If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Joe wrote:
> "Michael Johnson, PE" > wrote in > : > > >>Joe wrote: >> >>>"Michael Johnson, PE" > wrote in : >>> >>> >>> >>>>SVTKate wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>"Michael Johnson, PE" > wrote >>>>>: >>>>>: As a follow up to my reply to Kate, I think we should target a >>>>>: large asteroid and see how we can affect its long term >>>>>: trajectory through various means. Developing that capability >>>>>: might prove useful one day! >>>>> >>>>>Well, I suppose it might prove useful someday, kind of like the >>>>>set of taillights I took off of my car MAY be useful someday, not >>>>>likely, but possible. >>>>>In the meantime... I still think... >>>>> >>>>>Ok, here's the rub. >>>>>Only as an example, but a real problem. >>>>> >>>>>Recently in this state they have cut the Tenncare rolls >>>>>significantly. Loads of people who are really sick (yes and I am >>>>>sure some that are taking advantage) have had their medical >>>>>benefits eliminated. >>>>> >>>>>I see it this way, $300million would do allot to help people. >>>>>People who really need it right ehre and now. People who cannot >>>>>help themselves. >>>>> >>>>>Kind of the same way I see big fancy churches with the wide >>>>>screens and Dolby sound. >>>>>The money spent could be used to do some real good.... >>>>> >>>>>I know it's a soap box, I just have this terribly practical side. >>>> >>>>The waste bother me too. I also think that while the possibility >>>>is remote we should have a plan for dealing with a rogue >>>>comet/asteroid. It would take that much money. Besides if we are >>>>ever hit it would make the suffer you just described look like >>>>mankind had a common cold, relatively speaking. The real shame is >>>>that we, and other nations, have to spend so much on defense and >>>>military related areas. If we would all just play nice with each >>>>other think of the greater good we could accomplish. >>> >>> >>>You want waste? One word: Iraq. Both lives and money are being >>>thrown away. >> >>To repeat myself, we really won't know for decades if it was a waste >>or a brilliant move on Bush's part. History will be the judge. > > > Brilliant? Everybody's entitled to their own opinion. In Truman's day that thought he was an idiot too. |
Ads |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
"Joe" > wrote in message .. . : "SVTKate" > wrote in news:LlCAe.1949 : : : : > : > "Joe" > wrote : >: : >: You want waste? One word: Iraq. Both lives and money are being : >: thrown away. : > : > We heard you the first time. : : Good. It can't be said enough. You are quite a character |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Michael Johnson, PE wrote <and I snipped>:
> I don't think you can equate the two after just 2-3 years in Iraq. > Vietnam was 10-15 years in the making. Plus the casualties aren't > anywhere near the level of Vietnam at its worst, or best, for that > matter. Vietnam was a regional power struggle between the USSR and the > US and this was the real reason the war lasted so long. We could have > won it but we would probably have ended up fighting the Chinese, just > like in Korea. Iraq is not even close to this type of war. The recent > news report seem to suggest that troop levels will drop by 100,000 next > year. I hope they are correct. US involvement in Vietnam lasted nearly 30 years -- from using US military ships and planes to help the French move troops and supplies to Vietnam starting in late 1945, until the fall of Saigon in the spring of 1975. To put Vietnam (and Iraq) in perspective, I highly recommend Barbara Tuchman's splendid history, "The March of Folly". If only the Dubya gang had read and understood it ... -- Cheers, Bob |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Bob Willard wrote:
> Michael Johnson, PE wrote <and I snipped>: > > > I don't think you can equate the two after just 2-3 years in Iraq. > >> Vietnam was 10-15 years in the making. Plus the casualties aren't >> anywhere near the level of Vietnam at its worst, or best, for that >> matter. Vietnam was a regional power struggle between the USSR and >> the US and this was the real reason the war lasted so long. We could >> have won it but we would probably have ended up fighting the Chinese, >> just like in Korea. Iraq is not even close to this type of war. The >> recent news report seem to suggest that troop levels will drop by >> 100,000 next year. I hope they are correct. > > > US involvement in Vietnam lasted nearly 30 years -- from using US military > ships and planes to help the French move troops and supplies to Vietnam > starting in late 1945, until the fall of Saigon in the spring of 1975. > > To put Vietnam (and Iraq) in perspective, I highly recommend Barbara > Tuchman's splendid history, "The March of Folly". If only the Dubya gang > had read and understood it ... I'm not familiar with the book you referenced but nobody knows the outcome of the Iraq war and no one knows if it will parallel Vietnam or any other war. Time will tell if it was worth fighting and even then I doubt everyone will agree. All we have now are opinions about it and nobody can prove their opinion is right. As I told Joe, history will be the judge of President Bush. There are also many people who just hate him and there is absolutely nothing he can do in their eyes that is acceptable. Basically, they have no ability to be objective. Many of the complainers on the Iraq war are these people and they ignore the good things that have resulted from the conflict and just dwell on the negative. Many others are just out to make political hay from complaining about the war. For people that are motivated by these reasons it is a waste of time to discuss the topic with them. They are not really wanting good a debate. They just want to damage President Bush any and every way they can. |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
