The Road To Hell

[ladajo]

In Axil's defense on a single point, we really didn't have justifiable evidence to enter Iraq. They were cooperating with the IAEA and stated they had no WMDs which they didn't. This particular war seems to have vastly different reasons that what was advertised to us.

Says who? Did you read and study the intel packages on the table at that time? Were you following the SECDEF and Chairman's Daily briefs?

[seedload]

Seedload, thanks for being honest and answering instead of following a political party line. I do have further questions with regard to your system that I'll post below this.

1. Disabled individuals - How do you handle contribution/distribution of funds?
2. Immigrants that pay in and don't get benefits seems counter-intuitive, why not allow ourselves to grow again? What I mean is make the process for citizenship easier/faster, allowing them to both contribute and benefit from.
3. In cases of recession (much like now) when individuals find themselves without a job, how do we temporarily help these people while they search for gainful employment?
4. With the redistribution based on income and contribution, most notedly college cost, how does the ever increasing college tuition effect the formula? Increased insurance costs?

Thanks again.

1) They get standard amount. Normal system for guardian administrator of their money if necessary. If the state has to take care of them, then the state gets the money.
2) Disagree. If you come here to work, you pay in but don't get anything out. If you legally seek citizenship, then you can start getting benefit.
3) If you are out of work, then you get the standard amount. Nothing more. You can certainly seek private unemployment insurance if you wish, but the government (Federal) will no longer administer anything like this nor will it blackmail state governments into doing it. Of course, states can have their own unenployment insurance if they desire as per the Constitution.
4) Redistribution is not based on income/contribution. Redistribution is an equal number for everyone. Take amount collected, divide by number of people, give each person that amount. I think you missed this based on this question and question 1/2. Everyone gets an equal amount. Say 20K.

Person making 0K pays 0K tax and collects 20K benefit.
Person making 10K pays 3K tax and collects 20K benefit.
Person making 100K pays 30K tax and collects 20K benefit.
Person making 1000K pays 300K tax and collects 20K benefit.

As far as increased costs, the market will decide this. If something is too expensive, then it is too expensive. College and health insurance are not rights. This system doesn't make 'em so. It just happens to lend towards enabling them for people who make those choices.

Don't get me wrong. I am not going to say that we need to pay for everything or that everything is some sort of social right. In fact, this system leaves the choices in the peoples hands AND takes it out of the governments. Our rights are life liberty and the 'pursuit' of happiness, not guaranteed health care or college.

FYI - your response was what I expected. As I said, liberals will object because they can't take the idea of not being able to decide who should get more or less of the pie, ie, the disabled, college kids, unemployed, those without health insurance.

[ScottL]

We went on the word of a single informant, one known to have lied in the past.

In a February 2011 interview with the Guardian he admitted for the first time that he lied about his story, then watched in shock as it was used to justify the war

from the following url (can't post url it leaves a completely blank post):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curveball_(informant)

[ScottL]

Seedload, thanks for being honest and answering instead of following a political party line. I do have further questions with regard to your system that I'll post below this.

1. Disabled individuals - How do you handle contribution/distribution of funds?
2. Immigrants that pay in and don't get benefits seems counter-intuitive, why not allow ourselves to grow again? What I mean is make the process for citizenship easier/faster, allowing them to both contribute and benefit from.
3. In cases of recession (much like now) when individuals find themselves without a job, how do we temporarily help these people while they search for gainful employment?
4. With the redistribution based on income and contribution, most notedly college cost, how does the ever increasing college tuition effect the formula? Increased insurance costs?

Thanks again.

1) They get standard amount. Normal system for guardian administrator of their money if necessary. If the state has to take care of them, then the state gets the money.
2) Disagree. If you come here to work, you pay in but don't get anything out. If you legally seek citizenship, then you can start getting benefit.
3) If you are out of work, then you get the standard amount. Nothing more. You can certainly seek private unemployment insurance if you wish, but the government (Federal) will no longer administer anything like this nor will it blackmail state governments into doing it. Of course, states can have their own unenployment insurance if they desire as per the Constitution.
4) Redistribution is not based on income/contribution. Redistribution is an equal number for everyone. Take amount collected, divide by number of people, give each person that amount. I think you missed this based on this question and question 1/2. Everyone gets an equal amount. Say 20K.

