Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 03-21-2008, 09:54 PM   #21
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 4,764
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caroline View Post
Alas! If we stop sharing thoughts, opinions, and results, how will we as individuals or as a people learn and grow?

They used to call WWI the "war to end all wars." Didn't quite turn out that way but I still have to hope that someday one of these terrible wars WILL be the last.
Never. People will find a reason to fight one reason or another. Id like to be on the side with the biggest guns.
__________________

__________________
Notmuchlonger is offline   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 03-21-2008, 09:59 PM   #22
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 927
Sigh...
__________________

__________________
Caroline is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2008, 10:38 PM   #23
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 11,615
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caroline View Post
They used to call WWI the "war to end all wars." Didn't quite turn out that way but I still have to hope that someday one of these terrible wars WILL be the last.
That would be nice. It's interesting, though that to have a "war" requires that both sides, on some level, believe that war is better than the alternative to war. So, in the abstract, to hope for an end to war, in itself, is to doom these people/nations to whatever other fate (servitude, enslavement, death, pillage of their things, whatever) that they are hoping to avoid by engaging in war.
To end wars and have a better world, we'd have to eliminate these other, worse, possibilities. Until that time, war is better than the alternatives (or nations wouldn't be doing it). And until that time, it will always be much better to be on the wining side of these wars.
__________________
"Freedom begins when you tell Mrs. Grundy to go fly a kite." - R. Heinlein
samclem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2008, 10:59 PM   #24
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
haha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Hooverville
Posts: 22,384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caroline View Post
Alas! If we stop sharing thoughts, opinions, and results, how will we as individuals or as a people learn and grow?

They used to call WWI the "war to end all wars." Didn't quite turn out that way but I still have to hope that someday one of these terrible wars WILL be the last.
It undoubtedly will be. But that won't be a good thing. Maybe the ants will survive.

Ha
__________________
"As a general rule, the more dangerous or inappropriate a conversation, the more interesting it is."-Scott Adams
haha is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2008, 12:20 AM   #25
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 4,764
Ya Id like to see us all living together in harmony or at least not killing each other. But that isnt happening in my lifetime. Sorry, Id rather not be a victim.
__________________
Notmuchlonger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2008, 03:23 AM   #26
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by Notmuchlonger View Post
They counted. People voted them into office. Deal with it.
Well, no actually we voted Gore into office and then a "fast one" was pulled.

Bush's war is to make him, Cheney, and their rich friends richer. It has nothing to do with anything they have claimed. They have been proven to be bold-faced liars and they aren't even pretending any longer.
__________________
zoey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2008, 08:23 AM   #27
Recycles dryer sheets
Arc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 370
Quote:
Originally Posted by haha View Post
Sorry, but I think it would be unbelievably stupid to try to make foreign policy on the basis of a poll.

We do have a binding poll; it's called national elections. In my opinion they roll around too often as it is.

The business about what the troops want to do is likely a justification, although from what I am told it appears to be true.

Maybe it means something too. They certainly know more about it and what the personal stakes are than we do sitting back here on our retired a$$es.

In any case we havea republican governement, not an ongoing plebiscite.

Ha
Thank you Ha! An important reminder!
__________________
Arc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2008, 08:39 AM   #28
Recycles dryer sheets
Arc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 370
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoey View Post
Well, no actually we voted Gore into office and then a "fast one" was pulled.

Bush's war is to make him, Cheney, and their rich friends richer. It has nothing to do with anything they have claimed. They have been proven to be bold-faced liars and they aren't even pretending any longer.
And what fast one was that?

Also, I don't believe that you actually believe your post. No recognition of 9/11, no recognition of an out of control dictator and no recognition of a general world consensus that Hussein was a threat to the world.
__________________
Arc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2008, 09:00 AM   #29
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Texarkandy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,281
And do you think an Obama or Hillary presidency would give more of a cr*p about polls either?
(esp. in their 2nd term with a war they'd like to stabilize and position for winding down before handing over the reins to someone else?)
__________________
Retired 2009!
Texarkandy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2008, 09:34 AM   #30
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Eagle43's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: DFW
Posts: 1,882
I do not believe that this war is to make Bush or Cheney rich. I do believe that all presidents make decisions based on what they consider right or necessary. Even Bush has to sleep at night. You can't even run a corporation by a poll, much less the country.

