As Expected, Obamanomics has Failed

[xr7g428]

Jelly, Do you know who Winston Churchill was? What would Winston do?

[Edstock]

There's little point in you and I debating some trivial fact from World War II on this thread. Perhaps we should dedicate a thread to it. At any rate, the Russians might have been an "official" ally but don't make the mistake of thinking that it means that Chruchill and Truman were the least bit fooled about who they really were.

Diplomatically, not doable, however desirable. The State Department would have freaked. People like Alger Hiss would have freaked. The problem with an airstrike is that it would have had to have been a 1-way mission, as this was before in-flight re-fueling, unless the USN could get a carrier in the area, or some kind of craft to pick up ditching crews..

[Edstock]

Jelly, Do you know who Winston Churchill was? What would Winston do?

Drink a very large, very fine single-malt whisky.

[xr7g428]

Edstock, that is so very, very, true. To say nothing of the cigar.... Cheers!

[Ford Jellymoulds]

Jelly, Do you know who Winston Churchill was? What would Winston do?

 

Winston Churchill was a great leader and not the worlds biggest village idiot like warmonger Bush so don't try to change the subject please.

 

 

 

Both Gulf wars could have been avoided so could the 10,000's of nutter muslim martyrs it helped to create, 911 could have been avoided, expensive homeland security sucking billions out of the taxpayer would not have been needed, airport security would not take all day to pass through like it was pre 91, bloodshed could of been avoided and our brave troops would not have had to put their lifes on the line for oil, no weapons of mass destruction lies we were spun by Bush Senior and his idiot boy & idiot boys British toy poodle.

 

I still say we should have kept our noses out the way and let the daft muslim bastards kill each like they did in the Iran/Iraq and give them a wide birth and so giving themselves enough rope to hang themselves killing lots of Arabs without spilling a bit of American/British blood in the process. We would have still been the winner who ever won. Arabs would still have sold us oil the Iraq/Iran war never caused any oil supply problems. Instead warmonger Bush Senior stirred up a muslim anti-American martyrs Hornet nest turning the whole Muslim world against the us the consequences of will last for years into the future sad to say when we could have stayed out the way and still be distant but friends.

 

 

 

Edited July 14, 2010 by Ford Jellymoulds

[goinbroke2]

And stayed distant friends?

 

You sir are an uninformed idiot.

 

Fight for oil? You honestly have no idea what actually goes on besides what the evening news tells you, do you?

 

A hell of a lot of troops have been lost for a hell of a lot less. It's not right or wrong, it is what it is. The government decides to pick a "tool" out of it's "tool box" and use it against a country when required. Sometimes it is an embargo or political staturing, other times it is a blockade or invasion. Other times it is just aiding a common ally to their means.

 

Somebody with a hell of a lot more intelligence than you and I combined decided that "life wasn't all peaches and cream" and wouldn't be as long as saddam was being a wild card. Perhaps there were lots of reasons. Perhaps WMD were sighted or reported on. Who knows, but somebody higher up the chain decided to threaten saddam, then blockade him, then do a number of other things until the final threat of invasion bluff was called. He was invaded and kicked back to his country. He continued to stir shit and again the retoric went up a notch until he was pounded a second time.

 

You are under the false assumption that Bush, Blair or any of the other leaders just randomly decided one day to invade a country for kicks and the dart landed on irac.

 

There is a lot of effort and thought put into any action by the military, and I don't mean by the military itself, but by government. To say Bush had no reason to do anything and "life was all great and would of continued to be so" is not only patently wrong by very misinformed.

 

We are all human and humans make mistakes. But unless your in the position (and have all the facts) you can't be so judgemental.

 

Should we have bombed japan? What if we didn't and we lost 300,000 allies in the invasion? Then the hindsight would of been that we should have, as it is we have loons raving that we shouldn't have. And I can guarantee you that a lot of forethought went into the "bombing vs invasion" discussion!

 

Just sit back in your comfortable chair in your own home in your free country and type away on your own computor about how the leaders of the free world were so wrong, after all you participated to ensure your own freedom right?...oh wait....

 

Lucky somebody is ensuring your freedom is protected for you, huh?

[grbeck]

Last I checked, there were no German pilots or luftwafe airplanes attacking Pearl Harbor, and yet we sent a whole lot of American men, women and military hardware to England to attack Germany after Pearl. Why? Because the Germans and the Japanesse were allies.

 

As I understand it, when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor and the U.S. declared war on Japan, Germany quickly declared war on the U.S. We didn't simply go to war with Germany because it was allied with Japan.

