mattp Posted August 17, 2004 Posted August 17, 2004 Mike, thanks for offering some real perspective here but your constant suggestion that those of us who aren't in Iraq are not qualified to comment on the war, or U.S. policy, or even the meaning of daily events over there, is wrong. The military and political and economic operation that you are a part of is not a goal in and of itself. You are there to serve or support the interest of the American people - including your good buddy Billygoat. Quote
Billygoat Posted August 17, 2004 Posted August 17, 2004 Don't fuck with people who take incoming rounds every day with the purpose of making sure your kids don't have to do this kind of shit in the future. Â Exactly my point. Opinionated assholes like GW dishonor the sacrifices of everybody taking incoming rounds by insuring this kind of thing will keep on occurring in the future. They thought WWI was the war to end all wars. Â Soldiers are paying taxes, contractors are not, at least on the first $60,000... Quote
gotterdamerung Posted August 17, 2004 Posted August 17, 2004 My point is that there are so many intangibles that you miss out on it's baffling. Frankly, you are going to get a similar response, and some a whole lot more vehemently from other veterans of this war. It's all about armchair quarterbacking for the most part. I could read some books and some news articles on law, quote rhetoric, state opinions to you all day long. Some of it might even be valid. However, in the end I can't take a thing away from the actual day to day courtroom experience that is your reality. Vis a Vis the Iraq War. Quote
gotterdamerung Posted August 17, 2004 Posted August 17, 2004 Exactly my point. Opinionated assholes like GW dishonor the sacrifices of everybody taking incoming rounds by insuring this kind of thing will keep on occurring in the future. They thought WWI was the war to end all wars. Â Soldiers are paying taxes, contractors are not, at least on the first $60,000... Â This is exactly what I am talking about. You are trying to tell ME about something I know a hellava lot more about that ANYONE on this board. Soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan DO NOT pay taxes. Contractors who spend even one day less than 330 days out of country and more than 35 days in the US pay their full tax rate. The tax cutoff is 89K tax free if the criteria are met. There are other criteria to meet as well, but this is the meat and potatoes of it. Not many contractors are meeting this criteria and the ones making the big bucks are few and far between. Quote
mattp Posted August 17, 2004 Posted August 17, 2004 For sure. When you post something about what's happening over there, I read it. Nobody's making $100.00 an hour? I bet you're right -- certainly not the average truck driver. (Some Halliburton "site manager" probably is, though.) Quote
Billygoat Posted August 17, 2004 Posted August 17, 2004 You are over there for your own reasons. The enlisted men are there for a lot of reasons. Bush took everybody there for his own reasons. In your circumstance, I am sure it is very clear what you have to do and why you have to do it. From my seat of safety I see it as a stupid politcal adventure for the purpose of financial gain. You gotta deal with the day to day and the enemy is in front of you. I gotta call it like I see it and I choose not to agree with it. Quote
Fairweather Posted August 17, 2004 Author Posted August 17, 2004 Thanks for the groveling, Fairweather.... Â Just trying to lighten things up, but to no avail apparently. Groveling? Hardly. Quote
Billygoat Posted August 17, 2004 Posted August 17, 2004 Well again, where has the 186 thousand million dollars gone? Quote
AlpineK Posted August 17, 2004 Posted August 17, 2004 Well again, where has the 186 thousand million dollars gone? Â Up GW's nose dude. Quote
Fairweather Posted August 17, 2004 Author Posted August 17, 2004 Eliminating the need to get a search warrant to search a U.S. citizen's private home based on nothing specific isn't eroding the protection we thought we enjoyed from the U.S. Constitution?  Really? I don't see it. Feel free to find it for me. Section 213 comes close, but only extends previously existing powers by authorizing the delay of notification...not to the courts, but to the suspect. A warrant must still be issued as I read it. Here's the text of the act:  http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ056.107.pdf  Are you sure you're not just swallowing the hysteria? Anyway, you're a lawyer....show me. Quote
Dru Posted August 17, 2004 Posted August 17, 2004 Well again, where has the 186 thousand million dollars gone? Â Up GW's nose dude. Â Quote
