What are the Odds of Bin Laden's capture before Bush leaves office?

[Wags]

I do not know about love and admire but I do recall hearings some reports that one of the reasons Mr. Bin Laden and Al Qaeda have targeted the U.S is because we are occupying Muslim holy lands in Saudi Arabia.

God Bless Us All

[Kathryn48]

Originally Posted by Wags

I do not know about love and admire but I do recall hearings some reports that one of the reasons Mr. Bin Laden and Al Qaeda have targeted the U.S is because we are occupying Muslim holy lands in Saudi Arabia.

God Bless Us All

But we pulled out of Saudi Arabia after 9/11 so he got what he wanted. I guess I don't worry so much about whether Osama bin forgotten is apprehended at this point, as I have some "different" views on things that would no doubt provoke ruffled feathers if I go there.

At any rate, I worry about Lieberman's recent pronouncement that we're due for another terrorist attack in 2009. His reasoning? The two previous attacks on the WTCs were within the first year of a president's term.

[bigwonderfulwyoming]

Originally Posted by Wags

I do not know about love and admire but I do recall hearings some reports that one of the reasons Mr. Bin Laden and Al Qaeda have targeted the U.S is because we are occupying Muslim holy lands in Saudi Arabia.

God Bless Us All

....at the behest of and with the full support of the Saudia Arabian government. This relationship goes back many years, spans many political generations, and is non-partisan. Hard to blame our current foriegn policy for this one.

[Kathryn48]

Originally Posted by bigwonderfulwyoming

....at the behest of and with the full support of the Saudia Arabian government. This relationship goes back many years, spans many political generations, and is non-partisan. Hard to blame our current foriegn policy for this one.

You are right. The US has been in other country's affairs for decades.

There is an excellent book for anyone interested called "Confessions of an Economic Hitman," which is a great read and goes into depth on US foreign policy throughout the decades. The guy actually worked for the CIA, so it's not a boring book to read.

If anyone has the time and interest, this is a 54 page history of all the events leading up to 911, with 5,317 events. It goes all the way back to 1973 to June of this month. Someday maybe I will sit down and read it all, as it is excellent.

Complete 911 Timeline

I hope posting links is allowed. If not, please delete (as I don't want to get into trouble )

[clifp]

Originally Posted by bigwonderfulwyoming

....at the behest of and with the full support of the Saudia Arabian government. This relationship goes back many years, spans many political generations, and is non-partisan. Hard to blame our current foriegn policy for this one.

Exactly, and lets remember why we had troops in Saudi Arabia in the 1990s (which POed Bid Laden and company)... Saddam had invaded Kuwait, a dozen years after invading Iran. If we hadn't put troops in Saudi Arabia, it is almost certain that Saddam would still be occupying Kuwait.

Saddam was in debt to Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia helped finance much of the more the 100 billion dollars in arm Saddam bought from Russia, China,and France (in that order) which he used in the war against Iran.

As bad as the current situation is in the Middle East, I think would be worse if we didn't "meddle" in other countries affairs. Because right now Saddam would sitting atop the #2 source of oil (Iraq+Kuwait) with lots of big guns pointed at the #1 source Saudi Arabia. If Saddam said I think Oil needs to be $250 barrel the Saudis would have no choice but to go along.

[bigwonderfulwyoming]

Originally Posted by clifp

As bad as the current situation is in the Middle East, I think would be worse if we didn't "meddle" in other countries affairs. Because right now Saddam would sitting atop the #2 source of oil (Iraq+Kuwait) with lots of big guns pointed at the #1 source Saudi Arabia. If Saddam said I think Oil needs to be $250 barrel the Saudis would have no choice but to go along.

There is a fine line between "aid" (food, financial, disaster, military, etc.) and "meddling". If we expect ANYTHING in return, like peace, democracy, human rights, cessation of genocide, free trade, etc. we are perceived as "meddling". It's only "aid" if we just hand over the checkbook to the despots and get the hell out, ie the recent disaster in Burma.