[grbeck]

Both Gulf wars could have been avoided so could the 10,000's of nutter muslim martyrs it helped to create, 911 could have been avoided, expensive homeland security sucking billions out of the taxpayer would not have been needed, airport security would not take all day to pass through like it was pre 91, bloodshed could of been avoided and our brave troops would not have had to put their lifes on the line for oil, no weapons of mass destruction lies we were spun by Bush Senior and his idiot boy & idiot boys British toy poodle.

 

I still say we should have kept our noses out the way and let the daft muslim bastards kill each like they did in the Iran/Iraq and give them a wide birth and so giving themselves enough rope to hang themselves killing lots of Arabs without spilling a bit of American/British blood in the process. We would have still been the winner who ever won. Arabs would still have sold us oil the Iraq/Iran war never caused any oil supply problems. Instead warmonger Bush Senior stirred up a muslim anti-American martyrs Hornet nest turning the whole Muslim world against the us the consequences of will last for years into the future sad to say when we could have stayed out the way and still be distant but friends.

 

 

Not quite an accurate reading of history there. Terrorism from the Middle East was a problem before the first Gulf War. What has changed is that the terrorists have become more sophisticated with each attack (which is why the attacks were getting deadlier).

 

Plus, if you listened to Osama bin Laden's first statement in the wake of 9/11, he specifically mentioned the Spanish kicking the Muslims out of Spain in the late 1400s (he referred to Spain as "Andalusia"). So the blame for making bin Laden mad stretches back to King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella of Spain.

 

He also mentioned the British and French dismemberment of the old Ottoman Empire, which had sided with Germany in World War I, after the war. The U.S. had nothing to do with that one.

Edited July 14, 2010 by grbeck

[Ford Jellymoulds]

Not quite an accurate reading of history there. Terrorism from the Middle East was a problem before the first Gulf War. What has changed is that the terrorists have become more sophisticated with each attack (which is why they were getting deadlier).

 

 

Early 80's Bush Senior & Rumsfeld helps arm Iraq up to the teeth with chemical weapons & military hardware, Britain supplies Iran in Iraq War we both makes loads of money from daft muslims. You help Saddam with Operation Staunch because you want all the arms money and don't like commie Iran. Daft Muslims end up killing each other which l thought was a smart move at the time & no British/American blood spilt at the time.

 

 

Before 1990- No muslim Trade Centre Attacks - No Expensive Homeland Security - You could breeze through airports in 5 minutes - muslim martyrs hellbent wiping out the west not many.

 

Early 90's - Bush Senior his poked his nose into Iraq/Kuwait war stirs up muslim hornets nest when daft muslims were already doing a great job killing each other without our help - Bush sides with Kuwait American/British blood flows when we could have left the alone to so only Arabs would kill Arabs and sold them weapons like Bush Senior & Rumsfeld had done in the Iraq/Iran war. Instead we stirred up a hornets nest that help create 10,000's of muslim nutter martyrs hell bent revenge.

 

1993 - Reward for Bushie helping Kuwait, Ramzi Youse and his Uncle (Mastermind behind the 911 attacks) both from Kuwait attempt to blow up Trade Centre.

 

911 2001 - Muslim martyrs nutters mainly from Saudi Arabia train up learn how to fly weapons of mass destruction in Florida al-qaeda training camps, 911 the saddest day in my life happens, as the whole of the world feels America's pain.

 

2003 Bush goes in to wrong country not much shock n ore in Saudi Arabia the muslim nutters flying Boeings into the trade centre nearly all come from Saudi Arabia to finish off his dads business, bLiar spins Britain into war on "no weopons of mass destruction lie" from a British Secret intelligence found document in the back of taxi which turns out to be a young universerty graduates paper on 1991 Gulf War he was doing. Shock n ore came the Iraqis went underground to fight like cowards (gotta say l did not see this coming) and splinter attacks started like you say as both Gulf War create a massive hornets nest of 10,000's of muslim nutters and fight bomb like cowards in splinter all over the world.

 

7/7 British born and Bred bomber muslim nutter martyrs bomb Britain not shock n ore on the Midland mosques.

 

Do you think if had left daft Arabs to kill daft Arabs in the 1990 Gulf War and kept our noses out the shit that followed would still have happened?

 

Still the shit continues still in 2010 when will we ever learn there has got to be another way.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bX7V6FAoTLc

 

 

 

 

[grbeck]

Early 80's Bush Senior & Rumsfeld helps arm Iraq up to the teeth with chemical weapons & military hardware, Britain supplies Iran in Iraq War we both makes loads of money from daft muslims. You help Saddam with Operation Staunch because you want all the arms money and don't like commie Iran. Daft Muslims end up killing each other which l thought was a smart move at the time & no British/American blood spilt at the time.

