War on terror v. War in Iraq

Is there anyone left believing that they are the same battle?

Are we fighting terrorists in Iraq? Its been well over a year since were led to believe there might be a connection and we have heard NOTHING remotely supporting that assertion since. Oh wait...there was a mural. The big terrorist connection is a mural

My feeling is that those troops could be put to better use rooting out Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan, judging by what I've seen on the news lately we are critically undermanned in that region, at least in terms of accomplishing the objective. IMO, prosecuting the war in Iraq has shifted the focus off of the 'war on terror' and made us more vulnerable as a result.

In a post-9/11 world, that is inexcusable.

Crazy, whacko, radical, communist, socialist stuff huh?

The war on terror or the war against radical Islam is global and it is a war pitting the culture of those who value life and those who value death. Draw a line in the sand anywhere on the globe you want. If you don 't agree there is a war as I simplified it then it wouldn't matter if it was Iraq , Iran , Syria or Afghanistan or even New York City....You would be against it. Standing up and fighting is much tougher than hiding. After 9/11 we obviously cannot hide in our own country anymore. Convert to Islam and give up on Israel and you might win some friends but I bet they would still ultimately kill you and your family if they had half a chance.

so then you are saying the war is not against 'terror' it is against 'radical islam'?

Certainly not how it was billed now, is it?

Grandpa,

You're not suggesting that we take on the whole middle east, are you?

Only the radical islamists who interpret their religion to mean they must kill all infidels (us) and become martyrs. The facist regime in Iran is very unpopular with the citizens of Iran and a pluralistic new free society in Iraq might send a message to the Imams to move on and leave their country to the people. Giving in to the terroists now would surely prolong the war on terror for many more uneccesary years. Sucking up to the terrorists will also ultimately get us killed.

Well there is a video playing on Islamic TV that shows masked killers ,one claiming to be a high ranking Al Queda scumbag , chopping the head of a US civilian in Iraq. Maybe thats a little clue of what we are dealing with. I know it;s easy to sit 3000 miles from the WTC and many thousands of miles from the middle East and imagine that everything will work itself out. Those days have been over for a long time. Rumsfeld said it well some time ago. The only way to stop terrorist is to kill more than you make. Watch that video and then tell me how you feel.

Why does the video upset you king? Wasn't it you who said there are more drunk driving deaths in the US every year than US lives lost in Iraq so far? What's one more overseas war death to you?

I would treat drunk drivers and terrorist the same because they are the same. You would have a 1000 shades of grey between the two and 50 yeras of talk about the problem as well.

I watched it and feel even more strongly that Bush, Rumsfeld, et al, put us into a situation that they have no clue how to get us out of. They've exasperated a situation that the US could have handled with significant less loss of life and the billions spent used to increase the security here at home.

So, some al Qaeda are scumbag because they killed an American prisoner. Is that how you feel about the US soldiers that have killed 25 Iraqi prisoners? Remember, there are no shades of grey.

GH,

Yes killing unarmed captives makes anyone a scumbag. Did you forget about Daniel Pearl? That was in Pakistan , how about in Isreal or should we go all the way back to the Olympics? Gh you can justify their actions all you want by blaming Bush etc it just continues to make it more than clear that you have no clue what the issues are and what we are up against.

The only thing becoming clearer with each post is your clouded thought process. Maybe some of that organic food you're living on is psilocybin.

My career keeps me pretty much intune with what we're really up against and what the real issues are. And that's all I got to say 'bout that.

"My career keeps me pretty much intune with what we're really up against and what the real issues are. And that's all I got to say 'bout that"

Is that kinda like Kerrys foreign leaders endorsement there Forrest Gump?

You know, I think everyone needs to take their partisan hats off and think about what needs to be done here. I was truly impressed on Friday by Senetor Lieberman, who had the courage to say during the hearing on prison fiasco, "After 9-11, the terrorists didn't appologize for the deaths that they caused." While we need to follow due process and get after those who willfully violated military standards during the "interrigations," as John McCain has said many times, "we need to hold ourselves to a higher standard" than the terrorists to maintain what America stands for, we must not lose sight that we are at war with the terrorists.

Now, the discussion is rapidly turning to whether we need a draft because of what a huge drain this war in Iraq is on our resources. I forget the General's name, who publically said that we needed more troups from the outset of the Iraq war and was relieved of command by Wolfowitz and company, but the point is we are where we are and we need a long term strategy as to the best way to handle the Iraq War and the terrorists. If we had done better planning for the after Sadam phase that we are in, quite possibly events like what happened in the prison could have been prevented.

My personal belief is that had we not invaded Iraq and used a more selective approach with Special Forces and the like, that we would be making faster progress than what is currently happening. But since we can't go back and undo this, we now have an escallating war in Iraq and even more invigotrated terrorist network to deal with.

Jeff,

Great points. I think we need to back this thing 100% as a country or walk away and accept what happens and deal with it. This second guessing at all levels is causing problems. In WWII we knew who our enemy was. In vietnam and the war on terror it's hard for people to tell.

"Only the radical islamists who interpret their religion to mean they must kill all infidels (us) and become martyrs. The facist regime in Iran is very unpopular with the citizens of Iran and a pluralistic new free society in Iraq might send a message to the Imams to move on and leave their country to the people. Giving in to the terroists now would surely prolong the war on terror for many more uneccesary years. Sucking up to the terrorists will also ultimately get us killed."

Iran is the perfect example of how to work to change a regime using western ideals. THE most powerful way to choke out terrorism at its root....

Isolate them, sanction them.

Tell them clearly where they need to be to join the rest of the world at the table...

When sufficient progress is made diplomatically...

Bring in the west to educate (this is critical) and medicate them, building trust with the youngest generation.

Let bubble for fifty years...

In Iran it helps that that the parents of the youth now 'rebelling' were raised under western influence.

Iraq has never had that benefit. We have created a situation there that allows the Imams of which you speak to paint us as bullies. By occupying them WE CREATED THAT SITUATION AND NO ONE IN THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION WILL ADMIT THAT!!

The clerics have been making those statements since Isreal became a state. They just turned up the volume recently. No liberal looking to blame someone will admit that.

you are wrong.

anyone that pays attention to the news knows that this is what radical islam has been saying for far longer than Israel has been a state.

we lanced that boil when we decided to invade Iraq assuming we could contain the infection.

we were wrong.

H20,

You are way confused. Who ever said that Iraq would end Islamic terrorism? Show me some quotes. I remember Bush saying it was a part of a long greater war on terror. Anyone that thought for a minute that invading Iraq would do anything but inflame Islam needs to check into Western State. Invading Iraq was just walking up and whacking the beehive with a stick. Showing moderate( if you can call fence sitters moderates) that there is a choice vs living under the thumb of whabbi clerics and despotic dictators was a parallel goal. The terrorists and their supporters are not in one palce under one flag( execpt Isalm) and we will have to whack a few more bee hives to get them out in the open before its all said and done. It's just starting not in the middle or the end as you fools think. Walking away or not admiting it only helps them as they want one thing The US and it's allies gone from the historical boundries of the Ottoman empire and Isreal from the face of the earth. Not going to happen so get used to it. Scary Kerry may be foolin the left into thinking he can negotiate this thing but all he is doing is delaying the pain and allowing them to set the terms and picking the battlefield. Hard to do when you have to hide in a different hole everynight because Uncle Sam is peeking over the ridge with night vision and the death ray as they call it.

'us fools'

good stuff and straight from the heart no doubt.

keep that stuff up, please. it makes 'the right' look like SUCH uniters.

:rolleyes:

Elvis, I'm afraid you're quite alone in your assessment and evaluation of the situation. Even to the neocons, I believe.

Of course, when dumbya runs out of reasons for the invasion, he just may latch onto yours and you can feel some vindication then.

Harley,

If Bush came out and told the truth of what we really face in respect to our Islamic foes he would essentially start a global conflict. It would be easier to lauch massive strikes just before he said it. We do not have the military manpower or a population with the stomach for such a pronouncement. So until we toughen up a bit we just have to hear the sanitized version. "Islam is not our enemy" while we move the pieces to contain and control that not offically recognized enemy. Tiem will bear me out on this one I promise.

NUKE IRAN!!!

Better yet we can allow the Isrealis to go in and whack anyone in Iran,Syria etc that has supported terrorism for a little payback. Then we just keep doing it until they "get their minds right"

And who's gonna hold Israel accountable for its terrorism?

Comrade Harley,

Look up terrorism in the dictionary. It's not terrorism to defend yourself.

Try this:

Count the civilian women and children killed by terrorist acts against Israelies.

Total = ?

Now count the civilian women and children kiled by "terrorist" acts against Palistinians.

Total = ?

Note - only count women and children - not terrorist \ military personnel.

AM,

Well since the perps of 911 were Saudi and lebanese would you have support invading them? It is very very very clear we are in a different time and place Re: national security. Because of that all the answers are not as clear as they may have been in the past. You have less proof that Iraq was not a direct threat to the US than we have that they were by the actions of Sadam. PS the Iraqi people are responsible for the S*&Thole their country became and bear full resposibility for Sadam. I know thats not PC in a area of the world that thrives on victimization as a defense.

Anyone remember this speach immediately following 9/11:

Cutting just a few sections....

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

THE PRESIDENT: I've asked the highest levels of our government to come to discuss the current tragedy that has so deeply affected our nation. Our country mourns for the loss of life and for those whose lives have been so deeply affected by this despicable act of terror.
I am going to describe to our leadership what I saw: the wreckage of New York City, the signs of the first battle of war.
We're going to meet and deliberate and discuss - but there's no question about it, this act will not stand; we will find those who did it; we will smoke them out of their holes; we will get them running and we'll bring them to justice. We will not only deal with those who dare attack America, we will deal with those who harbor them and feed them and house them.
Make no mistake about it: underneath our tears is the strong determination of America to win this war. And we will win it.
I'm going to ask the Secretary of State to say a few things, and then the Attorney General.
SECRETARY POWELL: Thank you, Mr. President. I might just say that I'm very pleased with the response we've been getting from the international community. I think every civilized nation in the world recognizes that this was an assault not just against the United States, but against civilization.
We should also take note, it's not just Americans who lost lives in the World Trade Center - dozens of countries lost lives and they realize that this was an attack against them, as well.
We are receiving expressions of support from around the world - and not just rhetorical support, but real support for whatever may lay ahead in this campaign that is ahead of us to win the war that the President has spoken of.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Q Sir, what do you say to Americans who are worried that the longer it takes to retaliate, the more chance the perpetrators have to escape and hide and just escape justice?
THE PRESIDENT: They will try to hide, they will try to avoid the United States and our allies - but we're not going to let them. They run to the hills; they find holes to get in. And we will do whatever it takes to smoke them out and get them running, and we'll get them.
Listen, this is a great nation; we're a kind people. None of us could have envisioned the barbaric acts of these terrorists. But they have stirred up the might of the American people, and we're going to get them, no matter what it takes.
++++++++++++++++++++++++

In my radio address today I explained to the American people that this effort may require patience. But we're going to -
Q How long -
THE PRESIDENT: As long as it takes. And it's not just one person. We're talking about those who fed them, those who house them, those who harbor terrorists will be held accountable for this action.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Q How long do you envision -
THE PRESIDENT: The definition is whatever it takes.