I also believe that the Congress has the power of the budget and can stop the war (or at least go on record with a vote which would be vetoed). Why don't they?

Don't forget that the congress voted for the war:

Iraq Resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And they have never voted to stop funding or remove the troops.
Congress can halt Iraq war, experts tell lawmakers - washingtonpost.com

Maybe they're trying to get rich too.
__________________
Resist much. Obey Little. . . . Ed Abbey

Disclaimer: My Posts are for my amusement only.
Eagle43 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2008, 10:59 AM   #31
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 898
Quote:
Originally Posted by clifp View Post
If Lincoln had paid attention to public opinion in 1863 or to the election results of 1862, the Union would have withdrawn its forces and some board members might be owned by other board members.
I think you've got it wrong here, historically. Public opinion in general, except for those in the successionist states, favored keeping the Union in tact. Public opinion supported the Civil War. Lincoln was never out of touch with public opinion; in fact, he set re-engineered the passions of public opinion with his remarkable Gettysburg Address. He was re-elected in 1864.
__________________
ChrisC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2008, 09:27 PM   #32
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
clifp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,450
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisC View Post
I think you've got it wrong here, historically. Public opinion in general, except for those in the successionist states, favored keeping the Union in tact. Public opinion supported the Civil War. Lincoln was never out of touch with public opinion; in fact, he set re-engineered the passions of public opinion with his remarkable Gettysburg Address. He was re-elected in 1864.

I think people mistake the original gung ho enthusiasm for the war by both sides for a unwavering commitment to the war. Support for war especially in North wained and waxed depending on how the war was going. My impression is that Southern population was more commited (but I don't really know.)

The only definitive public opinion poll is elections.
i From Wikipedia
Quote:
The U.S. House election, 1862 was an election for the United States House of Representatives in 1862 that occurred in the middle of President Abraham Lincoln's first term. Union defeats in the Civil War, as well as the issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation, took a toll on Lincoln's popularity, and the opposition Democratic Party made substantial gains in seats held from his Republican Party...
The Republicans lost substantially, dropping 22 seats, while the Democrats picked up 28, for a net swing of 50 seats (or 27%) out of a total House membership of 185.
The equivalent today would be the Democrats gaining seats 65, so if people want to say the Democrats picking up 31 seats in 2006 was referendum on the war for Bush, I think it fair to say the election of 1862 was a referendum on the war for Lincoln. After all casualities of the Civil War on percentage basis were 1000 fold greater than Iraq so the campaign was entirely about the war.

Draft riots were common in many parts of the country. The worse being the 1863 riots in NY City. The shut down the city for 4 days killed 100+ people and cost large property losses.

Now by the time 1864 comes around the military situation had turned around. The Democrats ran Meade, and while winning generals do well in American politics losing generals...lose elections.

I do agree with you that Lincoln was well aware of public opinion. Likewise, Cheney didn't disagree with reporter that public opinion currently thinks that Iraq war was mistake, he just said we don't govern by public opinion polls, and neither did Lincoln.

(No I am not comparing Lincoln, with Cheney or Bush, I'll leave that to their relatives... )
__________________
clifp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2008, 10:31 PM   #33
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 898
Quote:
Originally Posted by clifp View Post
I think people mistake the original gung ho enthusiasm for the war by both sides for a unwavering commitment to the war. Support for war especially in North wained and waxed depending on how the war was going. My impression is that Southern population was more commited (but I don't really know.)
Well, my basic point is that, on balance, Lincoln still had a majority of public opinion backing the War effort, at every point of the War. And the support reached highs and lows depending on the War effort and the justification for the War. It reached its highest level of popular support after Gettysburg and Sherman's successful campaign.

Quote:
Originally Posted by clifp View Post
The only definitive public opinion poll is elections.
i From Wikipedia


The equivalent today would be the Democrats gaining seats 65, so if people want to say the Democrats picking up 31 seats in 2006 was referendum on the war for Bush, I think it fair to say the election of 1862 was a referendum on the war for Lincoln. After all casualities of the Civil War on percentage basis were 1000 fold greater than Iraq so the campaign was entirely about the war.