The US is one of the most generous, open-hearted countries in the world, always ready to lend a hand whenever a typhoon, an earthquake or a dictator strikes. Unfortunately, the world media casts us as empire builders, and focuses on our mistakes, not our successes.
It would be interesting to see what happened if we just stayed home for a couple of years while the Saddams, Ghadafis, Kim Jung Ils, Mugabes and Taliban of the world wreak havoc on their countrymen and neighbors without fear of US intervention. Oh, wait, that is why we have the UN - for endless debate in lieu of timely action.

[clifp]

Originally Posted by bigwonderfulwyoming

There is a fine line between "aid" (food, financial, disaster, military, etc.) and "meddling". If we expect ANYTHING in return, like peace, democracy, human rights, cessation of genocide, free trade, etc. we are perceived as "meddling". It's only "aid" if we just hand over the checkbook to the despots and get the hell out, ie the recent disaster in Burma.

The US is one of the most generous, open-hearted countries in the world, always ready to lend a hand whenever a typhoon, an earthquake or a dictator strikes. Unfortunately, the world media casts us as empire builders, and focuses on our mistakes, not our successes.

True enough. The good news is most American understand the unique role America occupies in the world. Most of them are reluctant to meddle but understand the necessity. But there is a big segment of complete isolationist. Of course on the left, they only want the US to intervene when there is absolutely no economic or strategic interests, example Darfur, and Burma.On the right you have the Ron Paul's and Pat Buchannan who say screw the rest of the world. The good new is neither of the Presidential candidates are in the isolationis, camp although Obama talks a good game when he is pandering on the stump.

It would be interesting to see what happened if we just stayed home for a couple of years while the Saddams, Ghadafis, Kim Jung Ils, Mugabes and Taliban of the world wreak havoc on their countrymen and neighbors without fear of US intervention. Oh, wait, that is why we have the UN - for endless debate in lieu of timely action.

It is tempting; but last time we tried this was a right after, WWI, with the rejection of the League of Nation, the abandonment of our Army and Air forces, and Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act. As wonderful as it would be to say "see I told you so", it isn't worth having to go through a great depression and WWII, for the satisfaction.

[Kathryn48]

Originally Posted by clifp

True enough. The good news is most American understand the unique role America occupies in the world. Most of them are reluctant to meddle but understand the necessity. But there is a big segment of complete isolationist. Of course on the left, they only want the US to intervene when there is absolutely no economic or strategic interests, example Darfur, and Burma.On the right you have the Ron Paul's and Pat Buchannan who say screw the rest of the world.

Well, I must be a strange case then because I am a leftist and isolationist at the same time. I agree that if we are going to intervene it should be only in places like Burma and Darfur, but if I had it my way we would just stay at home and mind our business. We'd take all the money being spent on "nation building" and fix our healthcare system so that everyone would have insurance. I'm in both camps.

I would vote for Ron Paul before either of the current candidates, as I believe saving this country supersedes everything else.

[clifp]

Originally Posted by Kathryn48

Well, I must be a strange case then because I am a leftist and isolationist at the same time. I agree that if we are going to intervene it should be only in places like Burma and Darfur, but if I had it my way we would just stay at home and mind our business. We'd take all the money being spent on "nation building" and fix our healthcare system so that everyone would have insurance. I'm in both camps.

I would vote for Ron Paul before either of the current candidates, as I believe saving this country supersedes everything else.

No I don't think your being leftist and isolationist is particularly unusual. I went to college at Berkeley so I've met plenty of folks with similar views.

I generally favor most interventions, but I strongly support ones where there is both humanitarian benefits AND strategic/economic benefits to the US.

I can understand want to help fellow Americans first, but providing universal health care often ends up meaning forking over $125K for a expensive cancer treatment that on average will extend a person life by a year. (The 125K number is new the official value of a one year of good quality of life). That same money can be use build a health clinic in 3rd world country, or to buy a smart bomb to take out the leaders of genocidal regime.

I rather vote for Barrack, or even Hillary than Ron Paul, since the libertarian philosophy is I got mine screw you.

[armor99]

Originally Posted by Kathryn48

Well, We'd take all the money being spent on "nation building" and fix our healthcare system so that everyone would have insurance.

I find it interesting that you believe that heathcare is a right. I do not believe that govt healthcare is mandated in our constitution, nor is food, clothing, or housing. Lack of any of those other items will leave you just as dead as lack of heathcare when you need it.