Here's some further info I "cut and stole":

David Kay's report said we hadn't found "stockpiles" of WMDs in Iraq, but we have found:

chemical and biological weapons systems, plans, "recipes" and equipment, all of which could have resumed production on a moment's notice with Saddam's approval;

reference strains of a wide variety of biological-weapons agents (found in the home of a prominent Iraqi biological warfare scientist);

new research on brucella and Congo-Crimean hemorrhagic fever, and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin;

a prison laboratory complex for testing biological weapons on humans;

long-range missiles (prohibited by United Nations (news - web sites) resolutions) suitable for delivering WMDs;

documents showing Saddam tried to obtain long-range ballistic missiles from North Korea (news - web sites);

facilities for manufacturing fuel propellant useful only for prohibited Scud-variant missiles.

Did this admin lie about WMDs? If so, look who else did too:

(cut and stole this too)

+++++++++++++++++++++++


"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998-Truth!
This was a quote from President Clinton during a presentation at the Pentagon defending a decision to conduct military strikes against Iraq.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear.
We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998-Truth!
Bill Clinton went to the Pentagon on this occasion to be briefed by top military officials about Iraq and weapons of mass destruction.
His remarks followed that briefing.

"Iraq is a long way from USA but, what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998-Truth!
This is a quote from Albright during an appearance at Ohio State University by Albright, who was Secretary of State for Bill Clinton.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998-Truth!
This was at the same Ohio State University appearance as Madeline Albright.
"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.Constitution and Laws, to take necessary actions, (including, if appropriate,
air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction
programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998-Truth!
According to the U.S. Senate website, the text of this letter was signed by several Senators, both Democrat and Republican, including Senator John McCain and Joseph Lieberman.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998-Truth!
The text of this statement by Nancy Pelosi is posted on her congressional website.

"Hussein has .. chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999-Truth!
This was from an appearance Albright made in Chicago.
She was addressing the embargo of Iraq that was in effect at the time and criticism that it may have prevented needed medical supplies from getting into the country. Albright said, "There has never been an embargo against food and medicine. It's just that Hussein has just not chosen to spend his money on that. Instead, he has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction, and palaces for his cronies."

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs
continue a pace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001Truth!
The only letter with this quote from December 5, 2001 that we could find did not include the participation of Senator Bob Graham, but it was signed nine other senators including Democrat Joe Lieberman.
It urged President Bush to take quicker action against Iraq.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002-Truth!
These were remarks from Senator Levin to a Senate committee on that date.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002-Truth!
This and the quote below was part of prepared remarks for a speech in San Francisco to The Commonwealth Club.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002-Truth!

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002-Truth!
Part of a speech he gave at Johns Hopkins.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998.
We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities.
Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002-Truth!
On the floor of the Senate during debate over the resolution that would authorize using force against Iraq.
He was urging caution about going to war and commented that even though there was confidence about the weapons in Iraq, there had not been the need to take military action for a number of years and he asked why there would be the need at that point.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002-Truth!
Senator Kerry's comments were made to the Senate as part of the same debate over the resolution to use force against Saddam Hussein.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated
the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002-Truth!
Senator Rockefeller's statements were a part of the debate over using force against Saddam Hussein.

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his
chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002-Truth!
Senator Waxman's contribution to the Senate debate over going to war.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological
weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program.
He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002-Truth!
Senator Clinton acknowledged the threat of Saddam Hussein but said she did not feel that using force at that time was a good option.

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his
continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction
So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan.23.2003-Truth!
In a speech to Georgetown University.

Here's another cut and steal:

++++++++++++++++++

Finally, a Clinton-appointed federal judge, U.S. District Court judge Harold Baer, has made a legal finding that Iraq was behind the 9-11 attacks -- a ruling upheld by the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals last October. When some judge discovers a right to gay marriage in a 200-year-old document written by John Adams, Americans are forced to treat the decision like the God-given truth. But when a federal judge issues a decision concluding that Iraq was behind the 9-11 attacks, it is a "misperception" being foisted on the nation...

One more quote I just read on another site:

"and lets not forget bin ladens go-to guy who is apparently right in Iraq, killing americans gleefully on camera.. thats not an accident. "

SHHHHHHHHHHH! no sense ruining a perfectly good fantasy.

Aunty,

Shame on you! A complete lack of logic and an emotional respose. I expect better of you.

The Canada Mexico thing was way out there BTW.

AM - you may have missed my posts since a new page was started. Go back and take a look. Then let us know specifically what questions\issues you still have.

Your still missing the big picture here...

Iraq\Sadam used WMDs on hundreds of thousands of his own citizens.

Iraq\Sadam supported and harbored terrorists.

Iraq\Sadam and the terrorist groups he has harbored and supported have been trying to aquire nuclear devices and other WMD related things from N.Korea and other places.

Nearly everyone in the world considered Iraq a threat and an aggressor.

It wasn't until the US actually took action that people\leaders\countries flip flopped.

We may yet find solid evidence (there are some indicators \leads being investigated at this point) of payoffs from Sadam to European nations like France and UN members and Inspectors - including money involved in the so called "food for oil" program.

Ect ect...

AM,

This says it all about emotionalism "Not to mention I am still pissed about the hatchery/wild designation." Nothing been inked and the process has hardly started to run but everyone on the otherside is guilty. Sounds familiar? Do as I say but not as I do?

The libs hate this kind of linal reasoning but what the heck here goes. if you do not belive in doing anything with out provocation or preemptively then why eat healty,Exercise, get vaccinations, have insurance ,put locks on your doors etc. All these things should require proof by action that they are needed. It seems that we require two separarte sets of standards of proof to take action in our lives. One for them and one for me. Please show me how I am wrong.

Buying auto insurance and eating healthy is the same as going to war.


Stop.......stop........I can't take it.

All Pre-emptive action Dan .

You could make a case for a premptive strike against about 2 dozen countries then, couldn't you?

wow...... you go AM!

Geeeez Aunty you no nothing about me but you draw so many conclusions. That goes against your own logic.

I can name 5 widows in my immeadiate family that are such to defend your right to call me names via that very computer. Don't tell me about sacrifice my family is in the 4th generation of it.

Dan,

Yes you sure can. it would not be a smart thing to do. So you have to try alternative strategies until your hand is forced. If you look at the grass roots movement that is driving what they call "radical Islam" it presents a big problem. Not counting NK. You have to remember this movement has called for a return to the historical boundries of the Ottoman empire and the destruction of Isreal. That means a big chunck of real estate would have to be converted to Islamic states. This is not a new idea and is based on religous interpretation and is 200+ years old. It cannot be negotiated our bought out to appease those driving the movement. It is not just Osama he is just the first face we will see. It is bigger than most can imagine and will last our lifetime.

AM,

Thank you for revealing your true character.

wow take a chill pill and go back to being just a fat cow

I don't disagree. I personally believe our all-out effort should have been focused on Afghanistan and wiping out Al Qaeda, rather than invading Iraq. I believe that Saddam was a threat only to his neighbors in the Middle East.

I don't believe our hand was forced by Hussein. I believe Bush played the hand he had in mind, ignoring the other cards already on the table. The bad thing is, he's betting Americans' lives, not poker chips.

Dan,

I can see your point. And could agree with that course as well from the outside looking in. I can only assume that he had more info and reason to take the course he did. History has shown America to always atempt to do the right thing. It has not always worked out that way in the end but it started that way. I believe that in this case as well.

I just hope things turn around and work out for us in the end. The middle east seems to be a quagmire that draws you in, but doesn't let you out.

The Soviet commander of troops in Afghanistan said it pretty well. "Afghanistan is easy to get in to...........it's much harder to get out of." I think the same could be said of Iraq.

I'm hoping for the best, though.

They LET it happen???? Just like the Jews let Hitler kill them, right? What's your point? My point is that he HAD and USED WMDs.

If you add up the total Iraqi casualties per month or year since the war, then compare that number to the number of Iraqis killed by Saddam while he was in power, you'll see that the Iraqi people have been much more safe with Saddam gone.

Again, you have to use all the data. Other counrties do have parts of the equation, but you have to start with the worst offender first. Who knows, maybe Syria is next. But then again, maybe they'll make the smart choice and work with us like Lybia has been doing recently:
Libya Agrees to End Military Trade With North Korea, Syria, Iran

The UN did not support our actions but they were in agreement that Iraq was a threat. But appently some countries, like France for example, don't actually understand how to follow through with a threat\promise. They're idea of 'handling the situation' is something like "Stop, or I'll say "Stop" again!!". Also, if you think the UN isn't corruptable, practically impotent, and largely 'anti-american', then you need to double check your history...

The flip flop is what many of the the US Polititians, media, and foreign leaders did once they realized Bush meant business. Iraq went from 'serious threat' to 'victim' quicker than...

We posses those weapons, as do many of the countries that make up the UN. Do you sleep well at night knowing that the US has nukes? How about Russia or China? North Korea? What if we find out that Bin Ladin actually got his hands on some 'dirty bombs' or other nucular devices that could show up in any major or minor port and city accross the country?? The war on terror is an effort to stop that from happening.

No, we are at war. We have never targeted civilians as the terrorists have. They use them as sheilds, and that is unfortunate. But we've done a great job of keeping civilians out of harms way considering the tight quarters and wide use of human sheilds. But I'll be sure and send along your condemnation to our troops on the ground and let them know that they are just 'low life terrorists' and they won't be welcome back here....

AuntyM for President!

I have one simple threshold that I hold to whether this war is justified. Would I send my sons to fight this Iraq war and the answer is "HELL NOOOOOO." Thank God, they are too young or this Hawking president would suck them over there to fight his ilconceived grudge match.

PP you can spin this all you want but this Adminsistration said there were (2) primary reasons for going to war.

(1) WMD.
(2) links to terrorists and Alchieda.

As time has gone on and the 1st (2) haven't panned out (not one shred of concrete proof has been provided), additional ones keep gettting added, like "to remove a brutal dicator." We'll, Iim sorry, but that's not worth my son's dying for!!!

If there were actual links to terrorists it would be different. But there aint!

an example of our overexposure based on my own 'intel'...