Draft riots were common in many parts of the country. The worse being the 1863 riots in NY City. The shut down the city for 4 days killed 100+ people and cost large property losses.

Now by the time 1864 comes around the military situation had turned around. The Democrats ran Meade, and while winning generals do well in American politics losing generals...lose elections.

I do agree with you that Lincoln was well aware of public opinion. Likewise, Cheney didn't disagree with reporter that public opinion currently thinks that Iraq war was mistake, he just said we don't govern by public opinion polls, and neither did Lincoln.

(No I am not comparing Lincoln, with Cheney or Bush, I'll leave that to their relatives... )
I'm not sure you can say anything significant about the election results of 1862; the Republican Party had only been formed in 1856 and had only been tested in one national election; I don't think it is fair to say the 1862 election was a referendum for the War. The Emancipation Proclaimation might have had more to do with the election results than the War itself.

BTW, it was General McClellan not General Meade who ran for President in 1864. And my point on this whole matter is that Lincoln did take public opinion into account in his governing the War effort, unlike Cheney as his statements suggest.
__________________
ChrisC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2008, 10:53 PM   #34
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
youbet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 9,965
One of the most interesting aspects of the few hours I spent at the Lincoln musuem in Springfield, Illinois was learning that Lincoln had a major challenge coping with strong anti-war sentiment in the north mid-war. And that he was descimated/ravaged/ridiculed/mocked by the press. Because wealthy northerners were able to buy replacements (typically Irish immigrants) to take their place in military service, those with money frequently didn't serve. Sound familar?

Even Lincoln had to bend things a little to sell his position, for example writing the Emancipation Proclamation so that it didn't apply to all the states..........
__________________
"I wasn't born blue blood. I was born blue-collar." John Wort Hannam
youbet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2008, 10:58 PM   #35
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
youbet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 9,965
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisC View Post
Well, my basic point is that, on balance, Lincoln still had a majority of public opinion backing the War effort, at every point of the War. .
With all respect, I don't think that is true, although it might be hard to define "public opinion" since I don't think they were doing many polls then. If there had been polls run as we run them today, I think we'd learn that people supported the abolition of slavery, the continuation of the Union and the well being of the troops, but they were against the war. Can you point me to anything supporting your contention? Especially "at every point of the War."
__________________
"I wasn't born blue blood. I was born blue-collar." John Wort Hannam
youbet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2008, 02:00 AM   #36
Recycles dryer sheets
Insanity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by haha View Post
. . . As private citizens we actually know almost nothing.
Of course we know nothing. If the Bush administration has its way, we'll stay ignorant, even if we have the right to know. The Bush admin. is fighting to keep documents that discuss the run up to war out of the archives, and claims to have irreparably deleted emails that should have been saved, too, all in violation of the Presidential Records Act. It's 17 minutes of Watergate Tapes silence, 21st century style.

Quote:
Did your parents ask you if they should take you to the doctor to get your shots?
Was the Bush administration honest with us before they sent our kids off to get shot?
__________________
Insanity is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2008, 03:49 AM   #37
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,072
Die hard right Republicans will never admit that GWB and the administration made very poor decisions on the Iraq war and for whatever reasons exaggerated about the situation in Iraq to convince Americans and others that we needed to invade.

It is sad... but the French were correct on their assessment. No wonder much of the world was not with us.

That war was about settling an old score for GHB, Cheney, Rummy, etc.

He will not get a pass (from anyone but the hard right) for making such a blunder and mistake in judgment and seizing on the opportunity to invade. He has lived down to the criticisms about him in the first election... not too bright!
__________________
chinaco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2008, 05:18 AM   #38
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arc View Post
And what fast one was that?

Also, I don't believe that you actually believe your post. No recognition of 9/11, no recognition of an out of control dictator and no recognition of a general world consensus that Hussein was a threat to the world.
This fast one...Theft of the Presidency Day 369 (4): Gore Wins, Media Lies (Yet Again)

You don't believe that I actually believe my own post. What? That sounds ridiculous to me. Of course, I believe my own post.