I do not believe that heathcare is a right in the US, nor do I believe that it should be. I believe that people are only "entitled" to what they can pay for, or can gain without the use of force, from the generocity of others (charities and the like).

If as a nation we decide that everyone will be given government healthcare, then why not food, clothing, and shelter as well? The same arguments can be made for those items can't they? I would actually think it a huge creulty to give people govt heathcare, but not govt food to keep them healthy. After all.... all of the medical treatment in the world will not fix starvation. I think you can see where I am going with this line of reasoning. While the strong desire to see no one suffer is admirable, very noble, and one that I share..... the reality is... that it is just not possible.

I think a more constructive conversation might be... "in a prosperous nation like the US... what percentage of uninsured americans should we strive for?" Is it 5%, 10%, 15%? Getting it down to 0% is just not possible, and I think you would wind up bankrupting the US if you actually tried to get there.

Some may agree... some may not... others might think I am really cold.... but I prefer the term a "realist"....

[Kathryn48]

Originally Posted by clifp

No I don't think your being leftist and isolationist is particularly unusual. I went to college at Berkeley so I've met plenty of folks with similar views.

I generally favor most interventions, but I strongly support ones where there is both humanitarian benefits AND strategic/economic benefits to the US.

I can understand want to help fellow Americans first, but providing universal health care often ends up meaning forking over $125K for a expensive cancer treatment that on average will extend a person life by a year. (The 125K number is new the official value of a one year of good quality of life). That same money can be use build a health clinic in 3rd world country, or to buy a smart bomb to take out the leaders of genocidal regime.

I rather vote for Barrack, or even Hillary than Ron Paul, since the libertarian philosophy is I got mine screw you.

I went to Berkeley too in downtown San Francisco. You do have a point about universal health care being expensive, but certainly no more expensive than what I am being taxed for that I want no part of - war.

I think the current philosophy is screw you, I got mine. I put our Constitution above everything. I am not convinced that obama or hillary feel that strongly as I do, but I know Ron Paul does. Besides, he could get the country back on track and then we could always elect a democrat.

[Kathryn48]

Originally Posted by armor99

I find it interesting that you believe that heathcare is a right. I do not believe that govt healthcare is mandated in our constitution, nor is food, clothing, or housing. Lack of any of those other items will leave you just as dead as lack of heathcare when you need it.

I did not say it was a right, but I will point out that I don't have a right to say how my tax dollars are spent. .

I do not believe that heathcare is a right in the US, nor do I believe that it should be. I believe that people are only "entitled" to what they can pay for, or can gain without the use of force, from the generocity of others (charities and the like).

And what about the people who are uninsurable at any price? Charity is a nice idea, but...I don't know if you've ever worked with the homeless or those in need but I have. In fact I have to go volunteer tomorrow a.m. at the food and clothing bank. Trust me these people are not getting much from the generosity of others.

If as a nation we decide that everyone will be given government healthcare, then why not food, clothing, and shelter as well? The same arguments can be made for those items can't they? I would actually think it a huge creulty to give people govt heathcare, but not govt food to keep them healthy. After all.... all of the medical treatment in the world will not fix starvation. I think you can see where I am going with this line of reasoning. While the strong desire to see no one suffer is admirable, very noble, and one that I share..... the reality is... that it is just not possible.

There is federal funding already for food, clothing and shelter and it's not breaking the bank.

I think a more constructive conversation might be... "in a prosperous nation like the US... what percentage of uninsured americans should we strive for?" Is it 5%, 10%, 15%? Getting it down to 0% is just not possible, and I think you would wind up bankrupting the US if you actually tried to get there.

How about zero percent? Seems like a better notion to me than spending trillions of dollars on death. And it's all for oil. What a shame.

Some may agree... some may not... others might think I am really cold.... but I prefer the term a "realist"....

I think you probably have health insurance and are not worried about those who do not. But I wonder how you would feel if a member of your family was uninsurable.

[kumquat]

Originally Posted by bigwonderfulwyoming

It Would Be Interesting To See What Happened If We Just Stayed Home For A Couple Of Years While The Saddams, Ghadafis, Kim Jung Ils, Mugabes And Taliban Of The World Wreak Havoc On Their Countrymen And Neighbors Without Fear Of Us Intervention.

