Some perspective ...

2minkey said:
that would be a ridiculous assumption given what's been happening lately. try gain.
Click to expand...

You shoulda kept your mouth shut on that one. I knew that someone would make that idiotic argument; but if the numbers go up the average goes up. While that is happening, the monetary number stays the same. Guess what happens then. The amount of the dole goes DOWN. That means that the premise -- that the money would go "pretty damned far" -- is even more flawed

So take my lower numbers of recipients and enjoy the higher dole because that will go "pretty damned far" ... ya know?
 
MrBishop said:
Only you would think that I'm actually talking about giving people below the property line a yearly cheque. :rolleyes:

How about... taking that money and...er...building better schools, and teaching better teachers to keep kids in school. How about job training programs for the adults? Shelters? Food banks? Drug-rehab centres?

You spent $1T dollars.... roughly 30% in horribly expensive smart bombs to destroy dirt-cheap stupid buildings, 30% in salary and 30% rebuilding all the shit you blew up in the first place. :cocktail:

That's a lot of money for assassinating a dictator.
Click to expand...

My post HERE was specifically about the amount spent PER PERSON, not the amount spent per infrastructure project.

When you stated, with the post referenced above quoted in your post, that the money would have gone "pretty damned far" here as well one could only take from that that you were arguing for a similar PER PERSON amount for those below the poverty line.

Next time, be more clear that you are taking the debate away from the stated premise and carrying it into a new realm. In the absence of same, do not tell those who you are responding to that they are the problem.
 
randomJACKASS said:
The fact that you are ignoring Jim is that enough Islamic factions in Iraq oppose a US style democracy and are willing and equipped enough that it won't last a year after we are gone. What, are we supposed to stay forever? Perhaps make it the 51st state? The warfare is different because it's an entirely different geographical region, but it's Vietnam all over again except that Iraqi dissidents aren't getting so much support externally as the North Vietnamese. I'd just about bet money as soon as we let go, and we do have to, that the government of Iraq is tossed out in favor of an Islamic theocracy, in no more than a year or less. No matter what we do we will not force these people into our way of thinking. It is useless and futile to try. You can throw out all the numbers you want, but in the end those people will have whatever government the want and are willing to die for.

It is not the neat picture you Bush apologists wish to portray. I know, personally, people who have worked in Iraq, and everything I have seen and heard from the suggests it is not going to end peacefully, EVER!

If only we would use good old American ingenuity, and I am still convinced we have some of the best minds the world over, we could create renewable energy sources and greatly reduce, and eventually end our dependence on foreign oil. Hell I think it's in the oil companies best interests to get in on that. The trouble is that it would create jobs and create wealth and if the big oil folks were not in on it, it would ruin them. They have too much money and power and influence to let that happen yet. Pray God that changes or I guarantee you things will only get worse!
Click to expand...

We'll hold you to that a year after the Messiah marches the troops out of there.
 
spike said:
Oh you want to bicker about numbers and think that's going to change something? :laugh:
Click to expand...

You were the one who brought up phony numbers you have yet to document.

spike said:
Jim, whatever source you use the number of dead and displaced Iraqis is massive.
Click to expand...

"Massive" is not a number nor is it link to your proof of the 100s of thousands of dead Iraqis and the millions of displaced Iraqis.

spike said:
So you really have no point here.
Click to expand...

BAAAWK! Polly want a cracker! BAAAWK!

spike said:
The Iraq debacle was never about freedom for Iraqis, you know that. It was about the threat of WMDs and they were wrong as hell. It was one of the biggest blunders in recent history.
Click to expand...

Wrong because a Democrat administration made laws that hamstrung our own intel gatherers so that we were forced to depend on foreign intel. By the way, the Brits STILL stand behind their intel as accurate.

spike said:
Like I said if it was about freedom we wouldn't have continously ignored the will of the Iraqi people for years now. Not too mention ignoring the will of the US troops and US citizens.
Click to expand...

