OBL(UBL) Killed

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

That's a terrible analogy. What exactly was Bush "right" about? Shifting focus away from Al Qaeda and onto Iraq based on shoddy, manufactured "evidence" and then thrusting us into a Trillion Dollar war that accomplished literally nothing of value for the long-term safety of the American people?

Or was he right about the part where he helped progress this country to a point where Americans are forced to live in a Police state where granny will get diddled while trying to get on a plane because her fake hip set of a metal detector.

But hey, at least he got the guy who "tried to kill [his] daddy."

"What exactly was Bush "right" about? "

He saved 1.2 million lives in Africa, with his single-handed pushingh for massive AIDS funding. Does that count for anything? In a fair world, Bush gets the Nobel Peace Prize for that. I believe that he also did a better job of preventing further Al Queda attacks after 09/11 (on Obama's watch, some attacks have been avoided only because bombs didn't go off, and the Fort Hood guy was obviously successful).

"onto Iraq based on shoddy, manufactured "evidence"'

Many, many countries (and the U.N.) felt the evidence was compelling. Back then, very few folks spoke out against the war in Iraq, not until it became politically popular.

"that accomplished literally nothing of value for the long-term safety of the American people?"

Wrong, absolutely false. You need to re-think where you get your news from. I was there. I saw villages being re-built, I saw schools, roads, mosques, and hospitals being built. I spent 48 hours in a village where my entire company were treated like royalty, because these folks could not contain their joy at how much better their futures looked, thanks to us. I still get birthday cards from some of those people.

Johnny, you won't hear this on MSNBC, but Iraq is a much better place today than it was under Saddam. Many folks there know they have us to thank for it. Some of those people will keep that in mind when Al Queda tries to recruit them.

In my opinion, you have been absolutely duped by whoever you listen to.

"he helped progress this country to a point where Americans are forced to live in a Police state where granny will get diddled while trying to get on a plane because her fake hip set of a metal detector."

OK, Johnny. So if there was an airline that didn't have any security apparatus in place...you would fly on that airline?

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"What exactly was Bush "right" about? "

He saved 1.2 million lives in Africa, with his single-handed pushingh for massive AIDS funding. Does that count for anything? In a fair world, Bush gets the Nobel Peace Prize for that. I believe that he also did a better job of preventing further Al Queda attacks after 09/11 (on Obama's watch, some attacks have been avoided only because bombs didn't go off, and the Fort Hood guy was obviously successful).

"onto Iraq based on shoddy, manufactured "evidence"'

Many, many countries (and the U.N.) felt the evidence was compelling. Back then, very few folks spoke out against the war in Iraq, not until it became politically popular.

"that accomplished literally nothing of value for the long-term safety of the American people?"

Wrong, absolutely false. You need to re-think where you get your news from. I was there. I saw villages being re-built, I saw schools, roads, mosques, and hospitals being built. I spent 48 hours in a village where my entire company were treated like royalty, because these folks could not contain their joy at how much better their futures looked, thanks to us. I still get birthday cards from some of those people.

Johnny, you won't hear this on MSNBC, but Iraq is a much better place today than it was under Saddam. Many folks there know they have us to thank for it. Some of those people will keep that in mind when Al Queda tries to recruit them.

In my opinion, you have been absolutely duped by whoever you listen to.

"he helped progress this country to a point where Americans are forced to live in a Police state where granny will get diddled while trying to get on a plane because her fake hip set of a metal detector."

OK, Johnny. So if there was an airline that didn't have any security apparatus in place...you would fly on that airline?

I can't believe I'm about to say this but... I can definitely appreciate all of your responses and see your side of it. I'm not going to go point-by-point because I think our difference of opinion comes down to philosophical differences.

You were there and able to see it in person so your perspective is definitely much different than mine. There is no denying that all my knowledge is based on my research of other people's accounts, sifting through information (and mis-information) and piecing together my own opinion.

Is the world a better place because of some of Bush's actions? Sure. I'll buy that. Are the lives of Iraqis better today than they were ten years ago because of the US invasion? Definitely, even though they are now burning US flags and calling for the US to get out of their country.