 

 

Before 1990- No muslim Trade Centre Attacks - No Expensive Homeland Security - You could breeze through airports in 5 minutes - muslim martyrs hellbent wiping out the west not many.

 

Early 90's - Bush Senior his poked his nose into Iraq/Kuwait war stirs up muslim hornets nest when daft muslims were already doing a great job killing each other without our help - Bush sides with Kuwait American/British blood flows when we could have left the alone to so only Arabs would kill Arabs and sold them weapons like Bush Senior & Rumsfeld had done in the Iraq/Iran war. Instead we stirred up a hornets nest that help create 10,000's of muslim nutter martyrs hell bent revenge.

 

1993 - Reward for Bushie helping Kuwait, Ramzi Youse and his Uncle (Mastermind behind the 911 attacks) both from Kuwait attempt to blow up Trade Centre.

 

911 2001 - Muslim martyrs nutters mainly from Saudi Arabia train up learn how to fly weapons of mass destruction in Florida al-qaeda training camps, 911 the saddest day in my life happens, as the whole of the world feels America's pain.

 

2003 Bush goes in to wrong country not much shock n ore in Saudi Arabia the muslim nutters flying Boeings into the trade centre nearly all come from Saudi Arabia to finish off his dads business, bLiar spins Britain into war on "no weopons of mass destruction lie" from a British Secret intelligence found document in the back of taxi which turns out to be a young universerty graduates paper on 1991 Gulf War he was doing. Shock n ore came the Iraqis went underground to fight like cowards (gotta say l did not see this coming) and splinter attacks started like you say as both Gulf War create a massive hornets nest of 10,000's of muslim nutters and fight bomb like cowards in splinter all over the world.

 

7/7 British born and Bred bomber muslim nutter martyrs bomb Britain not shock n ore on the Midland mosques.

 

Do you think if had left daft Arabs to kill daft Arabs in the 1990 Gulf War and kept our noses out the shit that followed would still have happened?

 

Still the shit continues still in 2010 when will we ever learn there has got to be another way.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bX7V6FAoTLc

 

 

Again, not an accurate reading of history. There was terrorism before 1990. And please note that the first Gulf War was not solely launched by Bush Senior and the British. It was a true coalition effort, and supported by the United Nations. Virtually every country agreed that allowing Saddam Hussein to control Kuwait and its oil was a bad idea.

[retro-man]

Retro, I was hoping for something a bit less philosophical, and a bit more right here, right now oriented. We are all in favor of more puppies and rainbows, but then we also support spay neuter and flood control.

A bit more on this in a minute.

 

For example, I am 100% for gaining control of the Mexican border. I am also in favor of the Dream Act, and work permits. I am very concerned about the plight of children that were brought into the country illegally, grew up here, and have no connection to their country of birth. We can't rebuild the house until we put out the fire...

 

Where do you stand on the issue?

I absolutely agree that we should have 100% control over that border. It would be better for us, it would be better for them. I am not sure if the reason we don't enforce is an inability to do so, or if it is a vested interest in turning a blind eye in order to keep a downward pressure on labor costs within our own borders. I also agree that we need a workable solution for those who were not old enough to be held accountable for the actions of their parents. I am not sympathetic to the Federal Government's attack on the Arizona law. I am not 100% sympathetic to the Arizona law either - except insofar as it calls attention to the Federal government's failure to enforce its own laws.

 

I think that if we are going to diddle with the economy, we need to do things that address the problems directly. The biggest problem is employment. If we want more employment, we need to make employees less expensive, not more expensive. There are a number of ways to do this, but a tax credit for employers would be the fastest.

 

I think we need to become self sufficient in energy which means self sufficient in oil. We are currently building more electrical generating capacity in the form of wind and solar, but we were never dependent on imports for electrical power generation. I believe synthetic hydrocarbon production is the answer, and I believe it will take public sector involvement to make it happen. Just stopping the $400BN a year we send to the middle east would solve 80% of the trade deficit. The problem is not the cheap junk at Walmart, the problem is in our gas tanks.

 

So specifically, What do you want?