Iran may have the bomb.

They have the opportunity to deliver the bomb on the ground through a Shi'a network....

...How many troops are in or around Baghdad again?? Who is Iraq's biggest enemy in the region besides the US?

AuntyM....

...please tell me you've changed your vote or are at least thinking about it. If not, I'd be curious to know why....

I'd still like to address the major point of this thread with anyone willing....is the war in Iraq the same as the war on terror and if not, what are we doing there?

I'm not excited about Kerry either.

The thing is, I could vote for someone conservative if they ditched some of their baggage.

After all, I DID vote for senior the first time.

How's this for a power play...Powell switches parties in 2006 no matter the outcome of this election. He could run against and beat Kerry in the primaries and steal a huge piece of the pretty solid righty voting block....

First black president and first challenger to beat an incumbent president in the primaries all in one.

I ain't holding my breath on Kerry winning, though.

AM,

"TK, I don't want you dead..... your own comments make it appear that you would welcome it! You're PROUD of the widows in your family. "

Yes you do or you would not have said it. Yes proud that members of my family fought for their country. Sometimes you die for what you really believe in because living with out it is not worth it. You may not like to admit it but the price of your freedom was paid with blood. You owe it to those that sacrificed at least honor and respect.

They say you have to much when you forget how you came by it. We will have to agree to disagree because I can have no respect for someone that calls our country "terrorist". So it could only get ugly.

"white supremicist views"

I keep seeing you use that phrase. Do you have any idea what it means? I bet any guy here who use the phrase to discribe would welcome Condeleza Rice to run as VP with GW. Oh, wait. She's black, and a women! Where's my white sheet and pointy hat?? :rolleyes:

LOL - nice try...

Aunty M,

Way to go, you’ve captured most of my feelings in your posts in this thread, altho wishing TK dead was a foul, but I see how you qualified it - not that I’m OK with it, however. I didn’t know I’d feel this way, but I’m inclined to believe that our country should never allow chicken-hawks to conduct any war. I like your idea about Stormin’ Norman. The man’s a pro, and along with Colin Powell, are at least qualified to direct this sordid business.

H2O,

The war on terror and the war in Iraq couldn’t be more distinctly separate. Unfortunately, we are obligated - in my opinion - to leave Iraq in better shape than before we invaded it, and move on with the so-called war on terror.

I think the war on terror has been missing the most important analysis. Why are terrorists aiming at the U.S.? Other conservatives question patriotism and make other unthinking remarks every time the theme of what motivates anti-U.S. terrorism is mentioned. Trying to understand the cause of terrorism is not caving in to or appeasing terrorist. Rather, it is by understanding cause and effect relationships is how solutions are developed. Unfortunately, unless the root cause or causes of anti-U.S. terrorism are directly addressed, chicken-hawk Rummy is correct: we have to kill them faster than they can be produced and recruited. That, however, isn’t a realistic option.

I’d like to side-track a moment and look at the production/recruitment process. I’m told there are about a billion Muslims in the world. Although they outnumber the U.S., they know they could never defeat us, if truly they even have that interest in general - i.e., that nearly all Muslims harbor an interest in a world without the U.S. or other infidels. Given that, does anyone really believe that Muslim mothers and fathers are purposely raising their children as cannon fodder for an impossible war against the U.S.? Seems incredible to me. I only know a very few Muslims, and they are not radical at all. They’re only hipocritical in that they drink alcohol, and their religion forbids it. Otherwise they seem like me. Just want to raise and educate their kids and see them live useful and productive lives. They are not even anti-Jew; but they are anti-Israeli government for its terrorism of Palestinians. And they oppose the U.S.’ unwavering support of the Israeli government at the expense of the Palestinians. It seems like their values are rather similar to mine, except that I value fishing in a way they’ll never understand. The upshot is that producing and recruiting terrorists doesn’t show up on their value lists.

So if we fail to identify and directly address the root causes of anti-U.S. terrorism, what is the likelihood of making the U.S. as secure as we used to feel it was? My estimate is zero. Because it’s unrealistic to believe we can kill them faster than they can be produced and recruited.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Welcome back Salmo,

Since you brought up root cause, you can't divorse the politics of US support or non-support of Isreal. That's where our leadership and negotiation skills need to come into play to accomplish what you're talking about.

AM,

Another emotional response with out logic or responsibility.

AuntyM reveals her true identity at last:

Great post as usual Salmo...

Youve asked the key question. The answer I think lies in your description of the Muslims you know and why they bear resentment towards the united states.

To me its simple, at least to write. The US needs to get off its diplomatic high horse in Israel and exert some meaningful pressure on them to straighten a few things out...

Quit building settlements in Gaza or lose US $$. Establish a sovereign palestinian state by 2010. Hold them to it to the same degree that we held sadaam responsible for not having wmd's (that seemed to work in hindsight didn't it )...

Eventually someone has to be the better man, to take the philosophical high road as it were. Since we are America and we are always right I say why not us? (Waves flag)

Why shouldn't we have 'turned the other cheek' as I believe Jesus would have wanted us to do after 9/11? Why aren't we loving our enemies? How far would the 100B plus we are spending in Iraq to blow people up could we have spent in say, Lebanon or Gaza building kindergartens with western teachers and islamic culture? Hospitals anyone? Orphanages...win the trust and minds of the youth while still malleable and you are doing something meaningful to negate terrorism.

Invading a country merely because we don't like their leader is not a step down the road to peace.

Like it or not Americans we are in trouble for not practicing what we preach. When are we going to take responsibility for this as a nation?

I miss the udders.

Sounds pretty logical and unemotional to me. In fact, to do otherwise would be sheer hypocrisy.

Aunty you sure are dwelling on the white supremicist, bigot line.......A little anti-semitism is sneaking in but it is other members of the "dark side" slipping it in so I guess they will escape Darth's wrath....

I do like Archie Bunker.....If he were here he would say:

"Stifle Aunty...Stifle yourself!!!"

"Why shouldn't we have 'turned the other cheek' as I believe Jesus would have wanted us to do after 9/11? Why aren't we loving our enemies?"

H2O...you may not describe your anti-Christian/ anti-organized religion rants as hate but the above quote from your drivel shows the disdain you have for religion....Anyone who displays any sign of being religious is immediately branded as an extreme right wing moron...Your thinking being the "moderate" middle ground.

Actually you are not simply for separation of church and state but separation of church and everything and everybody...Whistle a BS tune with your typical twists and turns ....at the end of the day you seem to support religions that oppose the US and rail against anything that could support America or the politics you disagree with...Since alot of "Chrisitians" support republicans they must be insane and must be stopped...so your ilk are ranting and raving about what you call separation of church and state when you really are working to discredit religion and religious people and trying every chance you get to restrict the practice of the religions you do not like....

Witness your support of Islam and muslims. You must protect their right to worship the religion of death but scorn any religion of life. Since the islamists want to kill the Jews you are against them too....For the Palestinian muslims....the people who danced in the streets and cheered on 9/11..Oh I forgot that was our own fault....

Salmo says:
"Given that, does anyone really believe that Muslim mothers and fathers are purposely raising their children as cannon fodder for an impossible war against the U.S.?"

Actually Salmo parents throughout the Muslim world consider it a badge of honor to send a child on a suicide mission to kill an infidel. They pass that insane religious belief on from generation to generation. Remember that one dad who wrapped his two year old in a suicide bomber belt with explosvies and proudly had the picture taken so it oculd be send around the world? Not an isolated situation..

Muslims have killed more Muslims than anyone else as well and they were killing long before Geroge Bush came along and long before America came along and long before Israel was created.

Don't kid yourself

"Actually Salmo parents throughout the Muslim world consider it a badge of honor to send a child on a suicide mission to kill an infidel. They pass that insane religious belief on from generation to generation. "


I would love to see how you came up with that conclusion? I'm guessing, and this is just a guess, that this is an opinion you have formulated and really not a fact.

Perhaps the answer lies deeper in your post when you say:

"Remember that one dad who wrapped his two year old in a suicide bomber belt with explosvies and proudly had the picture taken so it oculd be send around the world? Not an isolated situation."

Yep convinces me to...

"Muslims have killed more Muslims than anyone else as well and they were killing long before Geroge Bush came along and long before America came along and long before Israel was created."

Silly me now I realize we are doing them a favor by killing them all faster. Makes perfect sense.

btw what is the "Muslim World"?

''Suicide is a major sin in Islam,'' Maher Hathout, imam of the Islamic Center in Los Angeles, explained. Ibrahim Hooper of the Council on American-Islamic Relations pronounced that suicide ''would not be in accord with Islamic beliefs and practices.''

Well, sort of. The Koran does tell Muslims, ''Do not kill yourselves'' and warns that those who disobey will be ''cast into the fire.'' The Prophet Mohammed is reported to have said that a suicide cannot go to paradise.

Islamic laws oppose the practice.

This religious prohibition has had the intended effect. According to Franz Rosenthal, a scholar of the subject, ''suicide was of comparatively rare occurrence'' in traditional Muslim society. In contemporary Egypt, statistics bear out that suicide is exceedingly rare.

But those spokesmen are not telling the whole story, for Islamists consider suicide as not just legitimate, but highly commendable when undertaken for reasons of jihad (holy war). Going into war knowing with the certainty that one will die, they argue, is not suicide (intihar) but martyrdom (istishhad), a much-praised form of self-sacrifice in the path of God, a way to win the eternal affection of the houris in paradise.

A leading Islamist authority, Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi, recently explained the distinction this way: attacks on enemies are not suicide operations, but ''heroic martyrdom operations'' in which the kamikazes act not ''out of hopelessness and despair, but are driven by an overwhelming desire to cast terror and fear into the hearts of the oppressors.''

In other words, Islamists find suicide for personal reasons abominable, suicide for jihad admirable.
The jihad menace, Jerusalem Post (Israel), July 30, 2001. Guest Column by Daniel Pipes, director of the Philadelphia-based Middle East Forum


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The history of suicide attacks stretches back at least to the 11th century, when the Assassins, the disciples of the Persian master Alamut, conducted suicide raids on neighboring fortresses. The Koran forbids suicide, Mr. Post noted, but he added that suicide bombers often consider their deaths acts of heroism, not self-destruction, and believe they will be elaborately rewarded in the afterlife. Harvey Kushner, an expert in terrorism and chairman of the department of criminal justice at Long Island University, noted that suicide attacks are not condoned by most Muslims, but are espoused ''by leaders of religious factions within the Islamic community'' who have what he described as ''a contorted view of what is spiritually permissible.'' After their deaths, suicide bombers are often celebrated as heroes, said Vamik Volkan, a professor of psychiatry at the University of Virginia Medical School and an expert on interethnic conflict.
Attackers Neither Mad Nor Desperate, New York Times Service, Sep. 13, 2001


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


In his 1996 book on jihad, Rudolph Peters, a Dutch scholar, argues that while the umma, or Muslim community, has a duty to ''expand the territory of the state,'' the doctrine of jihad forbids, among other things, the killing of noncombatants like children, women and old people. Thus, it would appear that even if Islamic law were stretched to consider women and children at the American Embassies combatants, the hundreds of Africans, many of whom are Muslim, who were killed near those embassies could not be considered combatants. Muslim law also provides that ambassadors and their missions be respected as long as they do not engage in espionage. (That's why the Islamic Government in Teheran insisted on characterizing the American Embassy where hostages were seized in the 1970's as ''a nest of spies'').