"Michael Johnson, PE" > wrote in
: > Bob Willard wrote: >> Michael Johnson, PE wrote <and I snipped>: >> >> > I don't think you can equate the two after just 2-3 years in >> > Iraq. >> >>> Vietnam was 10-15 years in the making. Plus the casualties aren't >>> anywhere near the level of Vietnam at its worst, or best, for that >>> matter. Vietnam was a regional power struggle between the USSR >>> and the US and this was the real reason the war lasted so long. >>> We could have won it but we would probably have ended up fighting >>> the Chinese, just like in Korea. Iraq is not even close to this >>> type of war. The recent news report seem to suggest that troop >>> levels will drop by 100,000 next year. I hope they are correct. >> >> >> US involvement in Vietnam lasted nearly 30 years -- from using US >> military ships and planes to help the French move troops and >> supplies to Vietnam starting in late 1945, until the fall of Saigon >> in the spring of 1975. >> >> To put Vietnam (and Iraq) in perspective, I highly recommend >> Barbara Tuchman's splendid history, "The March of Folly". If only >> the Dubya gang had read and understood it ... > > I'm not familiar with the book you referenced but nobody knows the > outcome of the Iraq war and no one knows if it will parallel Vietnam > or any other war. The lack of a good reason for being there and the lack of an exit strategy is certainly common to both. > Time will tell if it was worth fighting and even > then I doubt everyone will agree. All we have now are opinions > about it and nobody can prove their opinion is right. Exactly. And that's just what we're doing here. Posting opinions. > As I told Joe, history will be the judge of President Bush. As it is for everyone. > There > are also many people who just hate him and there is absolutely > nothing he can do in their eyes that is acceptable. Basically, they > have no ability to be objective. Many of the complainers on the > Iraq war are these people and they ignore the good things that have > resulted from the conflict and just dwell on the negative. Many > others are just out to make political hay from complaining about the > war. For people that are motivated by these reasons it is a waste > of time to discuss the topic with them. They are not really wanting > good a debate. They just want to damage President Bush any and > every way they can. Michael, I think the polarization you describe is largely due to (a) the way in which this administration carried out the whole post-9/11 thing (Saddam/Iraq/Bin Laden/WMD/etc.), (b) what they actually did, and (c) the perception (real or imagined) that the current administration is patronizing the American public. I, along with many others, think that the American public was basically deceived and the present administration continues to this day to "spin" the whole thing for their own benefit. At this point, people are downright angry that the administration thinks they are that gullible. Some people believe that the administration has downright lied to them. The question that people ask themselves is: "Are we better off now than we were before?" I certainly believe that the country is _not_ better off now. In no particular order, we're basically hated around the world, we've got the worst debt we've ever seen, we're in a war that was started for dubious reasons and has no end in sight, and we've got a president that's trying to dismantle Social Security. I'd say there are at least a few damn good reasons why a lot of people are upset with this guy. |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
"SVTKate" > wrote in news:MlNAe.2216
: > > "Joe" > wrote in message > .. . >: "SVTKate" > wrote in news:LlCAe.1949 >: : >: >: > >: > "Joe" > wrote >: >: >: >: You want waste? One word: Iraq. Both lives and money are being >: >: thrown away. >: > >: > We heard you the first time. >: >: Good. It can't be said enough. > > You are quite a character LOL! And you're not? |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
|
#58
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 00:06:24 -0400, "Michael Johnson, PE"
> wrote: >David Schierholz wrote: >> On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 23:28:09 -0400, pawn > wrote: >> Ok- Probably not the group that cares about such things, but- >> >> You are citing as an example of intelligence and work ethic an >> organization that put a man on the moon in 1969 and hasn't put one >> farther than low earth orbit since? > >This isn't due to lack of intelligence or work ethic. Its due to lack >of funding. Hmmm... Hummer/ Mustang Hummer/ Mustang $100,000/$2,000 (OK, conceed inflation) Ugly/ classic Shuttle/ Spaceship One, Billions/ 10 Million Now I have nothing against 1960's technology, but I don't plan to commute in it in 2005. NASA does. David |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Joe wrote:
> "Michael Johnson, PE" > wrote in > : > > >>Bob Willard wrote: >> >>>Michael Johnson, PE wrote <and I snipped>: >>> >>> > I don't think you can equate the two after just 2-3 years in >>> > Iraq. >>> >>> >>>>Vietnam was 10-15 years in the making. Plus the casualties aren't >>>>anywhere near the level of Vietnam at its worst, or best, for that >>>>matter. Vietnam was a regional power struggle between the USSR >>>>and the US and this was the real reason the war lasted so long. >>>>We could have won it but we would probably have ended up fighting >>>>the Chinese, just like in Korea. Iraq is not even close to this >>>>type of war. The recent news report seem to suggest that troop >>>>levels will drop by 100,000 next year. I hope they are correct. >>> >>> >>>US involvement in Vietnam lasted nearly 30 years -- from using US >>>military ships and planes to help the French move troops and >>>supplies to Vietnam starting in late 1945, until the fall of Saigon >>>in the spring of 1975. >>> >>>To put Vietnam (and Iraq) in perspective, I highly recommend >>>Barbara Tuchman's splendid history, "The March of Folly". If only >>>the Dubya gang had read and understood it ... >> >>I'm not familiar with the book you referenced but nobody knows the >>outcome of the Iraq war and no one knows if it will parallel Vietnam >>or any other war. > > > The lack of a good reason for being there and the lack of an exit > strategy is certainly common to both. > > >>Time will tell if it was worth fighting and even >>then I doubt everyone will agree. All we have now are opinions >>about it and nobody can prove their opinion is right. > > > Exactly. And that's just what we're doing here. Posting opinions. > > >>As I told Joe, history will be the judge of President Bush. > > > As it is for everyone. > > >>There >>are also many people who just hate him and there is absolutely >>nothing he can do in their eyes that is acceptable. Basically, they >>have no ability to be objective. Many of the complainers on the >>Iraq war are these people and they ignore the good things that have >>resulted from the conflict and just dwell on the negative. Many >>others are just out to make political hay from complaining about the >>war. For people that are motivated by these reasons it is a waste >>of time to discuss the topic with them. They are not really wanting >>good a debate. They just want to damage President Bush any and >>every way they can. > > > Michael, I think the polarization you describe is largely due to (a) > the way in which this administration carried out the whole post-9/11 > thing (Saddam/Iraq/Bin Laden/WMD/etc.), (b) what they actually did, > and (c) the perception (real or imagined) that the current > administration is patronizing the American public. > > I, along with many others, think that the American public was > basically deceived and the present administration continues to this > day to "spin" the whole thing for their own benefit. At this point, > people are downright angry that the administration thinks they are > that gullible. Some people believe that the administration has > downright lied to them. I'll admit that I'm a hawk when it comes to national defense. Basically, if people are trying to kill us, I want to error on the side of caution and take out the threat before they get a chance to organize and come after us on our own soil. If our government would have taken care of business during the 1990's, especially after the first World Trade Center bombing, 9-11 would likely have never happened. Now I don't want to turn this into a liberal verses conservative rant but the ones responsible for our security during the 1990's was the Democrats. Clinton was our Commander In Chief. His security policies let Bin Laden and his cronies languish in Afghanistan and hatch plans to kill us and many other people. Clinton knew he was a threat because he tried to kill him with a few cruise missiles while he was in office. One well placed CIA sniper during the 1990's would have saved the world a whole lot of grief. The fact 9-11 occurred makes me think their (Democrats) way of dealing with terrorists was not effective. Leaving them alone got us nothing but 3,000 dead people in a matter of hours. I think many people see it this way too. 9-11 was the price we paid for Clinton ignoring terrorist threats and castrating the CIA. To me, it is a clear black and white issue. One thing I know as an indisputable fact is it is better to fight a war on your enemy's soil than your own. I'm a firm believer in taking it to them so they can't get to us here. I think that in the days after 9-11 most of us expected to be attacked numerous times over the last four years. Now we can all guess why we haven't been hit but you can't deny that part of the reason is that we have kept the terrorists busy in the Middle East. I think this is exactly why Bush went into Iraq. He wanted to make a situation that would attract terrorists and draw them into a conflict with our military. Since Saddam promoted terrorism he was also part of the overall problem. No one can deny that he needed to go away for a multitude of reasons. Bush put it all on the line when he went into Iraq and I think in his mind it was a vital step in protecting the country. He knew it could prevent him from being re-elected and took the gamble. I know many people don't like what Bush has done in