Billygoat Posted August 17, 2004 Posted August 17, 2004 If you spent a dollar a second, it would take not quite thirteen days to spend one Million. It would take a little over Thirty one and a half YEARS to spend one Billion. Â Now where is that One Hundred and Eighty Six Thousand Million Dollars.... Quote
ChrisT Posted August 17, 2004 Posted August 17, 2004 Because I have a Kerry bumper sticker on my car, I was baited by a man with not one, but many pro-Bush bumper stickers on his rig. He said to me "You know why I'm voting for Bush? Because when I look in his eyes, I believe what he says" Man I love political debates. Keep em coming boys! Quote
mattp Posted August 17, 2004 Posted August 17, 2004 Allright, you got me Fairweather! As far as I can tell with Google right now, you may be right that they still have to have a search warrant -- but they just don't have to show it to you It seems to me that they have broader powers than that and that the former standard that there had to be an "articulable suspicion," has been dispensed with, but I can't find it right now). Anyway, if they don't have to show it to you and they can go into your house when you aren't there so in this case there is every reason to think they would be likely not to ever show it to you if it might embarass them in some way, how are you supposed to be sure they obtained one? Also, section 219 allows them to get one in a single jurisdiction and they can use it all over the country -- so if your local judge says they don't have enough to go on they can shop around for a "friendly" judge who really doesn't care to protect you. Â You gonna answer my question about why is Kosovo so important now? Clearly it is not the case that you think angering our weak and poor "new Europe" allies is a big problem when angering the far more rich and powerful and long-standing allies in "old Europe" doesn't matter. Or is it? Like I said, I'll concede that Clinton was not so great and the Democrats suck. But what is your point about Kosovo? Â Are you trying to maintain that Bush and Co. are on the whole increasing enviornmental protection? Do you deny that the Wolfilwitz doctrine is a significant change in foreign policy, and that it was developed before 911? And what of my main point: aren't Bush and company a bunch of radicals -- in every sense of the word? Quote
JayB Posted August 17, 2004 Posted August 17, 2004 Well again, where has the 186 thousand million dollars gone? Â I know it's bad form to answer a rhetorical question with a real answer, but you might to start with the Congressional Budget office - Â Link. Â While you are at it, could you please furnish figures and/or an argument based on them that shows precisely how, under any circumstances, this operation will result in a net financial gain for the US? If you are unable to do this and wish to instead revert to the Cabal-of-Oilmen theory to explain the millitary intervention in Iraq, feel free to brake with form and back the claim with facts. Bonus points if you somehow integrate Tony Blair into the Cabal - as well as the Dutch, the Spainiards, the Italians, all of Eastern Europe et al. Triple bonus points for explaining why - since we've always just been after the oil - we left the oilfields in Iraqi hands after 91, etc, etc, etc. It might require a bit of reading and or a bit of math -but in the end you will have a template that you can use to reduce all American millitary inventions in history - past, present, and future - to efforts to secure oil supplies and you will never have to pretend to think about these matters again! Just modify the template and voila...Bosnia/Kosovo - all about the oil. Haiti -oil. Somalia - had to be the oil. Cold War - an attempt to get our hands on Russian Oil. Vietnam - Oil. Korea - Oil. WWII - all that German Oil. WWI - ditto. Quote
Fairweather Posted August 17, 2004 Author Posted August 17, 2004 One answer at a time, quid pro quo: Â Kosovo. Wasn't even remotely in our national interest. Ruined the post-cold war goodwill we had with the Russians. Again, the hypocricy of the left who thought it was either a.) a noble idea, or b.) sat silently by because they liked Clinton. These are the same people (you excepted, apparently) who now claim anti-war status. Where were they then? Â Â Perhaps you can now tell me how you reconcile your desire for big-government health care with your mistrust of that same government? Â BTW, your contrition re: TPA is appreciated. Please forward your findings to Off-White. He was a bit upset last night. Certainly the existing legislation presses up against my tolerances. I'll likely join you opposed to Patriot Act II if it ever comes to fruition. Quote