Person making 0K pays 0K tax and collects 20K benefit.
Person making 10K pays 3K tax and collects 20K benefit.
Person making 100K pays 30K tax and collects 20K benefit.
Person making 1000K pays 700K tax and collects 20K benefit.

As far as increased costs, the market will decide this. If something is too expensive, then it is too expensive. College and health insurance are not rights. This system doesn't make 'em so. It just happens to lend towards enabling them for people who make those choices.

Don't get me wrong. I am not going to say that we need to pay for everything or that everything is some sort of social right. In fact, this system leaves the choices in the peoples hands AND takes it out of the governments. Our rights are life liberty and the 'pursuit' of happiness, not guaranteed health care or college.

FYI - your response was what I expected. As I said, liberals will object because they can't take the idea of not being able to decide who should get more or less of the pie, ie, the disabled, college kids, unemployed, those without health insurance.

Seed, my questions were not hostile if you took them as such, but purely questions. I wanted to know how you accounted for certain aspects or whether they were less of a concern. Next set of questions I guess:

1. Immigration and Citizenship, should we make the process easier or shorter in length (IE: not take months because of paperwork providing they completed the necessary steps)?

2. Do you feel education is a right up to college, but not including college?

I think those are my (hopefully) last two questions. I definitely see the appeal of this system in theory.

[seedload]

Seed, my questions were not hostile if you took them as such, but purely questions. I wanted to know how you accounted for certain aspects or whether they were less of a concern. Next set of questions I guess:

1. Immigration and Citizenship, should we make the process easier or shorter in length (IE: not take months because of paperwork providing they completed the necessary steps)?

2. Do you feel education is a right up to college, but not including college?

I think those are my (hopefully) last two questions. I definitely see the appeal of this system in theory.

Not taking them as hostile. Answering honestly.

1) No, I would not make it easier. I don't even think this relates.
2) It is not a matter of what I think. It is a matter of what is written down. No, it is not a right. No, it is not a power of the Federal Government. If a state decided to stop public education all together, then that is their power, currently.

Now, if you want it to be a right, then you need to amend the Constitution, and I may even support you. But, I think states can do this just fine without the bloated fed getting in the way. No child left behind or any other number of ridiculous Federal programs are not the answer, nor is there going to be a 'next program' that is any better.

I am particularly offended by Federal confiscation of funds to be used for carrot dangling. We can't make that law because of the pesky Constution. OK, just collect a bunch of taxes and then make the state enact that law in order to get the money back. Ridiculous! The enumerated powers were enumerated for a reason. Skirting them is not something that the darn Supreme Court should have ever tolerated.

[ladajo]

We went on the word of a single informant, one known to have lied in the past.

In a February 2011 interview with the Guardian he admitted for the first time that he lied about his story, then watched in shock as it was used to justify the war

from the following url (can't post url it leaves a completely blank post):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curveball_(informant)

Curveball was but one piece of a larger picture that had developed over time. Curveball was not the sole reason, nor justification. The case was made based on Saddam's own admitted long term effort to convince his regional foes that he had a stick worth reckoning. Saddam's unintentional audience was the US. His previous programs, and efforts compiled with continued posturing, and activities painted a long term convincing picture, as he intended, that he was a player. This backfired on him, as he did not think the US and other western states would believe it. We did. Before Curveball surfaced, there was many intel streams pointing fingers. From a WMD perspective, it is CBR, and he certainly was playing with C&B, and giving the impression of R. By the time he realized that we believed the R, it was too late for him to undo it. Curveball only added on to that pile. It was not a one pony race. Read the 9/11 Congressional Report if you have not. It is big, but loaded with nuggets. Understand that there were many forces driving us to confrontation with Saddam, not the least of which was Saddam himself. Oh certainly he tried to talk his way out of the hole he had dug in the end, but by that point nobody was listening to him seriously anymore.