As I mentioned in an earlier post, our system is designed to externalize costs. "The high cost of low prices" is being paid by labor and the environment somewhere else (and in fact here as well - just not as obvious). This is demonstrated and indisputable. Now, there are stirrings of labor unrest and upward pressure on labor costs in China, as their prosperity grows (good for them). At the same time, we Americans are adjusting to "the new normal" and being told we have to do more with less. Free trade, as it is now practiced, is leading to a convergence of US and Chinese living standards. This is predictable (I predicted it 10 years ago) and inevitable. Most Americans, if they had their wits about them, would say that this is not a good thing. Once China becomes too expensive for global business - through rising labor and environmental standards, and China's day in the sun has ended - as Japan's pretty much has - global business will look for someplace else: Africa, India, Latin America - where they can get a better deal. It is slash-and-burn economics. One country after another - moving to the place where life is cheap and the environment can be despoiled without regulatory interference. If you don't like shattered lives and environmental degradation, you can't like this system. In the mean time, as our real income falls, and our situation becomes more dire at home, the clamor grows to roll back our own standards in order to remain competitive (I hear that clamor on these boards all the time), and the cycle starts all over again; Eventually we become the cheap labor market willing - out of desperation - to sacrifice our personal health and safety, and our natural environment in exchange for jobs. If we were sharing the pains and the gains equitably, this all wouldn't be so offensive - but the explosion of wealth at the very top shows that this is not the case. It's not that I want for everybody to be equal. It's just that I don't want for us to become any more unequal. We were once proud of our prosperous middle class - now people make excuses for its disappearance, or like grbeck, claim that it only existed in my imagination. Bullshit.

 

What I have proposed - and still propose - is that we use the constitutionally given authority of the federal government to levy tariffs on imported goods (which tariffs were the major source of operating revenue to the Federal government up till the early 20th century) so that the various categories of goods from our various trading partners cost what they would cost if they were produced under our labor laws and under our environmental standards. Countries could petition to have these tariffs removed by demonstrating labor and environmental standards equal to or better than our own; a race to the top instead of a race to the bottom. And the money raised from these tariffs could be used to eliminate our debt. All I am asking is that our consumers and our shareholders pay the price of humane labor standards and decent environmental standards - instead of incentivizing corporations to despoil, as we now do. Otherwise, completely free trade. You can buy anything from anywhere - including North Korea or Cuba - as long as they demonstrate adherence to our standards, or pay for not adhering. Reciprocal treatment of our products in other countries of course. Products would compete on quality and features. The incentive for producers would be access to highly developed consumer markets. Right now, the incentive is access to poorly developed labor and regulatory markets. Predictably, the system creates the results it incentivizes.

 

Race to the top instead of race to the bottom. This is so completely different from what we have been sold over the last 60 years since Bretton Woods, that most people are incapable of imagining that it could work. I have yet to hear an argument why it can't. The problem now is that we are rapidly losing our position of advantage to drive this.

Edited July 19, 2010 by retro-man

[Trimdingman]

The reason for the problems with the economy is not because of too expensive labor costs. It is because of too much money and resourses being squandered to the government. Workers are making peanuts, and are being exploited because of high unemployment, caused by government's gross mismanagement. For instance, look at McDonald's workers. It is a very efficient fast food operation. The labor cost per combo meal is pennies. To pay these workers a decent wage of $20 an hour would add maybe 25 cents to the cost of a meal. They pay minimum wage because people are starving and will work for next to nothing. This is a disgrace. The government needs a complete overhaul, and the balance of power needs to be tipped in favor of the people. Then business would come back, and decent wages would have to be paid under a more competitive environment where labor is at a premium, not a surplus.

Edited July 18, 2010 by Trimdingman

[partsisparts]

Here is some info for all you republicans out there:

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/18/pete-sessions-nrcc-chair_n_650431.html

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/18/mike-pence-explains-why-a_n_650374.html

 

Republicanomics: Return to the same policies that put us in this mess. Maybe it will work this time.

[fmccap]

Here is some info for all you republicans out there:

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/18/pete-sessions-nrcc-chair_n_650431.html

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/18/mike-pence-explains-why-a_n_650374.html

 

Republicanomics: Return to the same policies that put us in this mess. Maybe it will work this time.

Just as the left wants policies that are proven to fail also.

 

Why do you go on with the 2 party bickering? All we see is talking points and lies from the left also.

Edited July 19, 2010 by fmccap

[partsisparts]

Just as the left wants policies that are proven to fail also.

 

Why do you go on with the 2 party bickering? All we see is talking points and lies from the left also.

 

 

 

I feel it is my duty to my fellow countrymen.

Edited July 19, 2010 by partsisparts

[BlackHorse]

Here is some info for all you republicans out there:

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/18/pete-sessions-nrcc-chair_n_650431.html

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/18/mike-pence-explains-why-a_n_650374.html

 

Republicanomics: Return to the same policies that put us in this mess. Maybe it will work this time.

 

 

LMAO, Really, the ultra-left wing Huffington Post says that "republicanomics" didn't work? Get a clue pal. Let me guess, they also don't like Ronald Reagan right?