Them why are the Iraqi people, with few exceptions, so happy with the result? Why are people like you so unhappy with the result? What do you have against those people enjoying the same freedoms you do? Oh, yeah, its because you can;t stand the fact that George Bush was successful.

spike said:
You've got nothing.
Click to expand...

What I don't have is a visceral hatred of someone for nothing more than their party affiliation; or the fact that they did something good for which I am unwilling to give them credit.
 
jimpeel said:
You shoulda kept your mouth shut on that one. I knew that someone would make that idiotic argument; but if the numbers go up the average goes up. While that is happening, the monetary number stays the same. Guess what happens then. The amount of the dole goes DOWN. That means that the premise -- that the money would go "pretty damned far" -- is even more flawed

So take my lower numbers of recipients and enjoy the higher dole because that will go "pretty damned far" ... ya know?
Click to expand...

i never mentioned your "dole." my comment referred simply to the assumption of stasis in a highly dynamic environment. that is always a bad assumption.

also, you are a *very nice man.*
 
jimpeel said:
My post HERE was specifically about the amount spent PER PERSON, not the amount spent per infrastructure project.

When you stated, with the post referenced above quoted in your post, that the money would have gone "pretty damned far" here as well one could only take from that that you were arguing for a similar PER PERSON amount for those below the poverty line.

Next time, be more clear that you are taking the debate away from the stated premise and carrying it into a new realm. In the absence of same, do not tell those who you are responding to that they are the problem.
Click to expand...
May I remind you that you were the one who decided to split the total to give a per capita amount..not I. I'm not even talking per project amounts...but as a grand sum. $1T. Used as a local investment, as opposed to a foreign expenditure.
 
jimpeel said:
You were the one who brought up phony numbers you have yet to document.
Click to expand...

Whatever source you would like to use the numbers are going to be massive Jim. You're merely making a transparent attempt to sidetrack things.

"Massive" is not a number nor is it link to your proof of the 100s of thousands of dead Iraqis and the millions of displaced Iraqis.
Click to expand...

Let's see Jim, how many dead and displaced Iraqis do you think there are? I'd be more than happy to discuss your numbers as it's not going to change the point in the least.

http://www.opinion.co.uk/Newsroom_details.aspx?NewsId=78

"At least five million Iraqis have fled their homes due to the violence under the U.S.-led occupation, but half of them are unable to leave the country, according to well-informed estimates."

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=39921

"As of September 2007, there were believed to be well over 4 million displaced Iraqis around the world"

http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/home/opendoc.pdf?tbl=SUBSITES&id=470387fc2


You've got no point.

Wrong because a Democrat administration made laws that hamstrung our own intel gatherers so that we were forced to depend on foreign intel. By the way, the Brits STILL stand behind their intel as accurate.
Click to expand...

Wrong, because the republican admins were desperately trying to come up with an excuse to invade Iraq no matter how tenuous. They knew the intel was suspect.

Got a link to the Brits still standing behind the intel?

Them why are the Iraqi people, with few exceptions, so happy with the result?
Click to expand...

So few exceptions? You got to be kidding me. :laugh:

Polls of Iraqis for years now have shown that they haven't approved of the invasion, supported attacks on US troops, and have wanted us to get the fuck out. Are you fucking blind?

Why are people like you so unhappy with the result?
Click to expand...

Umnn...massive numbers of dead and displaced Iraqis. Iraqis want us out. Troops want us out. American people want us out. There were no WMDs. Iraq was no threat to us. Gigantic waste of taxpayer money. Complete failure by the people in charge of the invasion.

Duh.

What do you have against those people enjoying the same freedoms you do?
Click to expand...

They don't. In fact it's people like you who are against their freedom. Otherwise you'd pay attention when the majority of them say they want the US to get the fuck out of their country for years on end. What do you have against their freedom?

Oh, yeah, its because you can;t stand the fact that George Bush was successful.
Click to expand...

:rofl3:

There's no danger of that. Bush was an utter failure in just about everything he did and his botched Iraq policies and the mess he created there aren't any different.