What has 9/11 or Hussein got to do with why Bush really invaded Iraq. Nothing whatsoever. It's about oil and money. Let's not forget how much Haliburton makes off this invasion/occupation and the Cheney's connection to Haliburton. Not to mention Bush's connection to the Bin Laden family. Hussein was no real threat to the world. He was controllable and in fact had been controlled for quite some time. This isn't about Hussein.

The general world consensus was that they didn't want the US to invade Iraq, so I don't believe that the world conensus was that Hussein was a threat to the world. The world seems far more outraged about Bush and his war.
__________________
zoey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2008, 06:13 AM   #39
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,798
Quote:
Originally Posted by haha View Post
I think we tend to have an international reputation of leaving protectees and behind the scenes allies to go fish when our domestic political winds change.

Ha
I was watching an interview with a foreign national, back in, I believe, 2001 or 2002, and they were very angry with the US because they felt we left them high and dry. I would not doubt other countries and people have this same opinion of this country.

Chicano--You can say Bush lied all you want, but the Democrats believed the same thing, including when Clinton was in office. So if Bush lied about WMD then so did Clinton. There were definitely mistakes, but even with a Democratic Congress, Bush has not been impeached, so lie, I don't think so. Either way whether Hussein had WMD or not was rather irrelevant, because before the ink was dry on the surrender treaty Hussein started violating it.

Zoey--Hussein was not controlled. He was pinned in his country but we were still bombing his military almost every day since the end of the first Gulf War. As far as Halliburton goes, Clinton used Halliburton, or their subsidiaries, for every contract I can think of when I was overseas. This most likely means they were, like has been stated, the only company with the infrastructure and ability to complete these contracts. Posting an article that is clearly from a Democrat publisher does not exactly prove your point and only makes you look like a "company hack."
__________________
You don't want to work. You want to live like a king, but the big bad world don't owe you a thing. Get over it--The Eagles
lets-retire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2008, 06:37 AM   #40
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,072
Quote:
Originally Posted by lets-retire View Post
Chicano--You can say Bush lied all you want, but the Democrats believed the same thing, including when Clinton was in office. So if Bush lied about WMD then so did Clinton. There were definitely mistakes, but even with a Democratic Congress, Bush has not been impeached, so lie, I don't think so. Either way whether Hussein had WMD or not was rather irrelevant, because before the ink was dry on the surrender treaty Hussein started violating it.

Bush had the intel and appoints (or maintains) the people who head up the agencies that produces the intel. They put spin on it.

And breaking the treaty is hardly a reason to put boots on the ground.

Let's assume that they did not lie about it. Perhaps they were so eager to settle an old score they were not objective. Not good considering what was at stake.

So which is it:
  • A bold lie? Likely not!
  • Old ax to grind and therefore some exaggeration and not willing to exercise due caution in making this big decision? -- This is it right here.
  • Complete Incompetence? Probably not.
  • Or the poor guys just made an honest mistake... leave them alone.
  • Justifiable Invasion. Few think so... including Colin Powell
The decision resulted in the deaths and injuries of hundreds of thousands. Plus huge debt.

No... I think he should be held responsible for his actions. This whole thing will likely not end up with a real democracy in Iraq unless we do spend 50 years there... Why 50 years? Because it is an area of the world where the culture is still in the middle ages for the most part. Dictators and Kings. It will take that amount of time for the population to age and turn over such that new beliefs are predominant.

So. Did they lie back then? Who knows what they thought... maybe not, possibly a few did not have the courage to speak up in his cabinet. Are they deceiving us now and spinning this monumental blunder. You bet. We fought a war about WMD and concerns about Al Qaeda possibly getting those weapons.

As it turns out we got rid of one secular @$$h0!3 and will replace him with either another secular @ssh0!3 or a fundamentalist one.

Now tell me that deep down you believe otherwise.
__________________

__________________
chinaco is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Cheney makes twice as much as his boss RedHawk Other topics 9 04-16-2007 05:11 AM
Does Cheney know something we don't? ladelfina FIRE and Money 11 07-07-2006 03:14 PM
Cheney Shoots, Scores REWahoo Other topics 76 02-25-2006 08:03 PM
Blank Pages and No Response Thread BigMoneyJim Forum Admin 59 08-13-2005 07:09 PM

 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:56 AM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.