In response to:

Europe's Wishes Came True

Corbett_ Wrote: Jan 24, 2013 9:41 AM
Imagine how much better off our nation would have been if GWB hadn't gotten us involved in Afghanistan and Iran and instead not borrowed the money from the Chinese.
America is Over Wrote: Jan 24, 2013 7:23 PM
I'm so old I can remember when Democrats didn't root against their own country.
True Conservative! Wrote: Jan 24, 2013 12:29 PM
You're insisting on showing what an idiot you are, Corbett. Smarter people would S T F U, if you catch my drift!
C. R.4 Wrote: Jan 24, 2013 11:28 AM
Sorry, but Bush's plans were okayed by Demos and money from China has been going on long before Bush. Most of this started in the 60's and escalated with Demo control of Congress. So put the blame where it should be and stop picking on Bush because we had money, jobs and a future. Now, where are these things. Bush and no prez has ever been perfect but now we have a clear cut pattern with which to compare not perfect with absolute horror in Obama.
skip59 Wrote: Jan 24, 2013 11:18 AM
It is amazing to me that someone with the predilictions of corbett doesn't recall the words of Leon Trotsky. Let me help corbett by repeating them here:
"You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you."

Corbett may fervently hope that singing john lennon songs will pacify those who seek to destroy us, but it won't. The fact is there are a large number of people in the world who wish us dead. We have a military that is charged with the task of confronting and neutralizing the threat that these people represent.

It is just that the corbetts of the world don't understand any of this.

Corbett_ Wrote: Jan 24, 2013 11:31 AM
Skip -- Neither the Taliban nor Saddam wanted to destroy us. They just wanted to be left alone. It is our military adventurism that causes people to want to destroy the US. If we bomb their weddings and kill their families, you can't blame them for being a little miffed.

They don't "hate us for our freedom." They hate us because we are over there and in their business.
Auspex Wrote: Jan 24, 2013 2:01 PM
I think they would hate and terrorize us regardless. BUT I think what you say gives them significantly more furvor in their hate and violence towards us for sure. If our adventurism were gone fom there, they'd still be just a gnat and not a hornets nest.
Reginald10 Wrote: Jan 24, 2013 3:26 PM
Before the first Iraqi war, Saddam Hussein was subsidizing terrorists and hijackers. They were sent to hurt us, not the Soviets or Chinese. And the Taliban, and their fellow jihad-warriors for 1500 years, have been waging war against all non-believers in Islam. That is, in fact, one of the principal tenets of Islam: to convert or kill the infidels.

So don't tell us that "Neither the Taliban nor Saddam wanted to destroy us." We know better; we remember the past.
Reginald10 Wrote: Jan 24, 2013 3:28 PM
Not with billions of "petrodollars", and armament makers willing and able to sell their wares to the Jihaddis.
pow1000 Wrote: Jan 24, 2013 10:26 AM
In about 5 years you can say "imagine how much better off our Nation would have been, if the commies wouldnt have taken over".
Corbett_ Wrote: Jan 24, 2013 10:42 AM
Pow:

I can say it now. I do not like the commies (actually fascists) in the White House any better than I liked GWB and his bunch of fascists.
Jim Weber Wrote: Jan 24, 2013 10:26 AM
What a dolt! You cannot see that Obozo more than doubled-down on GWB Policies. If Obozo's $Trillion Deficits are so good, why were GWB $Billion Deficits so bad.

Man, you are a colossal idiot.
Corbett_ Wrote: Jan 24, 2013 10:41 AM
Jim -- ALL deficits are bad. It doesn't matter which sleazy politician oversees the spending. I am merely pointing out that we would be much better off if we had not invades two countries that did not attack the US.

I know that bin Laden attacked the US, but Afghanistan offered to turn him over to us if we would follow the extradition treaties. We refused.
eddie again Wrote: Jan 24, 2013 10:48 AM
you have no idea if what you write is true. it is total speculation.

a more interesting observation is what makes corbett think he/she knows what the future might have been?

does that sound like someone living in a fantasy world totally constructed from his/her imagination?

in some imaginations other than corbett, there might have been a world that was worse than it is now. however that too would be competely imaginary and living in a fantasy.

so, corbett lives in a fantasy world. i surmise from that fact that his/her comments contain anything of substance purely by chance and completely randomly.
Corbett_ Wrote: Jan 24, 2013 11:36 AM
Eddie:

I know this is true -- if we had not spent the money, we would not owe it. Our debt is the biggest threat to our national survival. We spent hundreds of billions (if not over a trillion) and what did we get our of it? Is the Middle East more stable? Is the US safer? Has al qaeda gone away? Do the people of the world love Americans more?