Professor Peters says a ''war against unbelievers may not be mounted without summoning them to Islam or submission before an attack.'' In other words, people should be given a chance to embrace Islam as their faith before they are killed. Mr. bin Laden's defense of and reported ties to Egyptian and Palestinian suicide attacks on Israeli and American targets are also questionable under traditional Islamic precepts, scholars say. Islamic holy law forbids suicide. According to the traditions of the Prophet Mohammed, which believers claim are divinely inspired, the punishment is eternal repetition of the act by which a person dies. So if a man hangs himself, he'll spend an eternity choking. But as Professor Awn points out, Islam endorses martyrdom -- fighting, and if necessary, dying for one's faith. And one Muslim's suicide might be another's martyrdom.
Even a Jihad Has Its Rules, New York Times, Aug. 29, 1999


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Suicide operations caught the Arab imagination in 1983, when Lebanese Shi'ite Muslim guerrillas trained by Iran blew up 241 American servicemen and 58 French paratroops in a simultaneous operation in Beirut.

The technique - and the cult of martyrdom characteristic of the Shi'ite branch of Islam - was transferred to the Palestinians, leading to a series of bombs in Israeli buses and market places. Islam condemns suicide as a way to hell and damnation.

For the past 11 months of the intifada, Islamic scholars have debated whether blowing yourself up constitutes suicide or martyrdom. Some Saudi scholars continue to denounce suicide as a sin, but the argument has been won by the radicals who see it as a legitimate means of jihad, or holy struggle.

The term ''suicide bomber'' has been replaced with ''martyrdom operation''. Such is the prestige of the suicide bomber that no one in the Palestinian territories would dare to raise a voice against the practice.
New assassins queue eagerly for martyrdom, Daily Telegraph (England), Sep. 13, 2001


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


ZARQA, Jordan -- The Hotaris are preparing for a party to celebrate the killing of 21 Israelis this month by their son, a suicide bomber.

Neighbors hang pictures on their trees of Saeed Hotari holding seven sticks of dynamite. They spray-paint graffiti reading ''21 and counting'' on their stone walls. And they arrange flowers in the shapes of a heart and a bomb to display on their front doors.
''I am very happy and proud of what my son did and, frankly, am a bit jealous,'' says Hassan Hotari, 54, father of the young man who carried out the attack June 1 outside a disco in Tel Aviv. It was Israel's worst suicide bombing in nearly four years. ''I wish I had done (the bombing). My son has fulfilled the Prophet's (Mohammed's) wishes. He has become a hero! Tell me, what more could a father ask?''

In more than a dozen interviews with former and current members of the militant group Hamas and with Israeli security officials who track them, USA TODAY was given a rare look into the secretive and terrifying world of suicide bombers and the culture that creates them.

Lured by promises of financial stability for their families, eternal martyrdom and unlimited sex in the afterlife, dozens of militant Palestinians like Hotari aspire to blow themselves up, Israeli and Palestinian officials say. Their goal: to kill or injure as many Jews as possible in the hope that Israel will withdraw from Gaza and the West Bank. Israel captured the land in 1967.
(...)

Since 1993, nearly 190 people have been killed and thousands injured in 28 suicide bombings in Israel.
(...)

''When I walk outside, young (Palestinian) children come up to me and say, 'Conduct another bombing to make us happy, sheik,' '' says Sheik Hasan Yosef, 45, the senior Hamas leader in the West Bank city of Ramallah. ''I cannot disappoint them. They won't have to wait long.''

At any time, Israeli officials believe, Hamas has from five to 20 men, ages 18 to 23, awaiting orders to carry out suicide attacks. The group also claims to have ''tens of thousands'' of youths ready to follow in their footsteps. ''We like to grow them,'' Yosef says. ''From kindergarten through college.''

In Hamas-run kindergartens, signs on the walls read: ''The children of the kindergarten are the shaheeds (holy martyrs) of tomorrow.'' The classroom signs at Al-Najah University in the West Bank and at Gaza's Islamic University say, ''Israel has nuclear bombs, we have human bombs.''

At an Islamic school in Gaza City run by Hamas, 11-year-old Palestinian student Ahmed's small frame and boyish smile are deceiving. They mask a determination to kill at any cost. ''I will make my body a bomb that will blast the flesh of Zionists, the sons of pigs and monkeys,'' Ahmed says. ''I will tear their bodies into little pieces and cause them more pain than they will ever know.''

''Allahu Akbar,'' his classmates shout in response: ''God is great.''

''May the virgins give you pleasure,'' his teacher yells, referring to one of the rewards awaiting martyrs in paradise. Even the principal smiles and nods his approval.

''You don't start educating a shaheed at age 22,'' says Roni Shaked, a terrorism expert and former officer in Israel's Shin Bet secret service. ''You start at kindergarten so by the time he's 22, he's looking for an opportunity to sacrifice his life.''

Some suicide bombers, like Hotari, come to their deadly missions by a slightly different route. They turn themselves into human bombs because they are frustrated by the economic and political duress Palestinians experience in Jordan and throughout the region.

Hamas says its recruiters, most of whom Israeli officials describe as charismatic religious leaders, look for two qualities in a potential bomber: an intense interest in Islam and a clean criminal record so as not to raise the suspicions of Israel's secret service.

Saeed Hotari, who was 22, fit both of those criteria. He was ''a devout Muslim who used to pray, observed fasting and performed all his religious obligations to the letter and spirit,'' his father says. One of nine children, he left Zarqa, outside the Jordanian capital of Amman, for the West Bank city of Qalqilya in 1999 to seek a better life.

In Qalqilya, he and two other Palestinian youths went to a mosque where Sheik Jamel Tawil, a Hamas leader, persuaded them to attend a Hamas-run class on Islamic study. All would eventually be suicide bombers and would carry out their attacks within days of each other.
(...)

After several weeks of schooling, the youths often volunteer to be suicide bombers, Yosef says. ''If someone confiscated your land, demolished your home, built settlements to prevent you from coming back, killed your children and blocked you from going to work, wouldn't you want to fight for your country?'' Yosef asks.

In return for ''martyrdom,'' Hamas tells the youths that their families will be financially compensated, their pictures will be posted in schools and mosques, and they will earn a special place in heaven.

They also are promised something more risqué: unlimited sex with 72 virgins in heaven. The Koran, the sacred book of Islam, describes the women as ''beautiful like rubies, with complexions like diamonds and pearls.'' In one of the passages of the Koran, it is said the martyrs and virgins shall ''delight themselves, lying on green cushions and beautiful carpets.'' Since the time of Mohammed, martyrs have always been considered those willing to die defending Islam.

For some young Muslims, that offer is too much to turn down.

''I know my life is poor compared to Europe or America, but I have something awaiting me that makes all my suffering worthwhile,'' says Bassam Khalifi, 16, a Hamas youth leader in Gaza's Bureij refugee camp. ''Most boys can't stop thinking about the virgins.''

But in the end, says Shaked, the Israeli terrorism expert, most of the bombers don't sign up for martyrdom for the promise of unlimited sex. ''They join because of their absolute devotion to God and their desire to die with Jewish blood on their hands,'' he says. ''It's not a heroic thing, it's a holy thing.''

A would-be bomber is selected for his mission only days, sometimes hours, before it is to occur, Israeli officials say. As part of the preparation, the recruit is taken to a cemetery, where he is told to prepare for death by lying between gravesites for hours. He wears a white, hooded shroud normally used to cover bodies for burial, a former Hamas member says.

The recruit is then taken to a safe house. A video is made in which he states his consent to become a suicide bomber and his devotion to Islam. It will be played for the public after his death. A still photograph is taken that will be reproduced and displayed through the West Bank and Gaza to honor him after death.

Because secrecy is paramount, Hamas leaders will not allow the recruit to say goodbye to his family or tell them his plans.
(...)

Once at the target site, the recruit is told to remain calm, blend in as much as possible and, when surrounded by Israelis, press a switch to explode the bomb, Hamas members say.
(...)

On June 1, it was Hotari's turn. Israeli officials, quoting eyewitnesses, say two Hamas operatives drove him to the Dolphin Disco in Tel Aviv, a popular club often packed with Russian immigrant teenagers. They said Hotari slipped unnoticed into line and positioned himself among several girls, including a 14-year-old who had survived Marmash's attack in Netanya.

Then, while flirting with one of the girls, Hotari triggered the explosives. The blast was so intense that it tore limbs from the victims' bodies, scattered their flesh up to six blocks away and vaporized Hotari and the girl next to him.

It killed 21 people, in addition to Hotari, and injured nearly 100.

Now, nearly 30 days later, his parents are preparing to mark the anniversary of his death, as devout Muslims often do.

''My prayer is that Saeed's brothers, friends and fellow Palestinians will sacrifice their lives, too,'' Hotari's father says. ''There is no better way to show God you love him.''

Devotion, desire drive youths to 'martyrdom' : Palestinians in pursuit of paradise turn their own bodies into weapons, USA Today, June 26, 2001

Is it not possible nor conceivable that the examples you a e exposed to are likened to examples we have have of religious extremists killing abortion doctors or bombing their clinics. Or even comprable to radical left wing parties such as ELF that burn and bomb industrial sites they deem harmful to earth?

I find it a bit irresponsible and naive to blanket all muslims as being one way or even a majority of them without first hand knowledge.

Yes, there are radical islamists that do not like America and vow to kill Americans. I fail to see the logic that connects them with ALL Muslims.

Grandpa-

You realize that you just said "Islam is the religion of death", don't you? Nice tolerant stuff there gpa. What's next on your religious hit list?

By exposing the hypocrisy of the right in clinging to the ideals of christianity while fighting an an unjust war, I am spreading hatred for christianity?

None of what I've been saying about christianity is 'about christianity'. Its about the rights insistence on cloaking their actions within the veil of god.

Like I said before, I hope the image you've made up of me sitting in my secret room, burning black candles, drinking blood and praising satan makes you feel better about your inability to gain traction in this argument. The truth you can't handle is that I am as mainstream a guy as there is and my constituency is growing.

