major buildings, blah, blah, blah. Then of course there is the annual spending to maintain all this high tech bullshit.

So the terrorist say, "Good, now they are spending 50 billion dollars on those threats, with 10 billion dollars a year to maintain....let's see what we can screw with next?"

I think we get the drift....

What other options are there than living like that?

How about being pro-active. Let's go hunt the killers on their turf until the problem is solved. We can do a lot of other things while we are killing terrorists in the mean time. We can work on improving the image of westerners to easterners. We can rebuild nations who used to have 15th century warlords screwing their people and causing hatred towards their own scapegoats (America).

These things happen, we don't just curl up and die. When piracy prevailed in the 17th century, did the world curl up and die? No, they organized themselves, and fought piracy thousands of miles from home. It was expensive, it was brutal, people died. But civilization prevailed in the end. Piracy was reduced to next to nothing.

I don't want to spend a dime of our nations money on fighting terrorism. But by not spending the money, the terrorists don't go away. 9/11 caused billions of dollars of damage from terrorist fears alone. If we don't go after them, it is guarenteed they will go after us.

So support our troops.

[Swaggs]

Originally posted by Buccaneer
Swaggs, you are from a state that has been led by the King of Pork, Sen. Byrd.

Plus, please don't call it a Republican model because it is more of a Libertarian model.

You have made yourself very clear that you think Byrd is an ineffective senator, but he usually gets about 80% of the vote in WVa, so your options are to move to WVa and vote against him or accept that he does not represent you, your state, or your positions and get over the hate.

Bucc, long before Byrd was "the King of Pork," the fine folks from New York and elsewhere came to West Virginia, bought land cheaply from our leaders (and took it from others who did not want to sell), used it to mine coal and build railroads with cheap immigrant labor, and when things dried up, they left the state without putting any of the money back in or developing any new types of business.

That is the model I am referring to, and in my opinion that is an example of what happens when you let government go to a local level. The local governments are not powerful enough to say "NO" to the businesses that provide work in small communities. So, you allow the business to regulate themselves in pollution output or labor standards, for example, and they have the option to take advantage of the surrounding environment or people. I know I am not going to change your stance on this, but that is why I prefer the federal government having the responsibility of governing over the state and local government governing.

[Butter]

Originally posted by Dutch
So support our troops.

So, by not supporting a giant open-ended spending increase, I'm not supporting the troops? Sure, whatever.

If we're going to have a professional military, let's have one! Let's pay these men and women what they're worth, not let them hover around and below the poverty line. What kind of message does that send? It says "you're not important".

I don't believe the terrorism problem will ever go away. In fact, I think that fighting a war provoked by UN violations (how many countries have violated UN protocol?), and supported with evidence flimsier than a napkin is shameful. But I supported the effort to remove Saddam from power, thinking that overall Iraqi's lives would be made better, not that we would be safer. I think that there are much better ways to go about restoring stability in the world than spending nearly $100 billion fighting wars that have no perceivable objective aside from "making us safe". We will never be truly safe. We're not even safe from our own citizens.

[CamEdwards]

Originally posted by Butter_of_69
Well, when you're starting with one of the worst possible ideas, where else can you go but up?

And I am just avoiding the typical arguments on here by not stating the other arguments, 'cause then Bucc will come in and talk about how states need to pay for everything and then it'll just be a big mess. Besides, we already know each other's position, so let's just assume the arguments have been made and heard.

:p

Humor me. Otherwise I might think you're just trying to come up with excuses for why you have no better idea.

[CamEdwards]

Originally posted by Butter_of_69
So, by not supporting a giant open-ended spending increase, I'm not supporting the troops? Sure, whatever.

If we're going to have a professional military, let's have one! Let's pay these men and women what they're worth, not let them hover around and below the poverty line. What kind of message does that send? It says "you're not important".

I don't believe the terrorism problem will ever go away. In fact, I think that fighting a war provoked by UN violations (how many countries have violated UN protocol?), and supported with evidence flimsier than a napkin is shameful. But I supported the effort to remove Saddam from power, thinking that overall Iraqi's lives would be made better, not that we would be safer. I think that there are much better ways to go about restoring stability in the world than spending nearly $100 billion fighting wars that have no perceivable objective aside from "making us safe". We will never be truly safe. We're not even safe from our own citizens.

Another dola:

So you're willing to support the president if he ups the pay of our military? That's going to cost a heck of a lot more than 87 billion dollars. And, of course, once we have a "professional" military, will we then be able to actually use that military without drawing your scorn? And let's not forget, the men and women of our armed services volunteered for the job, knowing full well what the pay was going to be.

Secondly, will terrorism ever go away? Probably not. Will it be worse if we don't fight it? Absolutely. Again, what's your workable alternative? It's fine to complain for the sake of complaining, but at some point you need to bring something to the table.

By the way, we're not talking about "restoring stability to parts of the world". We're talking about protecting this country from people who want to see you and your family dead. I could give a rats ass about how stable the Middle East is, except for the fact that it matters how safe my kids are going to be.

[Butter]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
Humor me. Otherwise I might think you're just trying to come up with excuses for why you have no better idea.

So you seriously believe that there's no other good idea to jump-start a failing economy besides giant tax cuts?

I'll respond to you after my lunch break. I only have 5 minutes to lay out the basic points right now: How about NOT creating giant deficits? We all know the crap theory that tax cuts lead to increased tax revenue. With a tax cut this large, I would challenge anyone to find any way to offset this by tax revenue growth. It just doesn't make sense. It won't work, unless you wait 30 years for natural wage increases to make up the difference, at which point the country is bankrupt thanks to losing a trillion bucks each year. Also, better job training is needed to build a more skilled, higher-tech workforce in the current economy. The transition from a heavy-industrial to a service economy is rough, but not one that can be eased without increased educational spending. The increased deficit spending lately is also killing the value of the dollar around the world. The European economy is absolutely killing us right now, and we have no plan to work our way out of it. We have to prove to the world that we are a better place to locate business than the burgeoning EU or the cheap Asian marketplace. And there's not much worse way to do it than having a poorly-trained workforce.