 

The current economic problems in this country are not due entirely to the policies of the left, but it is mostly because of the left and it is getting worse because of the left. The whole Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac fiasco was absolutely a disaster created democrat law makers and when the republicans sounded the alarm bell about it the left dismissed it as fear mongering and nonsense. Not long after that the housing market crashed, courtesy of the left and the ridiculous lending policies they forced on the banks.

 

Of course putting the country 13 trillion into debt (again courtesy of the democrats) has only worsened the situation. Your huffington post articles aren't worth the time you wasted posting the link.

Edited July 19, 2010 by BlackHorse

[partsisparts]

LMAO, Really, the ultra-left wing Huffington Post says that "republicanomics" didn't work? Get a clue pal. Let me guess, they also don't like Ronald Reagan right?

 

The current economic problems in this country are not due entirely to the policies of the left, but it is mostly because of the left and it is getting worse because of the left. The whole Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac fiasco was absolutely a disaster created democrat law makers and when the republicans sounded the alarm bell about it the left dismissed it as fear mongering and nonsense. Not long after that the housing market crashed, courtesy of the left and the ridiculous lending policies they forced on the banks.

 

Of course putting the country 13 trillion into debt (again courtesy of the democrats) has only worsened the situation. Your huffington post articles aren't worth the time you wasted posting the link.

 

Maybe you should have read the articles before you commented. They are about that the right has no new ideas

 

I too, blame both sides for the mess we are in.

 

Ronald Reagan? Talk about deficit spending. Why was it good for him and not Obama?

 

Here is another article showing hypocrisy:

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/18/anti-stimulus-group-attac_n_650386.html

Edited July 19, 2010 by partsisparts

[BlackHorse]

Maybe you should have read the articles before you commented. They are about that the right has no new ideas

 

I too, blame both sides for the mess we are in.

 

Ronald Reagan? Talk about deficit spending. Why was it good for him and not Obama?

 

Here is another article showing hypocrisy:

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/18/anti-stimulus-group-attac_n_650386.html

 

 

Quite frankly I'm not interested in any article from a so called "news organization" that employs so called "journalists" who openly conspired to suppress unfavorable stories about Obama and wrongly portray conservative critics of Obama as "racists". They have zero credibility and it wouldn't matter if you posted a thousand articles written by that organization I won't read them. They are a pathetic, sick joke.

 

Others went further. According to records obtained by The Daily Caller, at several points during the 2008 presidential campaign a group of liberal journalists took radical steps to protect their favored candidate. Employees of news organizations including Time, Politico, the Huffington Post, the Baltimore Sun, the Guardian, Salon and the New Republic participated in outpourings of anger over how Obama had been treated in the media, and in some cases plotted to fix the damage.

 

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/20/documents-show-media-plotting-to-kill-stories-about-rev-jeremiah-wright/#ixzz0uIdAHStj

[Ford Jellymoulds]

Poor ole Obama got handed a piles of shit from Bushie.

 

Gotta say it pisses me off bigtime to see your Namm Afghanistan war where trained up Afghan troops are now shooting our brave American British troops in the back on a daily basis.

 

You have good & bad eggs from both sides, l am not a big fan of hypocrite Al Gore but loved Ronnie for helping build bridges break down the cold war barriers with the soviet eastern block countries without a drip of American/British blood getting spilt in the process.

 

My Father-in Law and most Brits hate the 3 B's that he calls them (Bastards) bLiar, Brown & Bush gotta say l agree with him they were three bad rotten eggs. I am not a big fan of Thatcher either who destroyed done more damage to Britains manufacturing base than the German Luftwaffe could ever have dreamed of doing in WW2 British Aerospace sites, British Leyland sites & coal mining jobs disappeared in their millions everybody ended up on the dole as she used high North Sea oil revenue to wipe out manufacturing keep us on the dole producing nothing and turned us into a shop based service sector financial services based economy instead much like Bushie has done today with the 10 million unemployed in the USA in a more idiot way than than our spiteful shopkeepers daughter.

 

I wish both President Obama & Cameron the best of luck and hope they both sort this mess out that was left to them and bring our brave troops home as soon as possible and bring some peace & stability to the world for a change rather than the 3 B's warmongering of the past we once had to enjure.

 

 

 

Edited July 21, 2010 by Ford Jellymoulds

[Imawhosure]

Warmonger Bush. Interesting choice of words.

 

Now for reality----->the left is done for at least the next 2 elections. If you think Bush was a warmonger, you are probably going to see the Middle East go up in smoke to solve the problem.