This 'H2o hates christianity and christians' stuff you are coming up with is quite hilarious. Especially in light of some of the more hateful stuff you have posted.

Please, I encourage you to pick apart my words and explain how and where I am spreading hate? Only this time use the stuff that I actually wrote, not the **** you make up about what I write.,.....mmmk?

Gpa got a bee in his bonnet cuz he sees his man Bush's presidency circling the drainhole. Let my words be the broomstick that breaks it in half and allows it suck down the sewer where it belongs.

Grandpa, you should have gone fishing with me this morning instead of trolling for references on the Net.

You're right Ed.....Took the grandson trout fishing instead.....He is learning to hold a rod now....

I have to check in here every day to make sure that the insanity is still alive and well.

H2O....I have to admit your constituency is growing....Bringing AuntyM over to the dark side is a real feather in your cap...or is it a slam on her? Maybe you two can bite off the heads of some bats together and paint swastikas on your foreheads with bat blood.

Read this one more time.......Then H2O you can blame the Jews and Christians and exhalt the Muslim bombers and their supporter....clap clap clap all praise to Allah.....Death to the West ...Death to Rummy and Bush.....clap clap clap........Praise be to Allah...

"On June 1, it was Hotari's turn. Israeli officials, quoting eyewitnesses, say two Hamas operatives drove him to the Dolphin Disco in Tel Aviv, a popular club often packed with Russian immigrant teenagers. They said Hotari slipped unnoticed into line and positioned himself among several girls, including a 14-year-old who had survived Marmash's attack in Netanya.

Then, while flirting with one of the girls, Hotari triggered the explosives. The blast was so intense that it tore limbs from the victims' bodies, scattered their flesh up to six blocks away and vaporized Hotari and the girl next to him.

It killed 21 people, in addition to Hotari, and injured nearly 100. '

Now, nearly 30 days later, his parents are preparing to mark the anniversary of his death, as devout Muslims often do.

''My prayer is that Saeed's brothers, friends and fellow Palestinians will sacrifice their lives, too,'' Hotari's father says. ''There is no better way to show God you love him.''


HEAR THAT H2O? NO BETTER WAY TO SHOW GOD YOU LOVE HIM.....

There's plenty of culpability for all to share. You seem to miss my major point about SOMEONE needing to take the high road.

What are we waiting for?

AuntyM....now I know why they used to have separate men's and women's entrances at bars in Canada...and why there are men only clubs all over the world....to get away from Yappy Women who open their pie holes too much. Why not get off the computer for awhile and fetch your husband a beer then stay in the kitchen and do the dishes.

Aunty - please don't rise to the bait - it will end in a bad place.

for AM

Grandpa,

I guess I'm really only proving to you that the insanity remains alive and well here. Too bad.

The examples you provide are not isolated. Just as a handful of examples of radical anti-abortion Christians is not isolated. Most of us, however, don't paint an entire race, culture, or faith with the brush of their extremist minorities. If there really are a billion Muslims, and they all subscribe to the values in your examples, I think we'd already be toast. Obviously, you have your reasons for forming your opinions, but it appears to some of us who think ourselves moderate, that you are painting all Muslims of the world with the brush of the extremists, who by most observers are but a minority. A radical, extreme minority capable of garnering much publicity, but a minority nonetheless.

I have two close friends who have spent some time in Gaza, that hotbed of radical Muslim extremism. They report to me that their friends and all acquaintances there do not raise their children to become suicide bombers. Those Palestinians do not support Hamas. But they are very aware of the negative effects it has on their lives, but they cannot stop it. They don't want war, holy or otherwise. They want freedom and the opportunity to live their lives in pursuit of happiness - pretty much the same as you and I - but the Israeli government denies them this opportunity, with the full and mostly unqualified support of the U.S. government.

If you cannot understand why some Palestinians were dancing in the street on 911, then you must wish to remain blind to the complicity of the U.S. government in the deaths of thousands of Palestinians.

When my friend was in Gaza a year and a half ago (he trains psychologists and therapists to treat torture surivivors - maybe he could now find a post in Bagdad) he and others had to take shelter in the basement of the health clinic as the Israeli army was firing missles made in the U.S. from helecopters made in the U.S. He used his cell phone to call Representative Brian Baird and asked what the hell is going on as they are being shot at with U.S. munitions. Brain responded, "John, they're terrorists." At the health clinic? Or did he mean the Israelis are terrorists? That seems more like it.

The Israeli government directs its own terrorism against Palestinian civilians, combatants and non-combatants alike. And our government supports this. And with your blanket condemnation of all things Muslim, and your apparent support of our government's support of Israeli terrorism against Palestinians - terrorists or not - you will never be safe from potential Muslim terror directed at the U.S.

Muslim parents, in general, do not raise their children to be suicide bombers or terrorists. But some of them become susceptible to the encouragement you described in your examples, as they grow and witness the desparate and apparently hopeless conditions they are subjected to. Poverty, lack of freedom, your land taken away, life in refugee camps with no opportunity to make a living. If you were subjected to that, would you fight for your freedom and rightful place in this world, with any means at your disposal, even going up against Israel and the U.S?

Yours in the insanity,

Salmo g.

Way to stick to the party line there Salmo...Write this one down for future us>

''I will make my body a bomb that will blast the flesh of Zionists, the sons of pigs and monkeys,'' Ahmed says. ''I will tear their bodies into little pieces and cause them more pain than they will ever know.''

Harley,

"Sounds pretty logical and unemotional to me. In fact, to do otherwise would be sheer hypocrisy"

For one it's not a constitutional requirement . Secondly funny a female says that when she can only opt in but not be required to serve. So in a linial line of logic she cannot comment or vote on it because she is not male by birth. Emotion and irresponsible clearly.

It's the latest rage with the socilists to say you should not be involved in a war or planning a war unless you have been in the military. History itself proves this idea to be without merit. It is merely a thinly veiled attack on the admin and gennerally a bunch of hens or vaginzed males attempting to lay doubt about ones manhood.

Since you stated that it's not a constitutional requirement to serve, then Aunty being female is a moot point. No one, male or female, is required to serve. However, it is every American's obligation to give some service to their country.

If they do ever re-instate the draft, it will be non-gender specific. So why aren't women required to register? Because a return to the draft is not a serious option yet.

As far as the socialist comment is concerned, I don't see how that is germane to the discussion, other than another feable attempt at name calling. Don't forget that the DoD itself is a socialist organization that has lasted well over 200 years.

When questioning one's manhood, it seems apparrent to me that those with the loudest voice of committing our troops to battle without first understanding what that entails is trying to live vicariously through those soldiers from the safety of their own living room. They obviously don't have the 'nads to put on the uniform themselves and put the fate of their lives in the hands of their comrades.

Harley,

I think they should make it mandatory to serve 2 years for all.

Your arguement violates the free speach clause of the constitution so the socialist comment is valid. One can comment on anything with no obligation by just being born here. It's a strawman thrown out by those taking the weak side of a debate. It serves no purpose other than a weak attempt to question the manhood of those in the debate. One could do the same by saying "I will meet you at the time and place of your choosing and we can answer your question face to face" childish and pointless because the person that has to resort to the tactic would never show up.

Am,

You need to learn to read before you emotionally comment on something.

Say again, you're coming in broken and stupid. (That's an old Army saying for "you're not making any sense.")

Even if I were violating "the free speach clause of the constitution" (sic), how does that validate the reference to socialism?

H20,

I agree with your earlier post about what our role should be in leading a negotiated settlement for Gaza. That is the type of leadership that our government needs to be engaged in regardless of whatever roll our military plays in Iraq after June 30th.

Again, I think that Bush's total neglect in this area just shows a lack of vision and leadership. Mr Bush is running out of time to show the world that he is a capable diplomat and has more tools up his sleeve than just turning the military loose. Unfortunately, Mr. Bush's decisions probably make any new attempt at diplomacy by his administration moot.

Harley,

The first thing socialist take away is free speach. Here we have the Socilaists or the extreme Left(the Democratic party today clearly has a socialist agenda) trying to say that we cannot say anything supporting war unless we have been in the military. Clearly against the principals of our country and clearly a step towards socialism. Clearly an assinine idea.

I think you're confusing socialism with fascism. There are many countries out there that have a socialist economic system that are not lacking in freedom of speech. In fact, some are even democratic in choosing their leaders.

I'm sure you're just hung up on the Marxist-Leninist days when they had a fascist government and socialist economic system, thinking one equates to the other.

Socialism in and of itself is not that bad save for the fact it won't feed the greed of human nature. Usually, however, you find communism on small organic farms turned communes, like Rajneesh, Jones, Manson, etc.

Harley,

No it exists in both and is not mutally exclusive . The common definition is as you state but if you look at line 3 in websters def. you will see this. "a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done" This is clearly the aim of the Democratic party and therefore making it socialist.

... and that's got nothing to do with freedom of speech or any other freedom, except maybe freedom from poverty.

Socialism is simply state-run economics.

Harley,

True by definition. But we all know one leads to the other and one cannot exist without the other ultimately thats why it is considered transitional. European states are transitional and as the people give up more and more rights for what they see as security the faster it will happen.

Elvis, one question - Have you ever lived in a Socialistic State? I'm not talking about Washington State I'm talking about Scandanavia, New Zealand (prior to the mid 1980's), any of the Communistic countries, maybe England. I'm trying to understand why a guy with reasonable credibility (even though I think you are wrong most of the time) and the ability to make a well reasoned arguement, would risk it by making an asinine statement that the Democratic Party is socialistic. Please explain what version of Socialism, the Dems represent.

I think once again the paint brush is being applied too wide.

But you can't argue that those who claim to be socialist in this country (and that would be many) will vote Democrat 99.9% of the time...

Socialism is alive and well in this country (as in Europe, Canada, etc. Not as strong here yet, but working on it...)

Eddie,

Just a couple,

1.Redistribution of wealth.
2. Fedral govt. exerting control over states rights
3. Gun control.

The states you mention are transitional and fit the definition of "socialist" each and everyone of them. They may be fun t

Elvis, It looks like your post got cut off in mid sentence. I would prefer to see your entire post and its context before I reply.

Eddie,

fun to visit but in transition none the less.

Elvis, you said:

"Just a couple,

1.Redistribution of wealth.
2. Fedral govt. exerting control over states rights
3. Gun control.

The states you mention are transitional and fit the definition of "socialist" each and everyone of them."

1. I would like to hear more from you how the Dems are doing redistrubition of wealth. When I lived in New Zealand, the top tax rate was 90%. Even in that Socialistic country, that did not constitute redistribution of wealth, only the Govt. desire to have a very broad and very deep Middle Class. Nowhere did they (or do we) have a situation where we take from the rich to give to the poor.