[Dutch]

So, by not supporting a giant open-ended spending increase, I'm not supporting the troops? Sure, whatever.

How will our troops fight terrorists in the middle east without funding? This isn't magic, you know!

If we're going to have a professional military, let's have one! Let's pay these men and women what they're worth, not let them hover around and below the poverty line. What kind of message does that send? It says "you're not important".

You mean like all other militaries in the world? I am not important, how about that! I am in the military right now. I live in an average house, I have a wife and 2 kids. We have one car and may get a second when we get back to the States. We have no debt. Who should be in my place? A guy who makes 100,000 dollars a year? The soldiers in the Turkish Army wash their clothes in mud puddles in the streets in the Eastern parts of this country. German soldiers work 24 hours on and 24 hours off (the ones I talk to anyway). Being in the military sucks...it's the purest form of socialism in America....it's not a holiday, it's not done for yourself, it's done for your country. That's not a line of bullshit, there are hundreds of thousands of people who are willing to pay the price for our countries freedoms. So don't tell me I should be paid the same as some System Administrator in New York City making 100,000 dollars a year. It doesn't work that way! The lowest common denominator always wins. You want equality, I'd say it's a lot easier to make that guy in New York City get paid pennies than to pay us both 100 grand a year. That's socialism, I don't want it. I like knowing that my service helps make sure some American is out there living the good life and maybe one day after I do my time, I might be worthy to get paid a little more.

I don't believe the terrorism problem will ever go away.

Terrorism will never go away, I agree. But there will always be heat in Africa. When the jungle catches on fire, we shouldn't not put it out because it will still be hot after we put the big flames out! We need to reduce terrorism from a mass murdering tool and reduce it to as little as humanly possible.

In fact, I think that fighting a war provoked by UN violations (how many countries have violated UN protocol?), and supported with evidence flimsier than a napkin is shameful.

What more evidence do we want than we put the Iraqi people under sanctions for 12 years at the agreement of every nation on this planet. If you are willing to say that the entire world is just as guilty as George W. Bush, then you may have more than a napkin to argue with, but until then....nobody should be buying that.

But I supported the effort to remove Saddam from power, thinking that overall Iraqi's lives would be made better, not that we would be safer. I think that there are much better ways to go about restoring stability in the world than spending nearly $100 billion fighting wars that have no perceivable objective aside from "making us safe". We will never be truly safe. We're not even safe from our own citizens.

I am very glad that the people of Iraq are getting a chance to get out of their rut. There is no excuse for a country as rich as Iraq is to have 99% of their population living in poverty. So there is marked good news already!

But as for "making us safe" being impossible. Many people believed that pirates would always endanger the lives of world travelers, steal their money and their ships, reduce trading, made imported goods nearly impossible to buy due to high import prices, and weaken fair economies forever...

Sure pirates still exist, but they are stealing music on-line, not raiding cargo ships in the Atlantic.... they didn't just go away, somebody had to go out their and fight them. Just something to think about!

[Butter]

You make some good points, Dutch. We disagree on others.

I have work to do this afternoon, sadly, so I'll cut short my end of the discussion.

[andy m]

maybe they could have a telethon.

"and now we hit the $20 billion barrier, thank you loyal citizens! that is enough money to level a small city in iran!"

just my 2 cents. only $86 billion and 98 cents to go.

[CamEdwards]

Originally posted by Butter_of_69
So you seriously believe that there's no other good idea to jump-start a failing economy besides giant tax cuts?

I'll respond to you after my lunch break. I only have 5 minutes to lay out the basic points right now: How about NOT creating giant deficits? We all know the crap theory that tax cuts lead to increased tax revenue. With a tax cut this large, I would challenge anyone to find any way to offset this by tax revenue growth. It just doesn't make sense. It won't work, unless you wait 30 years for natural wage increases to make up the difference, at which point the country is bankrupt thanks to losing a trillion bucks each year. Also, better job training is needed to build a more skilled, higher-tech workforce in the current economy. The transition from a heavy-industrial to a service economy is rough, but not one that can be eased without increased educational spending. The increased deficit spending lately is also killing the value of the dollar around the world. The European economy is absolutely killing us right now, and we have no plan to work our way out of it. We have to prove to the world that we are a better place to locate business than the burgeoning EU or the cheap Asian marketplace. And there's not much worse way to do it than having a poorly-trained workforce.

So we should establish some sort of job training program to turn the traditional manufacturing worker into a highly skilled, high-tech worker? How much would that cost?

Also, keep in mind that more and more companies are outsourcing those highly paid service jobs to places like India and Russia. As one of the authors of a Federal Reserve study (http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0906a1jobs06.html) said, "Why would a company pay a worker $60 an hour here when the same work can be done for $6 in India?"

Why indeed. Here's what the Federal Reserve had to say (in a nutshell). The jobs aren't coming back. If you have to blame someone, blame your boss and yourself. The CEO's used the latest recession to rethink how they do business, and we've responded by being more productive than ever. Fewer people to do the job means fewer jobs available.

And remember, we're not talking about the economy. The economic picture looks pretty rosy (http://www.smartmoney.com/bn/index.cfm?story=20030908085631), and the Democrats trying to wrest control of the White House away from Dubya better start realizing the difference between the economy and the jobless rate. It's always been tied together, but the recent data suggests that's no longer the case.

So, ulitmately, your answer is to provide high tech training to workers, who will then be even more qualified when they don't get hired because companies aren't replacing workers laid off in the last recession.

And how much is this going to cost again?