 

You can yell all you wish. Truth be told----->the pendulum swings right, and when it goes to far that way, it swings left. Your guy pushed it beyond the scope, so now you will get a far right wing government to eliminate what you voted in. If the conservatives can actually win the war. and while doing it, make the economy grow while putting off a decision on medicare.......we may not see another democrat for 12yrs. But that is a big if!

 

The democrat problem is simple------>they have done absolutely nothing to improve economic conditions for anyone other than the poor; unless you perceive that extending unemployment benefits is a solution, rather than a symptom of the sickness. If the conservatives turn things around, the liberals are done for a very, very, long time. If the conservatives can't do any better, then I guess it might be a revolution, lol.

[goinbroke2]

I said a while back, in 4 years (now two) either obama is done, or America is done because if he wins a second term he will have lots of time to socialize/communize america. I was very concerned that the great country was going to be destroyed from within. Now, even though I'm still concerned, I think I see more and more people who are not socialist starting to stand up. Call them tea party, call them disallusioned dems/repub's but there is a growing awareness that something is not right. People were pissed a george w and now their pissed at obama. People are starting to see that the public's interests are either not being taken care of or outright ignored.

A country that was not so self-made or proud of why it was created would have fallen to the socialist extremes. (UK?)

 

 

God Bless America, may it always stand for freedom, justice and the "american way". Capitalism and entreprenurial spirit, a mix that has propelled a country to the #1 place in the world in a relatively short period. (234 years, There are houses in europe older than that)

[Mark B. Morrow]

Warmonger Bush. Interesting choice of words.

 

Now for reality----->the left is done for at least the next 2 elections. If you think Bush was a warmonger, you are probably going to see the Middle East go up in smoke to solve the problem.

 

You can yell all you wish. Truth be told----->the pendulum swings right, and when it goes to far that way, it swings left. Your guy pushed it beyond the scope, so now you will get a far right wing government to eliminate what you voted in. If the conservatives can actually win the war. and while doing it, make the economy grow while putting off a decision on medicare.......we may not see another democrat for 12yrs. But that is a big if!

 

The democrat problem is simple------>they have done absolutely nothing to improve economic conditions for anyone other than the poor; unless you perceive that extending unemployment benefits is a solution, rather than a symptom of the sickness. If the conservatives turn things around, the liberals are done for a very, very, long time. If the conservatives can't do any better, then I guess it might be a revolution, lol.

 

 

The conservatives got us into this mess. Why would you think that extending/going back to the policies of the Republican leadership of 1995 - 2007 would produce a different result? Bush's tax cuts 2 wars off budget and giveaways to coroprate America, as well as those corporations that moved out of America and moved middle class jobs overseas, trashed our economy. The scary deficits Republicans suddenly "discovered" are the result of their policies. Bush inherited a surplus. He asked for no sacrifice from the wealthiest 1% to pay for the spending he claimed was necessary to our survival. He was quite happy to Charge It to the future.

Edited July 24, 2010 by Mark B. Morrow

[xr7g428]

Mark, that post drips with more hypocrisy than usual. Bad day at the office? Bush deficit bad: Obama deficit good? LOL!

[Ford Jellymoulds]

Warmonger Bush. Interesting choice of words.

 

Now for reality----->the left is done for at least the next 2 elections. If you think Bush was a warmonger, you are probably going to see the Middle East go up in smoke to solve the problem.

 

 

 

Before the Warmonger Bush Senior poked his nose into the first Gulf War the UK was a relatively safe place to live you get through airport security in next to no time, we did not need billions spent on homeland security back then. When l got on an underground tube train l felt very safe when a Muslim woman in a Burka came and sat next to me, l would even treat them with reverence and give up my seat if the tube train was full. But today if a Muslim woman in a Burka comes and sits next to me on a tube train they put the fear of God up me give me the heebie jeebies l feel very vulnerable to what they could have hiding under their Burka. l normally get off at the next stop and move to the end of the tube train in another carriage they give me the shits and spook me out after 7/7 London bomb attacks the Warmonger Bush Senior created British born and bred martyrs killed so many in our capital.

 

Gotta say l prefer the Iraq/Iran war when you supplied Iraq with weapons when Arab were killing Arabs the Middle East did not go up in smoke and die, nor did brave American/British troops lose any blood in the bloodbath, daft Arab killed Arab and we still got our oil it did not cause an oil crisis.

 

 

Warmonger Bush senior helped stirred up a muslim hornets nest as we helped Kuwait: The rewards martyrs born in Kuwait launch 1993 first trade centre attack kill 6 over 1,000 injured, Weopons of no detsruction Bush idiot, bLair & Brown were all twats they should have kept their noses out they went into the wrong country Iraq to avenge 911 twin towers attack planned by an Kuwaiti carried out by Saudi Arabians.