What I don't agree with is that the US is better off and safer today thanks to the US invasion of Iraq. As demonstrated last week, we should have been focused on Afghanistan and Pakistan. One thing Saddam did extremely effectively is maintaining control of the populace. He ruled with an iron fist and squashed any kind of extremism that had the potential for threatening his rule. The al Qaeda movement is exactly the group of radicals that Saddam would not allow in his country. The only major terrorist in Iraq was Saddam because he would not have allowed a group like al Qaeda to operate autonomously.

The Iraq war will easily surpass $1trillion dollars of primary costs and many estimate that it already far exceeds that number when you take secondary costs into consideration.

With regards to Africa and funding AIDS funding (and many people will call me a heartless bastard, which I'm fine with), my opinion is that it is not our responsibility. 3/4 of that entire continent is anarchy. The societies there are incapable of living with any kind of civility. On the other hand, we have veterans who sacrificed their lives for this country who are now homeless and sleep with their head on a bench in Boston Common, kids who don't know where their next meal is coming from, an education system that loses more and more funding every year and an infrastructure system that is crumbling apart. When we have things fixed here, then I'll consider it ok to send money to Africa. Until then, let them deal with their own self-inflicted problems.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

I can't believe I'm about to say this but... I can definitely appreciate all of your responses and see your side of it. I'm not going to go point-by-point because I think our difference of opinion comes down to philosophical differences.

You were there and able to see it in person so your perspective is definitely much different than mine. There is no denying that all my knowledge is based on my research of other people's accounts, sifting through information (and mis-information) and piecing together my own opinion.

Is the world a better place because of some of Bush's actions? Sure. I'll buy that. Are the lives of Iraqis better today than they were ten years ago because of the US invasion? Definitely, even though they are now burning US flags and calling for the US to get out of their country.

What I don't agree with is that the US is better off and safer today thanks to the US invasion of Iraq. As demonstrated last week, we should have been focused on Afghanistan and Pakistan. One thing Saddam did extremely effectively is maintaining control of the populace. He ruled with an iron fist and squashed any kind of extremism that had the potential for threatening his rule. The al Qaeda movement is exactly the group of radicals that Saddam would not allow in his country. The only major terrorist in Iraq was Saddam because he would not have allowed a group like al Qaeda to operate autonomously.

The Iraq war will easily surpass $1trillion dollars of primary costs and many estimate that it already far exceeds that number when you take secondary costs into consideration.

With regards to Africa and funding AIDS funding (and many people will call me a heartless bastard, which I'm fine with), my opinion is that it is not our responsibility. 3/4 of that entire continent is anarchy. The societies there are incapable of living with any kind of civility. On the other hand, we have veterans who sacrificed their lives for this country who are now homeless and sleep with their head on a bench in Boston Common, kids who don't know where their next meal is coming from, an education system that loses more and more funding every year and an infrastructure system that is crumbling apart. When we have things fixed here, then I'll consider it ok to send money to Africa. Until then, let them deal with their own self-inflicted problems.

That was probably one of the most fair-minded posts I have read in a long time...

"Are the lives of Iraqis better today than they were ten years ago because of the US invasion? Definitely, even though they are now burning US flags and calling for the US to get out of their country."

When you say "they" are burning US flags, keep in mind that "they" do not represent everyone. People here burn flags every day...We cannot please everyone, it should not even be a goal. I like knowing that some folks hate us (like Al Queda), it means we must be doing something right...

"What I don't agree with is that the US is better off and safer today thanks to the US invasion of Iraq"

I sure can't prove you are wrong...all I can say is (1) lots of dangerous insurgents are dead, (2) lots Of Iraqiis saw first-hand (and thus appreciate) that we risked a lot to help them, and (3) Saddam is dead, and while there were no WMDs, we did find lots of wevidence to suggest that he was going down that road (lots of yellowcake uranium found).

Are we safer? I don't know. Am I proud too have helped those people? Yep. Was it worth the lives of a few thousand Americans? I can't answer that, way above my pay grade...