1914?

1939?

[armor99]

Originally Posted by Kathryn48

And what about the people who are uninsurable at any price? Charity is a nice idea, but...I don't know if you've ever worked with the homeless or those in need but I have. In fact I have to go volunteer tomorrow a.m. at the food and clothing bank. Trust me these people are not getting much from the generosity of others.

I think you probably have health insurance and are not worried about those who do not. But I wonder how you would feel if a member of your family was uninsurable.

You have some good points Kathryn48, thanks for not taking my head off... that is much appreciated. I guess the question I would ask about the uninsurable, is were they in fact born that way? And if so.... what percentage of the uninsured was for that reason. Obviously.... if you are born with a debilitating illness... it is going to be a hard sell to an insurance company to get insured. An insurance company works just like any other business, and needs many more healthy people paying in than sick taking out, otherwise they go bankrupt. Unlike some people think, they are not backed by the govt funding somehow. So if at the time you join in you are not going to contribute anything, I can see a business wanting to get out of that deal. From what I have personally seen, the vast majority of the "uninsurable" at one point in their lives were very "insurable", but due to their decisions, they chose not to buy insurance at that time (because they were healthy), and used that money to purchase something else.
So my question to you is what should happen to such people? If your answer is, "we need to help everyone no matter what... even if they brought on the situation themselves by not thinking ahead", then I would ask the follow up question... "Then why should I not do the same and not pay into a health insurance plan? After all we all have more or less the same shot of getting sick... so why not play the odds and use that money for something else that I can use now?" And that leads to the last but most inescapable question of... "So what happens to a health insurance company, when there are enought people that are doing.... just that.... playing the odds and not paying into insurance untill they are already sick?" The answer is simple... no more insurance company... There are always unintended consequenses to noble ideas...

[armor99]

Originally Posted by kumquat

1914?

1939?

Wow... that was the shortest... yet most eloquent response I have seen in a very long time. That was a great answer!!! When it comes to WWII many historians agree that has the US entered the war far earlier.... it probably would have ended much sooner, and cost far fewer lives than it did.

[Kathryn48]

Originally Posted by armor99

You have some good points Kathryn48, thanks for not taking my head off... that is much appreciated. I guess the question I would ask about the uninsurable, is were they in fact born that way? And if so.... what percentage of the uninsured was for that reason. Obviously.... if you are born with a debilitating illness... it is going to be a hard sell to an insurance company to get insured. An insurance company works just like any other business, and needs many more healthy people paying in than sick taking out, otherwise they go bankrupt. Unlike some people think, they are not backed by the govt funding somehow. So if at the time you join in you are not going to contribute anything, I can see a business wanting to get out of that deal. From what I have personally seen, the vast majority of the "uninsurable" at one point in their lives were very "insurable", but due to their decisions, they chose not to buy insurance at that time (because they were healthy), and used that money to purchase something else.

Well, because I am uninsurable I have to wait YEARS before I become insurable. What they need to do is to pool all the high risk people together and then come up with rates so that uninsured people can at least get insurance. Me? I pay $422 a month and have a 10K deductible, but one cannot be without insurance if one has assets. And the only reason I have insurance at all is due to HIIPA. This means that I am charged but high premiums but I can do this the rest of my life (unless some dweeb changes the law - like someone in the current regime). Thanks to Bill Clinton for doing this.

So my question to you is what should happen to such people? If your answer is, "we need to help everyone no matter what... even if they brought on the situation themselves by not thinking ahead", then I would ask the follow up question... "Then why should I not do the same and not pay into a health insurance plan? After all we all have more or less the same shot of getting sick... so why not play the odds and use that money for something else that I can use now?"

Not true. A lot of illnesses are genetic. My mom developed diabetes later in life and this makes her uninsurable. Not good. And you are right, why not use the money for something else. I fail to see the problem here.

And that leads to the last but most inescapable question of... "So what happens to a health insurance company, when there are enought people that are doing.... just that.... playing the odds and not paying into insurance untill they are already sick?" The answer is simple... no more insurance company... There are always unintended consequenses to noble ideas...

Right, and that's a good thing to have no more insurance company. We need a single payer system.