 

All we have done in both Gulf wars is stir up a daft muslim hornets nest and create a million daft muslim martyrs that what to die for the cause Jihad whatever.

 

bLair & Brown should have flattened every mosque & bombed the fooking shit out of Leeds & Bradford in the United Kindom but they are to politically correct to do it.

 

BBC : BRITISH BORN & BRED MUSLIMS 7/7 ATTACK

Suicide bombers Mohammad Sidique Khan, Shehzad Tanweer, Hasib Hussain and Jermaine Lindsay detonated the bombs on three Tube trains and a bus during the morning rush-hour on 7 July 2005, killing 52 people and injuring more than 700.

 

All the bombers had strong links to West Yorkshire. Khan, Tanweer and Hussain had lived in the Beeston area of Leeds and Lindsay spent his childhood in Huddersfield.

 

LINK

 

DAILY MAIL

Massacre in Mumbai: Up to SEVEN gunmen were British and 'came from same area as 7/7 bombers'

 

British-born Pakistanis were among the Mumbai terrorists, Indian government sources claimed today, as the death toll rose to at least 150.

As many as seven of the terrorists may have British connections and some could be from Leeds and Bradford where London's July 7 bombers lived, one source said.

 

LINK

 

DAILY EXPRESS...

 

MI5 CHIEF: IRAQ WAR LED TO WAVE OF TERROR

 

Wednesday July 21,2010

 

 

By Padraic Flanagan

THE war to topple Saddam Hussein triggered a wave of British-born traitors joining Muslim fanatics to battle UK forces in Iraq, the former head of MI5 said yesterday.

 

 

Giving evidence to the Iraq Inquiry, Baroness Manningham-Buller said the conflict "gave Osama Bin Laden his Iraqi jihad" and radicalised a generation of young British Muslims.

 

She revealed 70 or 80 Britons who travelled to Iraq "to fight not with Her Majesty's forces but against them" were discovered when insurgents were captured by coalition forces and taken into custody.

 

In a devastating 90-minute session, Lady Manningham-Buller, director-general of MI5 for five years from 2002, said spy chiefs warned ministers the threat to Britain from Al Qaeda would increase if the UK joined the invasion.

 

"Our involvement in Iraq radicalised, for want of a better word, a whole generation of young people, some British citizens," she said.

 

She corrected herself to say: "Not a whole generation, a few among a generation who saw our involvement in Iraq, on top of our involvement in Afghanistan, as being an attack on Islam.

 

"Arguably, we gave Osama Bin Laden his Iraqi jihad so he was able to move into Iraq in a way he was not before."

 

She said the number of Britons who became involved in terrorist plots against the UK after the Iraq invasion took MI5 by surprise.

 

"We did not foresee the degree to which British citizens would become involved," she told the inquiry.

 

"During 2003-04 we realised the focus was not foreigners. The increasing threat was from British citizens. It was what has now become called home-grown."

 

Inquiry chairman Sir John Chilcot released a memo written by Lady Manningham-Buller in March 2002, in which she warned Tony Blair's Labour government that declaring war on Iraq would increase the terror threat in the UK.

 

A year after the 2003 invasion, she said MI5 was "swamped" by leads about terrorist threats to the UK.

 

The baroness said she shared her concerns about the UK's increased exposure to terrorism with then Home Secretary David Blunkett, but did not "recall" discussing the matter with Prime Minister Tony Blair.

 

However, she singled out Mr Blair for "over-reliance on fragmentary intelligence" in making his case for joining the US-led invasion.

 

Lady Manningham-Buller also revealed MI5 refused a request to contribute intelligence to the dossier about weapons of mass destruction.

 

She said MI5 analysis showed that there was "no intelligence" that Iraq wanted to mount mass-­casualty attacks using chemical or biological weapons.

 

LINK

 

 

 

Edited July 24, 2010 by Ford Jellymoulds

[goinbroke2]

Jelly your left is showing...

 

Funny how in 1990 when I was riding the tube for the first time, it just stopped and a bell rung. WTF? Everybody just casually funnels off, no big deal...what's going on I ask. Oh, a bomb scare, probably the damn irish.

WTF?? Bomb scare?? And everybody is just casually leaving the tube??

 

Couple minutes later, new train pulls up, everybody loads, off we go as if nothing happened

 

March 92, I'm one of the first 14 UN soldiers into the balkans. We fought from the slovenia border down to eventually duravar, Croatia. Our job was to clear the tracks for the brigade that was following. A few things I notice while returning fire from behind train wheel while pinned down at a train station. 1) the train was built in Ontario Canada! Data plate a few inches from my face....strange.. 2) there is a black gmc van parked in the parking lot of the train station?!?