The Bush tax cut did one thing for people without work that your plan doesn't. It actually gave them some cash. I'm not sure what your increased job training would give them, except a one way ticket to Mumbai and a $6 an hour coding job.

Thanks for actually giving me an answer, however.

[Butter]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
Thanks for actually giving me an answer, however.

Sure.

[GrantDawg]

Another little problem with the need for more money in job-training is that the money is already there. Pell Grants, Student loans, and if you have been laid off JEPTA (I believe that is the right letters) grants will pay you to re-train. There is absolutely no financial reason for people not to enter job training if they desire it. The problem is, many don't want job training. They want high paying jobs to be open for them with their high-school diploma. That day is waning.

That reminds me of when I was in a job-field training school 12 years ago (I won't mention which). There were several people in that school who where in there 4th or 5th program of that sort. They were going from school to school, getting federal grant money and student loans, and as long they never graduated they could just keep going. They did not have to pay the loans off untill they completed a course, and of course they had no intention of repaying even then. I think some of that has been fixed since then, but sure, we need another federal program for people to abuse since people were not intellegent enough to use the federal programs already in place!

[JPhillips]

Cam: I'll take the mantle and throw out a few more ideas.

1) By all accounts the problem with the economy was/is lack of consumption. Companies didn't hire people because they didn't need to make products for people who weren't buying. The tax cuts should have put more money into the hands of consumers, ie the middle class. I believe the best way to accomplish this would have been a reduction in the payroll tax. Yeah it would have led to deficits, but we obviously don't care about those anymore. The payroll tax is regressive and reducing it will lead to increased spending.

2) The deficit is a real problem. A short term deficit, even one this massive really isn't, but the best Bush has offered is that the deficit will be cut to 250 billion a year in five years. This is a program of long-term financial instability. It will catch up with us. Bush's answers have continued to be his same mix of less taxes/more spending. Something has to give.

3) The ease at which companies relocate off-shore and outsource work needs to be addressed. This won't be a magic bullet, but will at worst be a strong signal to American business. I don't know enough of the procedural tricks that could be used, but one idea would be to limit government contracts to US headquartered companies with a certain percentage of the workforce in the US. This may not be the best solution, but its at least worth giving a look.

4) I think we should work with our trading partners to increase pay standards around the globe. I don't like Dean's idiotic idea of cutting trade with all countries that don't follow our laws, but a commitment to leveling the playing field not just for American exporters, but also for American workers would be a welcome change.

5) Stop spending money on political propaganda and fundraising trips. Sure this won't make much of a dent, but it really pisses me off to see both parties use multi-color charts and banners that get charged to the taxpayer. Bush has changed some rules to charge more of his fundraising trips to the government provided he makes a policy speech as well. That's why he always has a speech each time he goes fundraising. How about the politicians in charge be the first ones to tighten the belt?

Lets start with these ideas. I think we will probably be in agreeance on a number of them.

[CamEdwards]

JPhillips,

Not only are we in agreement with a couple of these ideas... a couple of them are already being discussed.

I know, for instance, that there's a proposal in Congress to do exactly what your third idea suggests. While it might work for the government, obviously there's no legal way to require private companies to not outsource overseas.

As far as consumption goes, the lack of a manufacturing base has been a problem going back 20 years. I read a quote out of the Federal Reserve study that showed in 1981, 49% of the jobs in America were in the big manufacturing companies. Now it's around 20%, and those jobs aren't coming back. We're still buying stuff, but it's being made overseas or with increasing amounts of automation.

Also, payroll taxes have been reduced. Have you not noticed that in your paycheck? I've noticed about $100 a month more.

Appreciate the thoughtful response. I've got to get ready for a speech tonight, but I'll revisit this either this evening or tomorrow.

[Blackadar]

I do support our troops - I want them to come home alive.

So support our troops.

[The Afoci]

Originally posted by Blackadar
I do support our troops - I want them to come home alive.

So support our troops.

So you support them, but the man who is fighting to give them more funding to help ensure their safety as they fight for ours doesn't. Man, this logic thing is fun once you catch on. Got anything else for me besides blah blah, they shouldn't be there, blah, blah, blah, (building goes boom) blah, why didn't Bush stop this?

You lefties are turning me more righty everyday. To think I once switch hit.

[GrantDawg]

Originally posted by The Afoci
So you support them, but the man who is fighting to give them more funding to help ensure their safety as they fight for ours doesn't. Man, this logic thing is fun once you catch on. Got anything else for me besides blah blah, they shouldn't be there, blah, blah, blah, (building goes boom) blah, why didn't Bush stop this?

You lefties are turning me more righty everyday. To think I once switch hit.

Don't ask, don't tell.

[Buccaneer]

Swaggs, sorry, you deserved a much better response than the hyperbolic one I gave. I only had a few minutes this morning and that was my first knee-jerk reaction. I know very well what Sen. Byrd to bring home the goods that otherwise would not have gone to WV. But like with all such re-distribution of wealth, it always come at the expense of others. I pick on Byrd because not once in his long career had he ever spoke out against govt waste. To the contrary, he has been a strong proponent of continuing waste expenditures and re-distributions.

Butter: The Constitution clearly states the role of the federal govt (like in national defense) and the role of the states (10th Amend et al). Me jumping up and down yelling is not going to change anything but if anything, I want to get people thinking along the lines of an alternative to increased federal govt spendings. I think you are smart enough to know of the many hundreds of billions of dollars that wasted through needless expenditures and bureaucracy (which includes the military as well). Why is nearly everyone accepting that and not holding them accountable for the way they are spending your money? $87b is only a drop in the bucket and simply just more of the same mentality. But Congress and most of the American public just wants to turn a blind eye towards this shameful and unconstitutional practice.