the war on terror but many of those people hated him before he took office and they were itching to politicize the war at the first opportunity. If Bush was Clinton, the Democrats would be swinging the war hatchet with wild abandon getting every political benefit they could, just like Bush has. They gave Clinton a free pass on Kosovo. If Bush had done it they would have tried to crucify him like they are now. As for what percentage of the US population supports Bush all you need to do is look at his poll numbers regarding the overall job he has done fighting terrorism. They have been consistently high since 9-11. If you isolate parts of it, like the Iraq war, the numbers drop but overall he gets good marks. Now I think the reason for this is that most people know that war is a hit and miss proposition. While he hasn't made 100% right decisions most people feel he is working in the country's best interest and he means business when it come to killing the people who are out to kill us and that is what the majority of us want him to do. I think many of us have forgotten that the terrorists we are fighting want to wipe us off the face of the earth. If they could they would detonate nuclear warheads in every city in the US and not feel a bit of guilt. They want to do far more to us than Hitler ever planned. They are very serious about killing us. Serious enough to kill themselves to get the job done. I haven't forgotten this and neither has Bush. IMO, that is why he will never let up on them. One last point, when I hear people say they feel deceived by Bush I look back at history and ask "What President didn't use some amount of deception at the start of a war?" Roosevelt was a master at it prior to WWII. Johnson did it with Vietnam. Truman did it with Korea. What makes this war any different? Bush saw a threat that, in his opinion, needed dealt with. No president goes to war without selling it to the public. The country had a chance to judge him during the last election. He was re-elected. Did he use the war for political benefit? Yes he did. Did the Democrats use the war for political benefit? Yes they did. I guess they are even then. > The question that people ask themselves is: "Are we better off now > than we were before?" I certainly believe that the country is _not_ > better off now. In no particular order, we're basically hated around > the world, we've got the worst debt we've ever seen, we're in a war > that was started for dubious reasons and has no end in sight, and > we've got a president that's trying to dismantle Social Security. How much has the value of your home increased since Bush has been in office? Around here most homes have nearly doubled in value. Is home ownership at an all time high? Yes it is. Is it at an all time high among minorities? Yes it is. Am I making more money than I was 5 years ago? Yes I am. Has inflation been in check for the last five years? Yes it has. Has interest rates been at historic lows the last five years? Yes they have. Have people greatly reduced their mortgage payments through refinancing during the last five years? Yes they have. Did Bush inherit a recession when he took office? Yes he did. Are we in a recession now? No we are not. Not everything is perfect but we are far from circling the economic drain. The debt we have now, as a percentage of GDP, is not the worst we have seen and it is much lower than most other advanced countries. Check out this link: http://tinyurl.com/8vpfd It shows tax revenues are increasing far beyond expectations. Imagine that, taxes were cut and tax revenues are up. Maybe Bush wasn't just blowing hot air campaigning in the last election. As for dismantling Social Security that isn't the plan Bush is promoting. Every person has the choice to keep the status quo or put a portion of their withholding into a private account. If your son would have that option, over his life span he would get a far, far better return on his money verses what he would see from the government. Chile made private accounts available to their citizens years and years ago and in the beginning very few signed up for it. The ones that did had much more money to retire on than those that didn't. Now over 90% of the work force signs up for the private accounts. If it worked in Chile I can't see why it wouldn't work here. one of my biggest gripes with Democrats is they think they know how to spend our money better than we do. They want us dependent on the government and the best way to accomplish it is to tax the hell out of us and make the government the sole provider for vital services such as health care and retirement checks. > I'd say there are at least a few damn good reasons why a lot of people > are upset with this guy. Reasons can be found to dislike anybody. Look what they came up with for Jesus Christ. Damn, Joe, I spent WWWAAYYY too much time posting this response. |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Forza Car List | Rob Berryhill | Simulators | 19 | May 7th 05 11:37 PM |
toyota celsior modified Nissan infinity sale Japan UK car exporter aero | japancar | Driving | 0 | March 11th 05 06:06 AM |
Question about engine oil sludge | Bill D | Chrysler | 42 | January 7th 05 03:07 AM |
Toyota Engine Oil Sludge | Charlene Blake | General | 0 | October 19th 04 04:59 AM |
ALERT TO TOYOTA OWNERS | Charlene Blake | General | 0 | January 15th 04 02:50 PM |