The 7 months I was there I saw a dozen or more veh with Canada plates (mostly ontario) and talked to two Canadians. (both from ontario)

 

Guess what Jelly? When someones home land that they just left or have strong ties to goes to war, sometimes they go to fight. And sometimes they go to fight against their new country. This is not muslim or pakistani or saudi, this is someones ties to their former country. Either they have family/friends or in the case of a buddy of mine who I've known for about 19 years, he still owns land in lebanon. Very suspicious of me when we met because he found out I was military. Wife new/worked for him for 3-4 years at the time. We got to be friends and I heard about him and his brother both going back to lebanon to fight on the Christian side. His kids? One joined the canadian military but failed in boot camp and quit. The other son is running a second sandwich shop and his daughter is getting a degree in business. There is not a chance in hell the kids would go back to lebanon, daniel even said he would sell his share of the property there without ever seeing it. He's Canadian, only knows the family that has come to visit from there, nobody else.

 

I've met Canadians in Somalia, darfur, Eritrea, Nairobi Kenya, bosnia, serbia, montenegro and a bunch of places I can't mention.

You act like you know what's going on by left wing sound bites etc. Shit would of hit the fan eventually anyway. It was building up and hindsight being 20-20 it's easy to critique what has happened. It's possible it would of been lot worse if nobody invaded and a dictator was able to thumb his nose at a superpower continuously. It would of emboldened other dictators to do the same and undermine the pecking order of the world. (I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just, it is what it is) Who knows, north korea could of started shit because it thought it could get away with it, same as a whole bunch of other tiny shithole countries that are never on the news.

 

People act suprised when we send troops somewhere. You think it was an off the cuff decision? Shit must of been brewing for months or years and finally somebody decided to stop it. But it was all outside the media because it's not a juicy enough sound bite. It was two weeks, TWO WEEKS before Sgt Mike Ralf's death was reported in the news back in Canada. The FIRST Canadian killed in Yugo. Nobody even knew we were in Yugoslavia at the time. Somalia, NOBODY knew or reported anything until Kyle Brown killed that f&^%ing .....

 

anyway, my point is, the only time the media gets involved is when there is a juicy story or sound bit they can play over and over. They have a 1 hour show to get in sports/weather/news/local news/etc. This means the 30 stories of the day are culled to the 6-8 juicy stories. The way the news stations lean, left or right, will decide which are aired and which are dropped. This also decides how the story is reported obviously. Darfur was ignored by the media even though canadians were there and it was dangerous, tribal fighting, no law of the land, corruption..then the murdering started and nothing was really mentioned. Then the genocide started about two weeks later and still nothing. Then some pictures got out and Gen Dallaire was yelling to anybody that would listen that the genocide was going on. Then when the left wing CBC got the story it was how we (canadian army/UN) weren't doing enough to stop the genocide!!! This is after hundreds of thousands were butchered, but the focus was on our unability to stop it, not the actuall genocide! The news was VERY anti military (thank you liberals) and only when the numbers got high enough, was then it a bleeding heart, hand wringing "we should do something" left wing cause!!! Then it was about how terrible war is, how bad the military is, send money too...There was no war, it was an extermination! It was no army that did it, it was government and rebel thugs. For the left to jump on after the fact and be pious and look down their noses claiming to "care" and that the right "is cold hearted and doesn't care about the plight of these people" was plain fucking self-serving sensationalism by the left!!

When your in a hospital compound and the gates are being tested by crowds of hundreds wanting to kill anybody/anything and others are wanting help and yet others are there because they will be murdered if their not, then you realise it's not formal militaries fighting this war but warlords and thugs.

 

Darfur happened because nobody cared about a nothing country in the middle of nowhere with no strategic value. Pure and simple. If it was deemed important (like the middle east) then supplies and troops would of been deployed. Then the media would of reported it and got the country wound up to support it. Then the genocide would never have happened. Instead, some went to bed with reoccuring nightmares even though there was nothing that could of been done.It was the will (or lack of) of people to only get involved when they have a vested interest. It sucks sometimes but that is life.

 

Gulf war happened because it had/has strategic value. Same as allowing nukes to be placed on cuba had to be stopped at all cost. The terrorist are an unfortunate consequence.

 

Viet nam had agent orange as one unfortunate consequence.

 

Next war will have different (unknown at this time) consequences.

Edited July 24, 2010 by goinbroke2