What I don't have is a visceral hatred of someone for nothing more than their party affiliation; or the fact that they did something good for which I am unwilling to give them credit.
Click to expand...

What you don't have is a logical argument. What you do have is a visceral hatred for people for nothing more than their party affiliation.
 
2minkey said:
i never mentioned your "dole." my comment referred simply to the assumption of stasis in a highly dynamic environment. that is always a bad assumption.
Click to expand...

I knew the numbers had to be higher in this economy but lacking any official numbers to work with I simply used the static number. I also knew that this would inflate the amount of the dole to the recipients.

2minkey said:
also, you are a *very nice man.*
Click to expand...

Glad you got that. I hope all is well.
 
jimpeel said:
Actually, I already gave it to you. Try reading the last quoted segment in the post that I referenced (Part 503) HERE and which I gave you a link. Nothing new about your not reading what you are given.
Click to expand...

You gave me some quotes about "seeking uranium" from years ago which is not proof that the Brits still stand behind the intel.

Even if the Brits said they stand behind the intel today I'm not sure what you think that would prove. Considering that "seeking uranium" would hardly be a justification for the subsequent debacle. Also considering the administration was told by our own intelligence agencies that this claim was likely false.

So, no matter which way you look at it you have no rational argument here.

It is good to see you admit the invasion was about a bogus WMD threat though. So some progress has been made.
 
spike said:
You gave me some quotes about "seeking uranium" from years ago which is not proof that the Brits still stand behind the intel.

Even if the Brits said they stand behind the intel today I'm not sure what you think that would prove. Considering that "seeking uranium" would hardly be a justification for the subsequent debacle. Also considering the administration was told by our own intelligence agencies that this claim was likely false.

So, no matter which way you look at it you have no rational argument here.

It is good to see you admit the invasion was about a bogus WMD threat though. So some progress has been made.
Click to expand...

It makes me wonder why BJ Clinton was so adamant that Sodamn Insane was making WMDs.
 
Frodo said:
It makes me wonder why BJ Clinton was so adamant that Sodamn Insane was making WMDs.
Click to expand...

Was he right or wrong there Frodo?

Yeah, right. I'm sure that you believe that the Brits, after having been found to have submitted credible intel in the Report from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, then said "No, wait, we were wrong after all."
Click to expand...

Hey Jim, I'm not sure what point you're trying for here. It looks like you've conceded on every facet except you'd like to hold onto the idea that the Brits once thought Saddam "sought Uranium". Is that all we have left? Not really sure how important that point would be.
 
spike said:
Hey Jim, I'm not sure what point you're trying for here. It looks like you've conceded on every facet except you'd like to hold onto the idea that the Brits once thought Saddam "sought Uranium". Is that all we have left? Not really sure how important that point would be.
Click to expand...

Only a raging idiot would believe that someone who has been exonerated of having produced inaccurate intel would not accept that exoneration and would, instead, discontinue their belief in that intel.

They still believe the intel was credible and accurate and the Report from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence bears that out.

You can WISH that they have changed their minds about that but you know the old saying ... Wish in one hand and shit in the other and see which one fills up first.
 
jimpeel said:
Only a raging idiot would believe that someone who has been exonerated of having produced inaccurate intel would not accept that exoneration and would, instead, discontinue their belief in that intel.

They still believe the intel was credible and accurate and the Report from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence bears that out.

You can WISH that they have changed their minds about that but you know the old saying ... Wish in one hand and shit in the other and see which one fills up first.
Click to expand...

Only a total douchebag dipshit would take a report from 5 years ago and claim it was proof of a current stance.

And it would take a complete moron of epic proportions to claim that the Brits think Saddam may "have sought" uranium as an excuse for this debacle of an invasion when our own intelligence agencies thought it was crap.

Kinda have yourself backed into a corner here. But at least you gave up trying to portray the war as being about Iraqi freedom so some progress was made.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top