To all: I know, practically speaking, that you can't just turn off fundings. It should be gradual, including the war on terrorism. When you (or your family or your company) runs up debts, isn't one of the key solutions is to cut costs? Because of the appetite for spending and the ignorant willingness of the public, they will keep it up - forcing more companies and jobs overseas, less revenues for local and state govts (with the majority of income taxes going to Wash.) and less accountability in the abundant wastes? That is why you don't want to have a strong central govt - less accountability and control by the citizens. Why do you keep sticking your heads in the sands on wasteful federal expenditures except for the occassions when you can make a political jab?

[CamEdwards]

Originally posted by The Afoci


You lefties are turning me more righty everyday. To think I once switch hit.

Welcome to the dark side. If you PM me your address, I'll send out your copy of the official Vast Right Wing Conspiracy Kit.

[The Afoci]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
Welcome to the dark side. If you PM me your address, I'll send out your copy of the official Vast Right Wing Conspiracy Kit.

Like I have said in another thread, it really helps for sports betting. Example. The Houston Texans beat the Miami Dolphins. Reason. Miami doesn't have oil. MUHAHHAHAHAHAHAA!

[Butter]

Actually, it WAS Reagan/Bush behind the whole "Bills never winning the Super Bowl" thing. Look it up.

Better yet, don't.

[The Afoci]

No, sadly, the right wing was behind the Bills. But Clinton screwed that one up for us. Damn that Clinton!!!!!

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by JPhillips
4) I think we should work with our trading partners to increase pay standards around the globe. I don't like Dean's idiotic idea of cutting trade with all countries that don't follow our laws, but a commitment to leveling the playing field not just for American exporters, but also for American workers would be a welcome change.

I think you're on to something (and that the majority of your post was very well-reasoned), but I have a slight bone to pick.

It's always easier to be general than to be specific. It's always easier to say "we've got to do something" than it is to say exactly what you think we should do.

I'm not asking you to be an immediate expert in all things about the global economy -- so I understand the position you're in. But at the same time, this is what befalls all of us who admittedly lack the expertise to really engage in a deep policy discussion. We all can agree that is a real problem, and that something needs to be done. But whenever someone steps up with an idea how to address it, it gets shot down for a variety of reasons.

In part, this is simply because if there were a really helpful and effective idea sitting out there to tackle a tough problem (like the one of globalized wage differentials and labor standards) somebody would have done it. If it were just as simple as the US "exerting some influence" (a phrase which conveniently has no associated cost or risk involved) then we'd already have done it.

I don't know enough about Dean's proposals to exert influence via our trade patterns to know whether they are indeed "idiotic." But if we're not willing to restrict trade with countries that don't meet the standards that we desire... exactly what are we going to do establish your stated goal of a "commitment to leveling the playing field?"


Again - this isn't really intended as a sucker punch at you to expose that you are not a global political expert... it's more of an observation in the generic that it's [i]always easier for the guy who sticks to the fuzzy stuff to savage the guy who tries to be specific.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by JPhillips
4) I think we should work with our trading partners to increase pay standards around the globe. I don't like Dean's idiotic idea of cutting trade with all countries that don't follow our laws, but a commitment to leveling the playing field not just for American exporters, but also for American workers would be a welcome change.


missed this until I saw QS tackle it in one the above post.

I can agree with some of the other things that you listed, but #4 is just off base.

The ideal situation from the American point of view is for people around the world to be free enough from want to foster stability, but not doing so well that it challenges our economic, technological, educational, and social supremacy.

I am not suggesting that "us vs them" is zero sum, but clearly there is an advantage to being head and shoulders above other countries.

[QuikSand]

Open the door to talking about working conditions and labor costs in other countries, and you have to follow all the dominoes in the chain, too.

The easiest thing for us to do is to complain that it's unfair every time a US manufacturer movs to Mexico, and then turn around and when we're buying our kid's new tricycle, we get the one with the hecho-en-Mexico label, because it's $15 cheaper.

If we really want those peasant laborers in Malaysia to be treated fairly and equitabley, and brought up to a worthwhile standard of living for their efforts... that's fine and very noble. But we have to be willing to pay twice as much for the stuff that comes out of their shops.

It seems like we Americans have already found our place on this debate-- we reserve the right to grouse and grumble when it hits close to home, and then keep right on with our established standard of living, which in part depends on people around the world working for panuts to make things for us.

[GrantDawg]

Not that QS is a Dean supporter or anything. :)

[Fritz]

mmmm peanuts

[JPhillips]

QS: Fair enough. I think, though, that we have gotten to a point where we need to pressure not just foriegn governments, but also American companies to raise wages. That's the only way we will ever get some of these jobs back. As long as other countries are fine with five dollar a day wages or less we our workforce can't compete.

I think this is a major problem for two reasons. One our middle class is shrinking. The wealthy are getting richer but the middle class isn't gaining wages. This will eventually , maybe it already has, but a dent in the economy. The middle class is the engine of our economy. We rely on a deep pool of people that can purchase goods. As that pool shrinks we won't need to make as much stuff. Eventually this hurts everybody, not just the middle class. There is a reason why almost every history of economics credits the development of the middle class with increased development.(and to be fair vice versa)

Secondly, I'm worried from a national security standpoint. Did you know 90% of microchips are built in one industrial park in Taiwan? One earthquake, or typhoon, or missile from N. Korea or China could wreck the world electronics industry for months. We have simply allowed too much manufacturing to be placed overseas. We won't ever really support an insurgency in China because of economic ties, most notably the vast amount of manufacturing they do. I don't believe it is in the USA's best interest to produce nothing and consume everything. This leaves us very vulnerable.

Now maybe my solution isn't the best approach. As you say I am not an economic scholar. I don't have all the answers. I do believe though that we need to look at the repurcussions of the mass exodus of manufacturing jobs. I think the "they won't ever come back" idea is simply defeatist. Let's at least acknowledge the problem and see what we can do about it.