"The al Qaeda movement is exactly the group of radicals that Saddam would not allow in his country. "

Awesome observation, and it's one of the biggest challenges in that region. Guys like Saddam are dispicable, but they know how to keep Al Queda from establishing any presence...

Remember that we didn't go into Iraq in a rush. We gave the guy all kinds of chances to comply with the UN resolutions, and he refused. In my opinion, actions like that have to have serious consequences. What if we did nothing, and it turned out he had WMDs? What would history say about Bush then? I just get sickened by all the politicians (mostly Dems) who were all in favor of ousting Saddam, until things went bad, and then they all started acting like Bush acted on his own. I don't like politicizing war, because it's not fair to the guys sticking their necks out...

"my opinion is that it is not our responsibility."

Lots of folks would agree with you. I'm Catholic, so I tend to feel that the strong have certain obligations to the weak. That's just my $0.02. I'd rather see a tax hike to keep someone alive than see a tax hike so that cops can continue to retire at age 42, let's put it that way!

"we have veterans who sacrificed their lives for this country who are now homeless "

If they sacrificed their lives, where should they live? Only kidding, I know what you meant, and I appreciate the sentiment...

Most of that is because of mental disease, it's not because there aren't programs to help them...you'd have to round them up and strap them down to keep all of them off the streets. I'm not saying I have the solution (I wish I did), I'm just saying that problem isn't as suggestive of a heartless society as you might first think...

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"we have veterans who sacrificed their lives for this country who are now homeless "

If they sacrificed their lives, where should they live? Only kidding, I know what you meant, and I appreciate the sentiment...

Most of that is because of mental disease, it's not because there aren't programs to help them...you'd have to round them up and strap them down to keep all of them off the streets. I'm not saying I have the solution (I wish I did), I'm just saying that problem isn't as suggestive of a heartless society as you might first think...

As a former EMT, I've passed through a lot of VA hospitals. I can only go by experience with the facilities near me, but every one of them in this region is a dump with poor quality of care. They use equipment, not made by the best company, but by the lowest bidder. The pay for VA staff is generally terrible and it trickles down to poor care.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

As a former EMT, I've passed through a lot of VA hospitals. I can only go by experience with the facilities near me, but every one of them in this region is a dump with poor quality of care. They use equipment, not made by the best company, but by the lowest bidder. The pay for VA staff is generally terrible and it trickles down to poor care.

The issue of homeless vets (which I thought you were talking about) is diferent from the quality of medical care available to them. The quality of medical care for injured vets is one of the VERY few problems I can think of, that can likely be solved by pouring more money into it. I wouldn't mind a tax hike for that.

Homelessness is a very different animal, one that cannot begin to be cured by throwing money at it. If you built a new house for all the homeless, lots of them would end up back on the streets. Most (not all) are NOT homeless because they don't have a place to stay; the majority have serious mental issues.

I have very limited experience with VA hospitals, pretty much the time I spent in one after I got hurt. My care, I thought, was damn good. But I'd like to see it improved too.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Homelessness is a very different animal, one that cannot begin to be cured by throwing money at it. If you built a new house for all the homeless, lots of them would end up back on the streets. Most (not all) are NOT homeless because they don't have a place to stay; the majority have serious mental issues.

I did refer directly to homeless vets, but then get pissed off about the VAs. Mostly, it's upsetting that they make the ultimate sacrifice and then mostly ignored by the general public.

I completely agree that the primary issue is a mental health issue. That's not to say that there aren't programs that could benefit them. When is make references to them sacrificing their lives, it goes for those that have gone off the deep end and completely lost their minds almost as much as those that have been killed in the line of duty. Without our minds, what life really exits?

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

I did refer directly to homeless vets, but then get pissed off about the VAs. Mostly, it's upsetting that they make the ultimate sacrifice and then mostly ignored by the general public.

Absolutely right JD, I could never understand for the life of me,, why all vets
have not been treated with total and complete respect and given whatever
is needed to bring them back home whole.