JayB Posted August 17, 2004 Posted August 17, 2004 Matt - I think the point with respect to Kosovo is that this was a millitary operation that was not authorized by the UN Security council - being strenuously opposed therein by the Russians and the Chineese - two nations which, have somehow morphed into distinguished arbiters of geopolitical morality since Clintons day - when no one seemed to care what they, or the UN had to say about using arms in an attempt to mitigate the carnage in the Balkans. Since a UN security council resolution backing any use of arms has become the sine qua non for legitimacy since that time, it is fair to point out that in this respect Clinton defied this element of the "International Community" just as brazenly as Bush did, yet there were very few people indicting either the legality or the morality of the intervention there on this ground. Â This, as you well know, is quite unlike the present situation, in which Bush's failure to secure UN security council authorization prior to the invasion is paraded about as one of the Presidents chief failings with respect to Iraq, and as grounds to indict the legitimacy, legality, and the morality of the intervention there. The last point is the most curious of all - in that in any coherent set of ethics an action is either considered moral or immoral in its own right, not because an authority of any sort approves or condemns it. Yet I have seen and heard thousands of people claim that they would have supported the war if the UN security council had authorized it - as if such an authorization would have changed the essential nature of the invasion in any way whatsoever. Oddly enough, I never saw them out protesting the use of force in Kosovo on these grounds..... Quote
willstrickland Posted August 17, 2004 Posted August 17, 2004 (edited) Edit to say: Double-posting sucks. Edited August 17, 2004 by willstrickland Quote
willstrickland Posted August 17, 2004 Posted August 17, 2004 What's this thread about? Â Deadlifts, you girlie man Quote
mattp Posted August 17, 2004 Posted August 17, 2004 Thanks for helping there, JB, but I still don't get it. Â The brazen disrespect and disdain for world opinion expressed by Bush far superceded that expressed by Clinton and I'm pretty sure you know it. You are just making a rhetorical argument here -- and I'm guessing it is because you support the Bush (I mean Wolfilwitz) doctrine. I'm guessing you think it IS our right to rule the world. Â The Bushies have said: we don't need allies-- they are irrelevant. And they acted against the wishes of the entire world except Brittain, Spain, and a bunch of tiny nations mostly dependent on American foreign aid. Clinton said: our allies have been begging us to help, while the Chinese and Russians are blocking the U.N. for their own reasons. Reluctantly, we help. Â Bush and Co. have worked steadily to undermine long-standing international agreements on environmental matters, weapons control, trade protection, you name it. They say this is appropriate because we shouldn't be bound by the same kinds of limits placed on "ordinary" nations. Â Bush and Co. have said we aren't bound by the Geneva Conventions, and shouldn't be beholden to any International World Court. Â There is simply no comparision. Bush defied the entire world and invaded an oil-rich country that was not at war, based on a pre-existing plan that he justified with lies. Clinton may have acted without U.N. mandate, and against the stated wishes of Russia and China, but he did so at the request of our long-standing allies, and he took minimal action in support of an ongoing operation. We did not occupy Kosovo, we did not stand to gain control of important resources, and there is not much serious question about what we were trying to do there whether you say the "intelligence" was based on lies or not. Were the players who we said they were? Maybe not. But we don't have any long-standing ambitions or involvement in the region on anything like the scale that we do in Iraq and the middle east. Â Bush and co. are radicals, bent on undoing or undermining fundamental aspects of world civilization that we've worked toward for a hundred years or more. Even your hero Reagan worked with the Russians to advance arms control efforts. But Bush and co. say international cooperation is for girlie-men. Quote
Bronco Posted August 17, 2004 Posted August 17, 2004 What's this thread about?  Deadlifts, you girlie man  Dang it Will, you beat me to it. Guess I shoulda skipped my last set of crouching-monkey-one-legged-swiss-ball-deadlifts this morning. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.