As to Dean, the reason I say its idiotic is because his statements say that we will cut trade with any nation that doesn't follow our laws. I'm all for tough talk, but if he really did that we would cut at least 3/4 of our trade and the economy would collapse. His approach uses far too blunt a weapon.

Fritz: I agree. I'm not saying they have to be on equal terms. I think some rise in the conditions for foriegn workers will eventually pay off for us. We don't export a lot to Indonesia, Malaysia, and others because the middle class is too small. We need to develop purchasers in other markets. That benefits the workers as well as the shareholders. But, yes an equality around the globe is not in our best interests.

[Swaggs]

JPhillips, not sure if you realize this or not, but at the Democratic debate in New Mexico, Joseph Lieberman raised the same question to Howard Dean as you are raising about his "statements."


Here are a few excerpts:

Lieberman argued that if Dean's support of stricter environmental and labor standards in international trade accords came to pass, the Bush recession would be followed by the "Dean depression." He also questioned Dean's claim that the Bush tax cuts had not helped the middle class. Unlike Dean, Lieberman would retain some of the provisions that he sees as aiding the middle class.

Pittsburgh Post Gazette (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/03248/218297.stm)

___
Dean answered Lieberman by saying the human rights, labor and environmental standards in trade accords need not be American, but could be those set by the International Labor Organization. He added, “We can not continue to ship our jobs to countries where they get paid 50 cents an hour with no occupational safety and health, no overtime, no labor protections, and no right to organize.”

And the Dean campaign issued a statement that said Lieberman had misled the audience by using a paraphrase from the Washington Post story, not a direct quote from Dean.



MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.com/news/962135.asp?0sl=-11)
___

[Sharpieman]

Actually Bush wants 87 billion dollars to pay some more of his friends like Halliburton, not to fight terror.

[sabotai]

"Secondly, I'm worried from a national security standpoint. Did you know 90% of microchips are built in one industrial park in Taiwan? One earthquake, or typhoon, or missile from N. Korea or China could wreck the world electronics industry for months."

A few years ago, an earthquake in Taiwan destroyed a buidling where they made RAM chips. Prices for RAM doubled for awhile. So this is a very real possibility.

[CamEdwards]

Originally posted by Sharpieman
Actually Bush wants 87 billion dollars to pay some more of his friends like Halliburton, not to fight terror.

I would ask you if you're joking, but you're from Palo Alto... so I think I really don't want to know the answer.

[The Afoci]

I heard this today. Oddly 87 Billion gets more press than the 400 Billion Dems want for prescrition drugs. Imagine all the money teachers could get with that. They could just hand people cash once they get their masters degree. It would be glorious.

I was watching PBS today. They were showing the towers crumbling and as corny as it sounds, I was nearly moved to tears. 87 Billion doesn't seem so big. But what do I know.

[Swaggs]

What's the joke? The $87B is to go toward the reconstruction of Iraq. It is no secret that Haliburton got a massive government contract to rehabilitate the damage done to Iraqi oilfields during the war.

CNN Article on Haliburton Contract (http://money.cnn.com/2003/03/25/news/companies/war_contracts/)


It is also no secret that Dick Cheney received a huge buyout from Haliburton when he agreed to leave to run for vice president.

CNN Article on Bush/Cheney Income Tax Records (http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/04/13/bush.cheney.taxes/)


While I can respect the leadership a Dick Cheney could bring to a company, I hardly think he is worth $36M a year. Hell, A-Rod is only worth $25M a year. I don't think it is much of a stretch to consider that some of the money that Haliburton is getting from this new contract will go to fill the void that Cheney's buyout caused on their balance sheet.

[Easy Mac]

How much money was spent on terrorism fighting in the 2 years prior to 9/11, when there were no attacks? How much money was spent fighting terrorism in the 2 years since 9/11, when there were no terrorist attacks? I can spend $1 or $87 billion on a dog, but its dumb luck as to whether he's going to talk. There's a reason they're called terrorist attacks... if we knew they were going to happen, they'd just be called attacks.

Oh, and on the $400 million drug policy, I really don't care. Would it be nice to get free pills when I'm 65 or older? Sure, but I don't want to have to survive by taking pills, so I really don't want to pay for other people to do it (of course, the same can be said for social security).

[Buccaneer]

It must be frustrating to know that a good chunk of change (multi-billions) going to operations throughout the world and in homeland security have reaped their benefits but cannot be publicized. It is coincidental that there have been no major attacks in the US since 9/11/01?

[Dutch]

How much money was spent on terrorism fighting in the 2 years prior to 9/11, when there were no attacks? How much money was spent fighting terrorism in the 2 years since 9/11, when there were no terrorist attacks? I can spend $1 or $87 billion on a dog, but its dumb luck as to whether he's going to talk.

No offense Easy, but this is the exact type of ignorance the media feeds on.

The Al Qaeda was powerful enough to get hundreds of millions of dollars. They trained dumb suicide bombers how to guide jet airliners into strategic targets. They trained their people to do extensive surveillance on airport security, shipping security, embassy security, military barracks security, patterns, standards, effective bomb making skills, assault tactics, chemical and biological testing (remember the dogs in the video?), and extensive documentation on dirty bombs and nuclear detenators have already been uncovered in Afghanistans hideouts.

They hate you. They want you dead. And they feed on the fact that all you care about is money. They expect Americans don't have the stomach to fight a war if it's gonna cost them the chance to buy another Playstation 2 game machine. Because they assume we are fat, dumb, and lazy. They have nothing but time, and will use that to their advantage while we get lazy and forget. Until the organization is gone, they will try to harm you. As long as they are on the run, we have a chance for success. The key is to get Iraq on track first, and when that happens, the support for Al Qaeda will dry up as a frivelous adventure by rich Saudi Clerics...