Did we get value for our money? The answer is "NO!" It didn't turn out well and many people said it wouldn't before we went in.
eddie again Wrote: Jan 24, 2013 12:00 PM
the point is that you have no idea what the world would have been like if we had not spent the money and taken the actions we took.

i get it that you do not like the world as it is, but your conclusion that it would have been better not to have done what was done is unsupportable. it is total speculation.

i agree that the federal government is incurring too much debt. also, how and why it is incurring that debt is a valid question.

president eisenhower warned us about out of control defense spending in 1959.

did the bush administration make tactical and strategic errors in its response to 911. i believe it did.

however, the strategy and tactics i would have taken are most lilkely far different than those you would have.
eddie again Wrote: Jan 24, 2013 12:05 PM
my tactics would have included giving the muslims thirty days to vacate mecca and then nukiing it. i would then repeatedly broadcast to the islamic masses the question of why did allah not defend his holy city. i would have repeated that question to them ad nauseam. i would also have told the muslim leadership that for every future act of islamic terrorism against u.s. targets i would give another muslim city thirty days to vacate before i nuked that city and would have given them a list of the order of the cities. that would have saved us a lot of money and would have been more a more effective strategy for diminishing muslim militancy and terrorism.

i doubt that would have been your cost effective tactics and strategy.
eddie again Wrote: Jan 24, 2013 12:08 PM
borrowing money to defend america is a time-honored policy.

borrowing money for other purposes is a relatively new american policy.

what would have been if ... is pointless speculation.

but after 911 america needed defending from a outside agressor. i do not think raising meaningless and indeterminable what ifs serves any worthwhile purpose.
Bufa Wrote: Jan 24, 2013 10:10 AM
I'm sorry......I don't recall a conflict we were involved in in Iran?
Corbett_ Wrote: Jan 24, 2013 10:38 AM
Bufa -- Iraq -- slip of the pen.
badgerpat Wrote: Jan 24, 2013 10:10 AM
Imagine how much better off our nation would be if we didn't have absolute morons with no grasp of reality, such as Corbett, living here.
Wolfgang6 Wrote: Jan 24, 2013 1:49 PM
We'd be even better off without the morons who criticize Corbett while bending over backwards to shield any Republican policy from criticism. Truth hurts, doesn't it, you ignorant goobers.
Bufa Wrote: Jan 24, 2013 10:09 AM
Beating a dead horse sure gets great results doesn't it?
Corbett_ Wrote: Jan 24, 2013 10:51 AM
Bufa -- The reason I mentioned GWB's wars of aggression is that the author seems to be nostalgic about the "good old days" when Bush was throwing his weight around. We have spent hundreds of billions, if not trillions, had thousands killed and tens of thousands wounded, not to mention the hundreds of thousands we have killed and maimed, and what has it accomplished?

Are we better off? Are we safer? Has al qaeda gone away? Is the region more stable? The answer to each of those questions is a resounding "NO!" So wouldn't we have been better off to have saved the money?
C. R.4 Wrote: Jan 24, 2013 11:30 AM
Again, don't blame Bush because the Demos were in control of Congress and pushed the decision. Demo controlled Congress would not agree to any of his push for avoiding the housing debacle. Stop going back in history and see how we can change our future without Obama and his takeover of America going into outright communism and his dictatorship. Been there, done that and don't want it here!
Doug4749 Wrote: Jan 24, 2013 11:32 AM
The reason we're not better off is that zero decided to end the conflicts on a certain date. 'We'll fight, but we're going home in 2014'. All the inbreed sheep fornicators have to do is wait for the allied (?) forces to leave. Giving them a date-certain deadline opened the opportunity for the various tribes to stake claims to various regions. Letting the enemy know in advance that you will be leaving, whether or not the fight is settled, can’t be considered a brilliant war strategy.

Almost a decade ago, Europeans and many progressive Americans were lamenting how the United States was going to miss out on the 21st-century paradigm symbolized by the robust European Union. Neanderthal Americans were importing ever more oil while waging a costly "war on terror" and fighting two conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our budget deficit in 2003 hit $374 billion.

The EU avoided foreign conflicts and embraced soft power. Its declining military budgets and centralized transnational government ensured that it could address global warming and fund ever-expanding entitlements. Even the poorer Mediterranean nations reached new heights of prosperity. The Greek economy...