2. Such a very unique circumstance only applicable to the US (and a few other countries) - I don't see how that fits into any traditional (or transitional) definition of socialism.

3. Much more akin to #2 than any Socialistic premise. There are only a few countries in the world that do not have a more rigorous form of gun control than here in the US. As with #2, this is much more of a Constitutional law issue than one of Socialism (which is fundamentally economic in nature).

eddie...tax the rich.....(class warfare?) They pay most of the taxes after all.

tax breaks for those who pay no taxes (redistribution of wealth?)

healthcare for all.....

DSHS.....Gary Locke....Ron Simms.....aaaaaaaaaaa

Eddie,
"I would like to hear more from you how the Dems are doing redistrubition of wealth. When I lived in New Zealand, the top tax rate was 90%. Even in that Socialistic country, that did not constitute redistribution of wealth, only the Govt. desire to have a very broad and very deep Middle Class. Nowhere did they (or do we) have a situation where we take from the rich to give to the poor."

Eddie are you high. Where did the funds come from to braoden the middel class private donations? No taxes ,same thing here. If you do't want to use taxes lets take affirmative action. If all esle is equal on a Federal or state bid between two companies , except that one is owned by white males and the other is a Women or minority owned business, Who would win the bid? The WMOB by federal and state law. Even though the non-WMOB has more expirence and better references.

2. Such a very unique circumstance only applicable to the US (and a few other countries) - I don't see how that fits into any traditional (or transitional) definition of socialism. That was the Soviet Union and essentially what China is doing to Tiawan right now.

3. Much more akin to #2 than any Socialistic premise. There are only a few countries in the world that do not have a more rigorous form of gun control than here in the US. As with #2, this is much more of a Constitutional law issue than one of Socialism (which is fundamentally economic in nature). No it is unique to free people to be able to over throw and unjust govt. if all else fails. Cannot be done without guns. So in the transition stage guns along with other freedoms are slowly taken away. All under the guise of the state providing more security.

Now which party was it that supports the above?

Dan - Good one - the only party that I have seen trying to exert Federal power over the States is the GOP - according to Elvis, they must be Socialists!!

Elvis - Your definition of Socialism is unique to be sure. It appears that you are really describing Federalism. And your gun control arguement is one that I have heard so often. You tell me how your firearms will protect you from a government that has tactical nukes and heavy artillery?? I think you must be growing some seriously good organic shrooms out there.

Ah yes..the good old Robin Hood Syndrome...cornerstone of the "new" Democratic party...

Rob Peter to pay Paul and Paul will always be your friend...

I work very hard and pay lots of taxes....a bunch of my hard earned money is constantly under attack from the Democratic ideals...

Punish me for being successful and reward others who do not chose to try.

The Dems recruit much of their base from the Paul's of the country. Not Socialism but close.

Dan,

Very true in some respects But the repubs still give more stsates rights.

Eddie,
How could you tell the good guys from the bad to use nukes? If it ever happened it would come down to small arms.
Our Tax system is clearly socialist. The education System, Do what the feds say or lose funding, socialism.
We are headed twards being a social welfare state just like most of Europe. Next socialized medicine. A democrat has been in the lead on every bill heading down that road.

You need to do a little fact checking there Gramps and quit "toeing the party line" as you are so fond of saying.


Which party was in power in the 1980's when, at that time, we were seeing record deficits?

Which party held the presidency during the late 90's when we had a BALANCED budget, and some projected surplus?

Which party is in power now when we're AGAIN seeing RECORD deficits?

The new GOP mantra: "Rob the grandkids to pay the mega conglomerates and they will always donate to your campaign."

All wars are funded with deficit spending. Where do you think a surplus comes from donations in kind?

Better yet, take a whole bunch of money we don't have and spend it on a war we don't need. That way when america finally wakes up to your corrupt financial morals and votes your ass out of office, the democrats will have to raise taxes to catch up and you can blame them.

Hitting the weed a little early today h20 or has the Alarm clock not gone off and you are posting in your sleep? :-)

Typical response from someone clearly outmaneuvered.

How embarassing for you that a lowly uneducated, vaginized male stoner like myself can tear down your ill-made arguments.

What, are you like twelve?

So tell me King, what war were we fighting in say 1986?

Your masochistic tendencies are really starting to show King. The pain doesn't even seem to phase you anymore. You've been factually and intellectually b!tch-slapped so often lately that you're punch drunk!

H20,

It is not suprise that the further you go from I -90 the worse the schools get and I bet you wehere raised no where near it?

Am,

You are a liar and a coward. And it's real hard for a woman to be a coward.


4skin,

There are many more reasons than war for deficit spending. The deficits of the Reagan term you reference were to stimulate the economy that Jimmy Carter single handedly drove into the tank. If you look at the current deficit (if you can read a budget) you will see the biggest portion of the deficit comes from two areas, Social Security mandatory increases and HUD mandatory spending. This will be true for the next 15 years or until SS dies.

My presumption is that GWB does not want to repeat the "mistake" of his father by not raising taxes. Bush Sr, in my mind, came across to a much higher degree as a straight shooter, even with the "read my lips" statement. This president thinks he is being strait with the people by cutting taxes and funding this war with borrowed money and filling us in, if at all, after the fact.

His father only completed the mission that was chartered by the UN, even though he took flack for not getting Saddam. So, to say that wars are only funded by deficits is off the mark. Bush Sr, did the right thing, and raised taxes to pay for his debt.

I like it! Took you long enough, but good job!

By the way... that's Mr. 4Skin to you Priscilla!

Skin,

If I was Elvis it would be The Kang if you new anything about the man. The King refers to the largest and most awesome of the Salmon incase you missed the fact that this is a fishing site:-) Like 4 salt means you are about to swim up a river and get hooked or lie rotting in the shallows. Apt very apt:-)

Oh wow, I was way off. I mistakenly believed since you were using "The" in your name that it alluded to "one and only."

I thought you were making reference to your title on that little organic commune you have.

Harley,

No it's what my friends call me after I landed a 74lb king in Tofino BC in 1989 and limited out on a 7 day trip on Kings,coho and Halibut. After a summer of fishing trips from Idaho to Alsaka that they were severly outfished by none other than myself.

or maybe it was later in the fall after I had taken a 7X7 Bull Elk in Idaho the day after I took a 32" mulie. Maybe it was the 400lb Black Bear just before that trip and the Washington 4x4 Mulie the same year. Well they all blend togeher now it was such a busy year.

so what'd everyone have for lunch?

'89... what was I doing?... oh yeah, I was just finishing up my recruiting duty in Los Angeles and preparing for my first of three tours in Korea.

Three years recruiting in LA and didn't get a cent of hazardous duty pay. What's up with that?

Harley,

My cousin is sitting off the coast of NK on some island right now. He is AF and a specialist of some classified technology. He is up on his 20 years next year . Hates it.

Well 4salt...all I know is I paid less taxes in 2003....I must be one of those rich a holes who gets all the breaks.

"One can never be too rich or too
thin or have too much foreskin."
John A. Erickson
British Journal of Urology (Letters), August 1997

http://www.foreskin.org/page2.htm

So did I Grandpa, and the selfish side of me enjoyed it. The problem with deficit spending, which you tried to attribute solely to the Democrats, is that eventually the debt has to be paid back. Do you want your grandson to have to pay outrageous income taxes when he comes of working age in twenty years or so just so you can use your 2003 tax savings to take that trip to Maui this year?

I make a comfortable living myself and I DO NOT begrudge anyone else who seeks the "American Dream". I do however also believe in fiscal responsibility. Something that the Republican party used to pride itself on.

So tell me... What happened?

You may have paid less in taxes but did you spend less money last year? I sure didn't.

congress spends the money and approves the deficit spending so both sides can get us into trouble. I actually had some real hope when it looked like the debt was being paid off and when all those dot.com companies were giving me lots of business and spending like drunken sailors...then it turned out that they were spending all that venture capital on fluff and not on substance so in the blink of an eye most of them are out of business. We suffered a big downturn and then 9/11....not hard to see why the hard times.

And Stlhead ...I spent less last year on day to day things but invested a bunch for the long term. This year is turning out to be a good one financially

Well you must have received one heck of a tax cut then. I spent more than my "tax cut" just on the higher cost of gas. Throw in my jacked up power bill and I ended up losing money.

yes stlhead...I paid a **** load in taxes last year and even more the three previous years...but in 2003 I got a break....I needed a break after helping to prop up the other 85% of the folks who don't pay enough. Probably why I can't tolerate today's new Democrats.

Oh you mean CEO's and such.

Actually what I meant was that the upper income people you seem to despise so much seem to pay the bulk of the taxes in this country...Those folks in the bottom 50% should not begrudge those above them as without them they might have to pay their "fair share".


Number of Returns
(000)
AGI
($000,000)
Income Taxes Paid
($000,000)
Group's Share of Total AGI
Group's Share of Income Taxes
Income Split Point
Average Tax Rate

All Taxpayers 128,817 6,241,036 887,682 100.0% 100.0% 14.2%

Top 1% 1,288 1,094,296 300,898 17.5% 33.9% above $ 292,913 27.5%

Top 5% 6,441 1,996,492 472,823 32.0% 53.3% above $ 127,904 23.7%
Top 10% 12,882 2,690,589 576,163 43.1% 64.9% above $ 92,754 21.4%
Top 25% 32,204 4,071,034 736,053 65.2% 82.9% above $ 56,085 18.1%
Top 50% 64,409 5,379,286 852,642 86.2% 96.1% above $ 28,528 15.9%
Bottom 50% 64,409 861,750 35,040 13.8% 3.9% below $ 28,528 4.1%
Source: IRS

Kind of hard to see as the spread sheet didn't line up but let's just focus on the bottom 50% of taxpayers....They contribute only 13.8% of income reported by all....The bottom 50% of all taxpayers only pays 3.9% of all income taxes. The top 25% of taxpayers pay almost 85% of all income taxes.

Not only does that top 25% pay the lion's share of the tax load but they are also the ones who provide most of the jobs....other than the government jobs so many have....so many of the biggest complainers I submit have one of those dandy government jobs.

Could you post the link to that source, I wouldn't mind seeing the table.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/prtopincometable.html

spin your heart out....

I was planning on thanking you but after the last comment... nah

Oh come on....you can come up with some kind of slam I bet

Contrary to what you believe I wanted to see the data you posted in the original chart so I could understand it. As it is posted on this thread I was having a difficult time interpreting the data.

Maybe you could try not to be so insulting all the time? just a thought!

For information sake I have an accounting degree and passed 2 of the 4 sections of the CPA exam (I have since given up, I hate auditing and had a difficult time with the law section) so I do find this kind of data interesting.