Obviously you have already forgotten about the Dahran barracks bombing, the Army Liaison office in Riyahd bombing, the USS Cole, the 2 African U.S. Embassy bombings, the 93 WTC attack, and whatever else the media forgets to tell you about. Ignorance? No, it's laziness. You need to remember on your own, don't rely on the media.

[Sharpieman]

Cam I am joking, but its not unknown that Bush has been giving out sweetheart contracts to his friends at Halliburton.

[Dutch]

Cam I am joking, but its not unknown that Bush has been giving out sweetheart contracts to his friends at Halliburton.

I don't see what the problem is.

If my car breaks down, I will go to my known auto-repair shop to get it fixed. You know, the one that you can trust to get the job done.

Now, if my car wasn't broken, and I was just going to have new rims and a good paint and detail done....then charging it to my auto insurance company I would see the problem.

But other than going with what he knows, what's the problem here?

[Easy Mac]

Originally posted by Dutch
No offense Easy, but this is the exact type of ignorance the media feeds on.

The Al Qaeda was powerful enough to get hundreds of millions of dollars. They trained dumb suicide bombers how to guide jet airliners into strategic targets. They trained their people to do extensive surveillance on airport security, shipping security, embassy security, military barracks security, patterns, standards, effective bomb making skills, assault tactics, chemical and biological testing (remember the dogs in the video?), and extensive documentation on dirty bombs and nuclear detenators have already been uncovered in Afghanistans hideouts.

They hate you. They want you dead. And they feed on the fact that all you care about is money. They expect Americans don't have the stomach to fight a war if it's gonna cost them the chance to buy another Playstation 2 game machine. Because they assume we are fat, dumb, and lazy. They have nothing but time, and will use that to their advantage while we get lazy and forget. Until the organization is gone, they will try to harm you. As long as they are on the run, we have a chance for success. The key is to get Iraq on track first, and when that happens, the support for Al Qaeda will dry up as a frivelous adventure by rich Saudi Clerics...

Obviously you have already forgotten about the Dahran barracks bombing, the Army Liaison office in Riyahd bombing, the USS Cole, the 2 African U.S. Embassy bombings, the 93 WTC attack, and whatever else the media forgets to tell you about. Ignorance? No, it's laziness. You need to remember on your own, don't rely on the media.

And you have forgotten about Bali, the constant "terrorist" attacks on new high-ranking Iraqi's, American soldiers, the anthrax scare, the sniper shootings. And you forgot to mention the Oklahoma city bombing. Funny how something doesn't fit your "Al Qaeda is responsible for all terrorist activities" is ignored. But I guess Arabs are the devil, Bush has converted another. $87 billion is great, but no matter how much you spend, something will slip through the cracks, whether big or small.

[Easy Mac]

Originally posted by Buccaneer
It must be frustrating to know that a good chunk of change (multi-billions) going to operations throughout the world and in homeland security have reaped their benefits but cannot be publicized. It is coincidental that there have been no major attacks in the US since 9/11/01?

And it must be frustating to know that a smaller chunk of change (still multi-billions going to operations throughout the world and in America have reaped their benefits but cannot be publicized. Is it coincidental there were no major attacks in the US 2 years before 9/11?

[The Afoci]

Yeah, no major attacks in the US, but there were outside of it against US targets. So americans overseas aren't important. I guess people working on the USS Cole don't really matter. Embassies aren't that important. And you rip a guy about "All Arabs are evil" when he said nothing of the sort, but you come off as someone who cares nothing about someone who happens to be outside our borders. Isolationism will not work. It never has and never will.

[Dutch]

But I guess Arabs are the devil, Bush has converted another. $87 billion is great, but no matter how much you spend, something will slip through the cracks, whether big or small.

I never said the Arabs are the devil, so don't put words in my mouth. (EDIT: Hey, AFOCI already pointed that out, but what the hell, I don't mind doubling the effort for Easy-Mac.)

And like I said, it's gonna always be hot in Africa. But that shouldn't stop us from putting out that big assed forest fire that's engulfed the first few buildings in our village.

Your suggestion that we close our eyes and forget about it is quite sadly....flawed.

[CamEdwards]

Originally posted by Easy Mac
And you have forgotten about Bali, the constant "terrorist" attacks on new high-ranking Iraqi's, American soldiers, the anthrax scare, the sniper shootings. And you forgot to mention the Oklahoma city bombing. Funny how something doesn't fit your "Al Qaeda is responsible for all terrorist activities" is ignored. But I guess Arabs are the devil, Bush has converted another. $87 billion is great, but no matter how much you spend, something will slip through the cracks, whether big or small.

Just to clear up a few points.

1- The Bali bombing. There is a clear link to Al Qaeda (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2003-09-10-bali-bombing-sentence_x.htm) in regards to that case.

2- The terrorist attacks on high ranking Iraqis and American soldiers. There is also a clear presence of Al Qaeda in Iraq (http://www.arabtimesonline.com/arabtimes/breakingnews/view.asp?msgID=2729). Some would have you believe that the link is new, but considering Makawi and Zarqawi were meeting before the war (http://frontpagemag.com/articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=9724), it's a pretty safe assumption that Iraq was at the very least allowing terrorists safe haven long before we went to war.

3- Anthrax scare. This is a domestic incident that wouldn't be covered under the 87 billion dollars Bush is requesting. Same for the sniper attacks and the Oklahoma City bombing.

You do speak the truth when you say no matter how much you spend, something will slip through the cracks. But how much do you stop with the additional money? How small can you make those cracks? Your attitude seems to be since we can't stop every terrorist attack, we should therefore make no attempt to stop any terrorist attack.

By the way, if you believe that anybody who supports the war on terror believes all Arabs are devils... if you believe that President Bush believes all Arabs are devils, then you've been indoctrinated far more than those you're accusing.

[John Galt]

I don't dare enter this debate fully as Dutch is just arguing complete nonsense (Iraq created Al Qaeda?!??!).

One thing to consider and something I think people have been slow to understand is that Al Qaeda is no longer an organization and is now a movement. Attempts to eliminate infrastructure and people are just band-aids because anyone can "join" Al Qaeda simply by adopting a worldview. And as long as the war goes on, more people will "join" the movement.

If you want to see more about the organization to movement idea, read:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1850433968/qid=1062641878/sr=8-4/ref=sr_8_4/103-9045518-9343069?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

[sabotai]

FOFC is the perfect model for american politics! I see it now.

People here take what someone else says, twists it, apply a slippery slope fallacy, and a bunch of others to what people say, insult them off those twisted words....and then cry when someone does it to them!

It's exactly what goes on between democrats and republicans in congress!! Anyone in a political science class would do well to study FOFC's political threads. It'll give real insight to how politics are practiced in capital hill.

[Dutch]

I don't dare enter this debate fully as Dutch is just arguing complete nonsense (Iraq created Al Qaeda?!??!).

C'mon John, give me somebody other than Easy to argue with. :)

Iraq did not create Al Qaeda. Saddam Hussein made Al Qaeda globally legitimate and a powerhouse to be reckoned with. This is long, but you asked for it!

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/who/bio.html

(Bin Laden) reacted swiftly to Iraqi invasion and saw it fulfilling his prophecy. He immediately forwarded another letter to the king suggesting in detail how to protect the country from potentially advancing Iraqi forces. In addition to many military tactics suggested, he volunteered to bring all the Arab mujahedeen to defend the kingdom. That letter was presented in the first few days of the incident, and the regime response was of consideration!

While he was expecting some call to mobilize his men and equipment he heard the news which transferred his life completely. The Americans are coming. He always describes that moment as shocking moment. He felt depressed and thought that maneuvers had to change. Instead of writing to the king or approaching other members of the royal family, he started lobbying through religious scholars and Muslim activists. He succeeded in extracting a fatwah from one of the senior scholars that training and readiness is a religious duty. He immediately circulated that fatwah and convinced people to have their training in Afghanistan. It was estimated that 4000 went to Afghanistan in response to the fatwah.

...

The car bomb in spring 1995 in Riyadh was the first major anti-American action in the kingdom. Bin Laden never claimed responsibility, but the Saudi government tried to link the incident to bin Laden by showing video confessions of four "Arab Afghans" involved in the bombing.

...

June 1996, after his arrival in Afghanistan was the Khobar bombing. Nobody claimed responsibility, but sources from inside the Saudi ministry of interior confirmed involvement of Arab Afghans, with possible link to bin Laden The Saudi government wanted to frame Shi'a, at the beginning but Americans were very suspicious of the Saudi story. Bin Laden himself never claimed responsibility but gave many hints that he might have been involved. The Saudi government has acknowledged recently that bin Laden's men were behind the bombing.

...

After few months of his arrival (back in Afghanistan) he issued his first anti-American message, a Declaration of War. That declaration was limited to expelling American forces outside the Arabian Peninsula. His sense of security and nobody to embarrass must have been the drive to release that 12 page declaration. Interest in him by the Saudis never stopped and they tried very hard to convince Yunis Khalis to hand him over, and he flatly refused despite the luxurious offers.

...

The bombings in Kenya and Tanzania July 1998 were not a big surprise. Yes, it was a surprise but in terms of choice of location and targets. Despite his declaration of war against America anywhere, the attack was expected inside Saudi Arabia. Having said that, it is not [to be taken] for granted that he is behind the bombing.

...end of source...



While Iraq did not physically fund and establish Al Qaeda (as you would suggest I have implied :) ).....the refusal of Saddam Hussein to adhere to the agreements of the 1991 cease-fire agreement and the subsequent refusal to obey the UN's 17 resolutions created the enviroment (US troops in Saudi Arabia) that brought Al Qaeda out of the dark and into a full fledged organized crime unit that previously only included thousands of fanatics, now with the religious fatwah, it began to get the money, support, contacts, and planners it previously lacked.

I might be crazy, but leaving Iraq with the status quo seems to fuel Al Qaeda funding and Middle Eastern hatreds and fears towards the USA.

At least now, with Saddam Hussein gone, there are options for fixing the problem....and as far as Al Qaeda is concerned, American troops in Iraq is far less painful to swallow than troops in Saudi Arabia. Certainly they are still pissed because of all the Al Qaeda leaders we have killed or captured, but getting out of Saudi Arabia was the biggest hurdle to leap.

[Bonegavel]

Originally posted by Sharpieman
Cam I am joking, but its not unknown that Bush has been giving out sweetheart contracts to his friends at Halliburton.

Name one other company that can do what they do?

[John Galt]

Dutch, this was your quote from another thread:

"The War on Terrorism has been an outstanding success with the fall of Al Qaeda's only public safe haven in Afghanistan's Taliban regime and the removal of the dictator that basically created Al Qaeda in the Iraqi Baath Party regime."

The article you cite goes NOWHERE near proving that point. Saddam has always been more secular and has never been as cozy with terrorists as Saudi Arabia has. Saudi Arabia is of course the country we continue to befriend and aid while we proclaim victory of terrorism by attacking a country with almost no ties to Al Qaeda (and certainly nothing to the degree of Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Sudan, Somalia, or Iran).

[John Galt]

Originally posted by BoneGavel
Name one other company that can do what they do?

For oil well fires, these companies were available and did quite well in Kuwait: Boots-n-Coots, Red Adair, Safety Boss, and
Wild Well Control, Inc. None of them were allowed in the bidding process.

For oil infrastructure, the Bechtel group was available and wasn't allowed in the bidding.

I believe this stuff happens all the time, but don't pretend it was because there were no other options.