Points well taken..sorry I jumped the gun. Not trying to be insulting. I am so used to the predictable responses I didn't let you make yours before dismissing it....I think the figures provided by the IRS show what my point was. Hard to see in the cut and paste form for sure.

ABC NEWS
W A S H I N G T O N, April 15 — Another way the rich are different: They pay the lion's share of the nation's income tax bill.

"The wealthiest 5 percent pay more than half the taxes, while people in the bottom half pay just 4 percent.
Two-income households are increasing, putting more families in the top slice of taxpayers. Millions of small businesses and partnerships are up there, too, paying personal instead of corporate income taxes. Many other people were boosted by the 1990s stock market boom.

President Bush's big tax cut will prevent the wealthy from paying an even greater share in coming years. But key provisions, such as the gradual doubling of the child tax credit, will reduce or eliminate income taxes for many middle-income people while the rich won't qualify.

"This trend is not going to reverse," said Scott Hodge, executive director of the Tax Foundation, a nonpartisan tax education and research group. "This will be the demographic for the 21st century taxpayer."


Shifting Tax Brackets

For 1999, the most recent year for which complete Internal Revenue Service statistics are available, 6.3 million taxpayers whose incomes were in the top 5 percent paid more than 55 percent of all income taxes. They had incomes above $120,846 a year meaning two spouses could each earn a bit over $60,000 and be considered among the nation's richest.

"It's very easy to move into the top echelon of taxpayers," Hodge said.

The wealthiest 1 percent those earning $293,415 and up paid over a third of the taxes, while their share of the nation's taxable income was 19 percent. They pay income taxes at the top rate, now 38.6 percent, compared with a maximum rate of 15 percent for the majority of lower-earning taxpayers.

Taxpayers in the bottom half paid only 4 percent of the income taxes in 1999, according to the IRS. These 63 million taxpayers earned, on average, less than $26,415 a year.

Going back to 1989, the top 5 percent income group paid about 44 percent of income taxes, the bottom almost 6 percent. At that time, the top tax rate paid by high earners was 31 percent.

Looking ahead, the 10-year, $1.35 trillion tax cut enacted last year reduces income taxes in three steps, with the final step coming in 2006. In that year, according to the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation, taxpayers earning over $100,000 a year will pay almost 59 percent of all income taxes.

Those with annual incomes of less than $30,000 a year will pay about 4.4 percent in 2006, roughly the same as they do today.

A Wealth of Problems

In Congress, this disparity in the tax burden causes perennial political trouble for Republican tax-cutters because any across-the-board reduction meets with Democratic criticism that it would mainly benefit the wealthy while siphoning away money for government programs.

For that reason, many tax breaks contain income cutoff points that leave out the top income earners.

A prime example is the child tax credit, which is $600 for the tax returns due April 15 and will gradually rise to $1,000. This year, that credit begins to phase out for married couples filing jointly who earn more than $110,000 a year.

The IRS says the rising child credit, which is $100 higher than last year, is a major factor in the 12 percent increase in average tax refunds this year. Many lower-earning taxpayers who claim the credit get a refund even if it effectively eliminates their entire tax liability.

Another program for lower-income Americans is the earned income tax credit, which is intended to offset the burden of Social Security payroll taxes. In 1999, about 13 million taxpayers claimed about $21 billion in credits, which also can trigger a refund even for those with no tax liability.

At the higher end of the income spectrum, the IRS now receives more than 24 million individual income tax returns from certain kinds of corporations and partnerships that don't pay corporate income taxes. Those are frequently paying at the highest tax rate.

Perhaps the biggest reason the rich are paying a higher share is that they continue to get richer, said Joel Slemrod, economics professor at the University of Michigan. Between 1980 and 1999, the share of total taxable U.S. income earned by the top 5 percent rose from 21 percent to 34 percent. "

Well Gpa your comment obviously irritated me. I specifically attempted to write this post without being a "spindoctor" and merely pointing out another way of looking at it. It is a long post and overly simplified while specifically focusing only on a very tiny part of the issue.

So one of my pet peeves about discussions on taxes is that most people have only a general understanding of how taxes work. Due to the “general” understanding there are all sorts of myths associated with tax issues. A good example and one of my favorites is the old I got a raise but it took me into a higher tax bracket so it really ended up costing me more money. That is just inherently wrong because the tax system is graduated. I won’t bother explaining what a graduated tax scale is, google can do that for me.

While everything Gpa posted is true I would like to point out some real problems or at least perceived problems with “tax breaks”. I think it also leads people to question what “fair share” means.

Your taxes are calculated off of adjusted gross income (AGI). AGI also affects limits on allowable deductions. With that said typically not all of your income is AGI there are certain things that are removed from your gross income to end up at AGI hence it being called “adjusted”. It is pretty simple idea that is made complicated by the tax code.

Most people see a tax break in terms of the impact it has on them and not on the overall tax picture of the country. Bush’s recent tax breaks put more money in my pocket and that is something I like but it also put a lot more money (percentage wise) into wealthier people’s pockets. One could argue that sure it put more in their pocket than mine because they earn more and overall that would be true if the percentage were the same. In actuality wealthy people tend to have different sources of income than myself, they don’t just get a w-2 and then go and file. They receive capital gains, dividends etc…

Bush’s latest tax breaks reduced the percentage on some of these other types of income (without digging it up exact figures I believe it was dividend income got reduced to 30 something percent). Wealthy people tend to have a higher percentage of their income in these other forms of income or have the luxury of changing their investments to take advantage of the change i.e. move them from non-dividend issuing stocks to stocks that issue dividends. Anyway, my point in all of this is that not all tax breaks are evenly distributed among all the societal “classes”. Generally speaking wealthy people have more opportunity to take advantage of tax shelters, loopholes and in some cases tax breaks over the middle class who either don’t tend to have that luxury or can’t afford the top-notch tax accountant.

I believe with the above in mind you can see where people can believe that wealthy people do not always pay their “fair share” even when it is within the legal bounds of the tax code. As far as I am concerned about the subject I personally do not believe the blame should fall on the wealthy. Seriously, if you had the same advantage you would also capitalize on the opportunity to pay less to the government, I know I would.

I am usually more interested in how tax breaks affect the people making/approving the break or those who have influence on said people.

Tax breaks don’t turn economies, they can assist but they alone do not turn economies. Consumer confidence is about the only thing that can turn an economy around. As consumer confidence continues to improve, so will our economy. One of the non-political reason I think the war is not a good thing. I don’t think it is helping our confidence.

Ah the old welfare argument. By my salary I am considered in the bottom of the "rich" by some charts and I pay a butt load of taxes. But, I don't see the "bottom" half shirking their tax duties as much as the upper half and mostly the very elite. Unfortunately it is almost all legal under our "welfare" for the elite tax system. If you take deductions you are on welfare. I deduct my mortgage so I am on a form of welfare. I am a strong advocate of a flat tax system with no deductions what so ever.

In my mind a flat tax is unrealistic. It is an ideal that I do not believe takes into account all the complexities of our society. A for instance off the top of my head. The flat tax would have the potential of being too much of a burden for the person on welfare legitimately trying to get off of it and potentially keeping them on it by decreasing the motivation to actually get off of it.

The other question that comes to mind is are there unbias studies that demonstrate that a flat tax could actually generate the kind of money necessary to effectively run the country. I know with Forbes proposals and some others there was some serious doubt raised about this concern. I personally have never investigated those proposals enough to be able to draw my own conclusion.

Our tax system is made up of incentives or rewards for certain behavior. The "rich" get a lot of breaks because they respond to the incentives in the tax code by changing their behavior to take advantage of the things offered. Less fortunate people do the same thing. Child credit rewards having kids. Just like our welfare system, there are also incentives to stay poor. The system is so huge now I can't see how we could jump to a flat tax.

Why would someone on true welfare pay any tax? No earnings should mean no taxes to pay.

The argument against a flat tax was that the percentage would be such that the bottom bracket would actually end up having to pay more than they do now. But if a flat tax were to cover all business as well I believe we would pay very little in tax. I've quoted Warren Buffet before on here but he stated that if the top 450 corporations would pay the tax they should be paying then no American would have to pay any tax at all. A zero deduction flat tax, however, would radically alter the American economy. There would be no subisdies for R & D, investments, real estate, etc. But, true capitalism shouldn't include subsidies that artificially prop up businesses and industries any way. And it would kill the tax prep profession but save the tax payer billions via a drastically reduced IRS. Imagine a world where congress decides on the next years budget which then equates into the tax percentage all Americans must pay. A huge incentive to keep that budget within reason without pork or the voters will have your head. Very measurable to the voters if their percentage went from 10% to 12%. It would have to be an absolute zero deductions or else Congress would gradually throw in perks and morph it into what it is now. Of course it's all idealistic and will never happen.

"the top 450 corporations would pay the tax they should be paying then no American would have to pay any tax at all. "

Where do you think the corps would get the money?

1.Manufacture it?

2.Donations?

3. Mark up goods and services to the end user?


So you still end up with the poor paying disproportionate because the goods and services would be a higher % of their income than that of the rich. Secondly they have fewer options to avoid using these goods and services since they are trageted at the masses and the truely rich are about 1.6% of the population.

Ever hear of a wolf in sheeps clothing?

TK, as usual you make absolutely no sense.
We are talking about income tax here. Are you saying that without income tax breaks the prices of goods would rise? So? True competition without subsidies means goods are priced at what the market will bear. Nothing wrong with that. Where would a top 450 corp get the money to pay their taxes? Exactly where they get it from right now. But, due to loop holes, aka subsidies, in the tax code many currently pay no tax at all. You seem to be implying that corporations pay no tax because they are broke or something and I haven't a clue where you would get that idea.

Stlhd,

You quoted a Buffet conjecture that if the top 450 corps paid what they were supposed to pay we would have little tax burden as individuals. I merely pointed out that not only is that a fairly tale but an unbalnced fair tale on top of it when fleshed out for parctical use.

Please stay on your original point and back it up or Crawdad back and around like you normally do. Would the cost of goods and services not have to go up in order for he 450 corps to pay the majority of the US tax debt? yes or no? If so then take the fortune 500 and tell me who would most be inpacted by higher prices the rich or the poor. All Buffet did was shift the tax burden so the ignorant would jump on the band wagon and say " yeah those dam corps are ripping us off and Bush is helping them do it" . Well if you bite that hook it must mean you are one of them. BTW the Buffet practice what he preaches? Of course not even more reason for the libs to love him. Say one thing do another and blame someone else if you get called on it.