[CamEdwards]

John,

I can't speak for all the companies involved, but I've heard interviews with Boots and Coots employees who have come back from Iraq in recent months. You might want to double check those lists. It's also entirely possible that Halliburton has subcontracted out to one or more of those companies.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
John,

I can't speak for all the companies involved, but I've heard interviews with Boots and Coots employees who have come back from Iraq in recent months. You might want to double check those lists. It's also entirely possible that Halliburton has subcontracted out to one or more of those companies.

That very well may be. And I don't know enough to know if Halliburton was the best company available. I just hate rigged or closed bidding processes that smack of insider favoritism. And the Bush administration should understand that it isn't about impropriety, but rather the appearance of impropreity.

[Dutch]

the dictator that basically created Al Qaeda

Well, that statement does leave open argument for what I was implying. I agree with you, The Iraqi Baath Party and Saddam Hussein did not create Al Qaeda. But I think we are arguing over semantics. The bottom line is that this story is much more complicated. Most people understand it's complicated, but most don't know why or how. I like to think I do, but hell, I could be just another person who is misinformed.

But I believe that Iraq has a big role in the big picture of why Al Qaeda mobilized against America. And the Iraqi crisis was the 2nd step in the big picture of curing the problems of the middle east that bring rise to terror organizations like the Al Qaeda. (Removing the Taliban and fighting Al Qaeda was the immiediate first step in stopping the organization from planning attacks against the US).

[The Afoci]

Originally posted by John Galt
And the Bush administration should understand that it isn't about impropriety, but rather the appearance of impropreity.

That is a great point. I do have a feeling though, that no matter who gets the contract, there will be a link back to someone in the administration. People will always look for something. Although with this, they didn't have to look too deep.

[JPhillips]

Dutch: But how far back do you go? Is Al Queda our fault because we didn't discourage Saddam from invading Kuwait? Is it the Shah's fault for oppressing his people who revolted and eventually went to war with Iraq, which strengthened Saddam? Is it Britain's fault for throwing up the random borders that became Iraq?

At some point you have to say some things are seperate. I don't believe that Al Queda would not have existed if we didn't have troops in Saudi Arabia. That's a good rallying cry for Osama, but its not their fundamental motivation. This is about a cultural war. Al Queda hates the modernity and secularity of the west. This isn't about a base in Saudi Arabia, if it was why hasn't the fighting stopped now that we are out? This is a clash of cultures nutured and fed by a egomaniacal, but extrememely capable zealot.

Iraq didn't cause Al Queda. The inability and outright refusal of the Arab states to modernize caused Al Queda.

[dread]

We have spent hundreds of billions already and amount of terrorist attacks have not been reduced in fact hardly a day goes by without some kind of international terrorism. The deficit will soon double and I feel no more or less safe than I did before 9/11.

[The Afoci]

Originally posted by dread
We have spent hundreds of billions already and amount of terrorist attacks have not been reduced in fact hardly a day goes by without some kind of international terrorism. The deficit will soon double and I feel no more or less safe than I did before 9/11.

Might as well just give up on it then. We are all going to die anyways right.

[Hyde]

87 Billion???

All he needs is a $14.99 blanket from Wal-mart to throw over his wife when she goes out in public. Think of all of the terror that could be prevented. :D

[Dutch]

But how far back do you go? Is Al Queda our fault because we didn't discourage Saddam from invading Kuwait?

In part, I would say it is. So what do we do about that today?

Is it the Shah's fault for oppressing his people who revolted and eventually went to war with Iraq, which strengthened Saddam?

(http://www.fsmitha.com/h2/ch29ir.html ) Oppressing his own people? That's in the eye of the beholder I guess. The fundamentalists dissapproved of all the westernized modernization that was going on in the country. When the Shah left and the Ayahtollah took over, I'd say the middle class/upper class and anybody who wasn't a hardliner fundamentalist was then oppressed...."Khomeini declared that all non-Islamic forces were to be removed from the government, the military, judiciary, public and private enterprises and educational institutions. Corrupt behavior and customs were to be ended. Alcohol and gambling were to be banned and so too were nightclubs and mixed bathing. Friday noon prayer and sermons were to be focal point of the week, and all Friday prayer leaders were to be appointed by Khomeini. Men and women were to be publicly segregated, women to enter busses through one door, men through another, each with a separate seating section. In school classrooms prayers were to become mandatory.

In Iran it was declared that any raising of arms against the Islamic state or any spreading of corruption would be punished by death. Revolutionary courts condemned to death a variety of the Shah's former friends, colleagues and generals -- the number of executions reaching 200. While enjoying support from the joyous masses, Khomeini spoke of music corrupting youth, and he banned all music on radio and television and closed twenty-two opposition newspapers. While the West had been growing in tolerance, more eclectic in religion and wilder in its taste in music, Iran had become more focused on what was described as traditional values. Partying was over.
"

Also, Iran did not go to war with Iraq, they were invaded at a time of trouble as the new Islamic order was still trying to consolidate itself.

( http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/war/iran-iraq.htm ) Above all, Iraq launched the war in an effort to consolidate its rising power in the Arab world and to replace Iran as the dominant Persian Gulf state. Phebe Marr, a noted analyst of Iraqi affairs, stated that "the war was more immediately the result of poor political judgement and miscalculation on the part of Saddam Hussein," and "the decision to invade, taken at a moment of Iranian weakness, was Saddam's".

Is it Britain's fault for throwing up the random borders that became Iraq?

Good one, I hate the old colonial pomp that has resulted in so much strife, let's take the Israeli/Palestine issue as evidence #1, but again, what can we do about that today? In Palestine, you are dealing with territory that is not sovereign Israeli soil and not wanted as such. Iraq, you are dealing with sovereign soil, much more complicated and much more bloody to change a border.

We can only fix (or break) what we can control now.