Once again you know nothing of what you spew forth. And I thought you were trying to play yourself out as a financial wiz lately.
Buffet brought that up because his companies pay an absolute fortune in taxes compared to what most corporations pay. He made the point that he is doing his share and he wishes all companies would also. And the quote was that we would pay no taxes at all not minimal. He is pointing out just how large a sum it is that is being withheld from Americas coffers. Would prices have to go up? No. You don't understand taxes and loopholes do you? Taxes are based on net earnings. Loopholes allow the hiding of earnings. Earn zero pay zero. Without loopholes in the tax code I will go on record saying that many large corporations would report a heck of a lot more in net income.

Brickhead,


A $ is a $ no matter how you cut it up. A corp has to have a minimum of 50% GP and kick 5% to 10% to the bottom line to stay in business. If you remove all the tax incentives and they pay more tax it affects profit and loss and ultimately the bottom line. They have to raise prices to keep the numbers whole in terms of GP and Bottom line contribution. There is no other way to do it. You are talking trillions of dollars being shifted out of the private sector into the treasurey from 450 companies. Only a blank idiot would assume that the corps would stay whole and the consumers as well. All Buffets idea does is shift the burden much like a sales tax any way you want to slice it.

I have stayed out of this financial discussion until now, I am reminded of the old quote, "Better to be thought an idiot, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt". However, The King makes an absolutely false statement when he says that Corporations must make a minimum of 50% Gross Profit. I have been involved with several Corporations, some in the Fortune 500 and none of them have a GP of 50%. The rain we had must have grown a new crop of 'shrooms out there in Fall City.

Eddie,


You can always find an exception but the rule is 50% gross GP on the sales of the goods ( does not always apply to services) on the gross sales side of the ledger. Some do not apply certain expenses at that time but recapture the expense eleswhere as to not reflect it in the GP. Usually for compensation reasons. It's possible but rare. Give example please. Now how does that minor point change the arguement? If 450 corps are to make up trillions in taxes so the avg citizen has almost no tax burden how would they do it and not increase prices to the consumer? As stlhd claims

50% gross profit required to stay in business?

Dans,

Yes if you buy a lure wholesale for a dollar you would have to have a GP of 50% or more on the sale of the lure to offset your expenses related to selling it. It really depends on the product but in general the smaller ticket items take a higher gp ( 300 to 400%) to offset. Where higher ticket items like cars etc. It would be lower. It can also be shifted internally which is most likely what Eddie expirienced. Cars for example the GP is lower on the car and the majority of the profit is on the Parts and services. yet when you look at the financials of the dealer you would see a 50% or greater gp for the sales.

I hope everyone's 'paying attention'.


:rolleyes:

My company has been doing business for 60 years on a 32-35% margin. The 50% mark may be true of a large corporation, though.

Whats the product? Service or goods?

I worked for a computer hardware manufacture for a few years after we sold the family business. We did $165 million with 32 employees. The GP was out of this world. The founder of the company was a janitor at MS the 3 years before. Someone wished they had a certain type of device in the server room he wass cleaning. He went to radio shack that night and bought some parts, built the device and brought it back the next day and they loved it. 3 years late he chased out his stock in a sale to a competitor at 50+ million. Crazy world sometimes.

Both.

Aircraft parts sales and service.

There is even better money in broads and booze...

We all gotta have something to aspire to, huh grandpa.

If you DO get some braods and booze lined up, 4S might want to talk to you.

Hell if 4s doesn't want some of that action, I sure will Grandpa. Once again, King I think you are absolutely wrong. You may be right on the small ticket items, your arguement makes sense. However, with big capital goods or services - 50% is an unheard of GP. Grandpa, what do you think - your company making 50% on sales?

We operate on the famous "bottom line"..If that is 5% we are heroes. The profit "margin" may start out high but in the end the net profit is what counts and allows for reinvestment in the business. Personally I never subscribed to the "gouging" theory...what is that anyway? If the consumer is happy with his or her purchase at a given price it is great if the merchant makes a decent profit. I can actually service my customers much better with a good profit. Too little profit breeds poor service and nickel and dime added costs. No one can operate a business for long at too low a profit margin. Accounting can manipulate things for only so long. Some businesses such as oil exploration and pharmaceuticals require immense start up and research costs that either have to be financed by capital or internal profits.

I was thinking about a Hooters franchise. Anyone know what the profit potential is there?

just kidding about the Hooters thing...Having three beautiful daughters keeps me from going to Hooters....I did tell one of my daughters once that she could get a job there...didn't go over too well.

I don't know where that 50% number comes from but there are no hard and fast rules. The only rules I am aware of are to stay listed on the exchange. You can still run de-listed however. Has nothing to do with taxes.

"If you DO get some braods and booze lined up, 4S might want to talk to you."

LOL Dan! Am I being that obvious!

Well eddie I have ben involved in selling big ticket hardware for 25 years. Our GP is 60%. I would bet you do not understand what true GP is and you are either looking at it from a salesmans standpoint and not the financials. If you are looking at the financials are only the selling expenses related to selling the product charged or are all the general overhead expenses chraged to the selling expense/ different ways to come up with the number for different accounting purposes with in a company. In DanS example above a 33-35% GP on a belended parts and service op is the lowest I have ever seen. Thats $350 max GP on a million in sales. I do not know the shop rates in his business but I have yet to see a service shop rate below $100 to 150 per hour for any similar product that would also mean a fully loaded burden rate of over $70 -$100 an hour which is out of this world unless you are working out of Bill gates home:-)

King,

I think you need to look at your math. On a $1M sale @ 35% GP the GP is $350K not $350. A pretty significant difference. The way the companies I have worked for determines GP is pretty simple:

Sale price - (S,G,& A (overhead incl. labor) + Cost of Goods) = Net profit. GP is generally figured by Sale Price - Cost of Goods. My belief is that is a pretty accurate way of determining cost which is a key component in determining profit. Obviously it is difficult to measure on each individual product or sale, but it works pretty well on a monthly, quarterly, or yearly basis.

I would agree with Grandpa, Net Profit is by far the more important figure. Other than the fact that as a salesperson, my commission is based upon the GP.

Eddie,

Of course I forgot the K. As a sales person I inmost cases you are not seeing true cost . Every company I have consulted front loads the salesmans cost. If they are a dealer or manufacture.

I would agree that I would not see the true cost in the manufacturing sector, but in regards to hard goods and services sold by a dealer or reseller - yes, I see the exact Cost of goods. In my business, GP at list price = 40%. And that's a heck of a lot better than other industry sectors.

POW!!

This was such a good post by PhishPhreak that I thought it deserved an encore.

------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------



------------------------------------------------------------

The wonderful thing about the people from which those quotes were taken is that they didn't send this country into war. Nor did they say there was an imminent threat. Nor do they say war was the only solution. And you know what? They were right.

I think Drunk driving should be a felony and subject to the 3 strikes rule. If that includes GW then So be it. AM the mistake you make is that you think I am in love with GW and can find no fault with what he does. Not ture. his platform , policies and stance on issues most closely reflects mine. He could be named Joe Blow for all I care. Just as Clinton's economic policies at the time where agreeable to me. I think Clinton would be doing much of what Bush has done since 9-11. And BTW Clinton was no uniter just as many people disliked him as do bush today based on the % of votes he granered in his last term.

So terrorists should get three strikes?

------------------------------------------------------------

It's must be nice to be the Cheerleaders at the big swim meet cheering right up until the the swimmers jump into the water and then being able to say as they're half way down the lane, "sorry...do over."

BTW--The Cheerleader asking for your vote this November just said recently that given all he knows now he still would have voted to give the president the authority to go to war.

try another analogy.

none of us cheered our entry into the war

[QUOTE]Originally posted by h2o:
try another analogy.

none of us cheered our entry into the war [/QUOTE
------------------------------------------------------------

The Cheerlerders referenced were the ones quoted in the encore reprinting of Phish Phreak's post.

GH,


"So terrorists should get three strikes?"

Depends on the charges does it not? Also which system they are judged Mil or civil?

Our shop rate is $65/hour, which is in line with competing shops on the west coast. If you want to bill out $100/hour, you'd better be working on BMW's, not GA aircraft.

so you are AGAIN saying thatit is NOT a black or white issue.....

"Comment on TK's post. Drunk drivers (GW) and terrorists being treated the same"

first off your point is moot. Any one charged and convicted in the past could not be charged and convicted again under a new law. Secondly "terrorism" was not a collective crime per se back in GW's day but string of individual crimes. So any comparison to try and say the GW is the same as a terrorist cannot work.

No its very black and white depending on the charges. If you get charged with a capital crime of terrorism the 3 strikes rule would not apply. If you had 2 dwi's that where considered a felony and your third crime was say aiding a terrorist group a felony carrying a 15 year sentance( for example only I have no idea what the guidlines really are) you would be eligible for the 3 strikes rule and life.

Dan's ,

Stick with us that was a real old thread that AM drug up to make some point. Flashbacks maybe.

------------------------------------------------------------

Aunty M,

I only re-posted Phish Phreaks post because I got lost in the thread you made current, and thought it was as relative today (if not more so) as it was a few months ago.

With regards to TK's post--I've got my hands full backing up my own posts, much less anyone elses.

On a serious note, I think drinking above the legal limit and operating a 3000 + lbs machine should be as serious legally as a private citizen going into a bar with a gun.

Even if you're a good driver or a good shot and have a C.W.P.--When your judgement is impared by alcohol it's better to leave your vehicle or fire arm out of arms reach.

With regards to terrorists, I think they get only one strike--then they get the panties on their head!

AM,

No. If someone repairs a behavior it's fair to judge them from that point forward on their actions. There are certainly crimes and actions that do not fit into that mold like sex offenders etc based on research. Remember back in the 70's driving drunk was no big deal until mad came along. I remember a roadtrip to go fishing one time back in the mid 70's 8 of us in a Ford Country Squire Station wagon. We decided to see how far we could pile beer cans from the floor. the driver got pulled over in Westport for driving acrosss lawns. When the cop opened the doors beer cans fell everywhere. We had had almost a case each to drink. He looked for the most sober driver and sent us on our way. Something we would not do today certainly but are we bad people because we did it? I am a firm believer that you are a better more well rounded person for your expirences. GW for example learned something from that that many do not until later in life.

------------------------------------------------------------
Aunty M,

Alcoholism is some thing that unfortunately touches alot of families.

There nothing wrong with being human and falling down, it's what you decide to do after falling that defines character. If you didn't physically hurt somene while falling and just came to the conclusion that something does you more harm than it helps you and you decide to go with out it to better yourself and your personal relationships--that to me is admirable.

You've said that President Bushs' past admitted problem with alcohol was untreated. I think the fact that he has been sober for approx. 14 years suggests that how ever he did it--it was dealt with/treated rather effectively.

AM,

I do not think you can be a terroist and face the level of charge that a DWI carries but maybe we can rename road rage Driving While Terrorizing :p