If you were not in the loop during the post 1991 era, and leading into 9/11, you should at least understand that there was a significant building pressure to do something about Saddam that had nothing to do with 9/11. 9/11 provided emphasis and urgency to do something. Justified, IMO Yes, well marketed, IMO No. Curveball was certainly not the sole justification. In 2000 and into 2001, when it came to Saddam, it looked like Shyte, it smelled like Shyte, and therefore was accepted to be Shyte. As I said, if you did not see the analysis and ongoing breifings, you can not speak to the rationals.

[ScottL]

IAEA: Iraq is clean
Iraq: Complying with every request post Sept. 11th
US: Iraq has WMD
Iraq: Insisting there are no WMD.
IAEA: We see no evidence of WMD.
US: They have WMD!
Justification: They have WMD!
Action: War/Debt/LOSS OF LIFE
Hindsight: No WMD....CIA's fault!

Result: Here we are discussing the rationale when the American public was sold on there being WMD when IAEA disagrees completely and intelligence can't find mobile labs via satellite (maybe they're...buried).

It was a frick up, plain and simple. Rationale be damned, it was a frick up. Sure we ousted a dictator to give the country over to a sudo-democracy that still hates us, but was it worth it? For Bush? Maybe, for the U.S. people? Probably not.

[ladajo]

IAEA: Iraq is clean

Ahh, nope. That is not what the IAEA said.

Iraq: Complying with every request post Sept. 11th

Again, nope. Not even close.

US: Iraq has WMD

That is what we believed at the time based on 20+years of background.

Iraq: Insisting there are no WMD.

This depends on who they were talking to, and very much on how they stated it.

IAEA: We see no evidence of WMD.

Nope again. IAEA said they saw no clear signs of a current nuclear program. However, C&B were something else. Also, the IAEA cited that Iraq was pursuing dual use technologies. Also understand that the Iraq UN sanctions regime gave teh IAEA relevance that they had never had before. It was in their stated interest to continue inspections. Never did they say that they were done nor fully satisfied.

US: They have WMD!

Yes, that is what we believed at the time. No ambiguity.

Justification: They have WMD!

Your leap of logic here is immense. Again, WMD was not the sole rational for going to war. It was however the themed rational that the media liked and accepted. It was sellable.

Action: War/Debt/LOSS OF LIFE

And what would have been different without the ousting of Saddam? I guess you are only concerned with which accounts things are paid from, not the total cash flow.

Hindsight: No WMD....CIA's fault!

Ahh, there was WMD C&B found, as well as indicators that Saddam was simply biding his time with the R. Post invasion it was confirmed that he was keeping his R expertise on tap with "retainer" work, as well as accumulating dual use tech (as stated going in). Saddam himself admitted after capture that his intent was to convince obnoxious neighbors that he was still a player in the WMD game (which he was for C & B).

Result: Here we are discussing the rationale when the American public was sold on there being WMD when IAEA disagrees completely and intelligence can't find mobile labs via satellite (maybe they're...buried).

I am amazed with your first hand knowledge of what was uncovered during post invasion searches.

It was a frick up, plain and simple. Rationale be damned, it was a frick up. Sure we ousted a dictator to give the country over to a sudo-democracy that still hates us, but was it worth it? For Bush? Maybe, for the U.S. people? Probably not.

I disagree. The situation with Saddam still in power would be much worse by now, the man was not going to be a world citizen. I also cite that the Iraq invasion also helped set the stage for Arab Spring.

Don't be so myopic. Look at the larger picture(s). You have a very simplified view of things.

[ScottL]

The following is attributed to Hans Blix, who oversaw the U.N. investigation into Iraq and chemical and biiological weapons.

"I think it's clear that in March, when the invasion took place, the evidence that had been brought forward was rapidly falling apart."

Blix described the evidence Secretary of State Colin Powell presented to the U.N. Security Council in February 2003 as "shaky," and said he related his opinion to U.S. officials, including national security adviser Condoleezza Rice.

"I think they chose to ignore us."

The most spectacular intelligence failure concerned a report by ElBaradei, who revealed that an alleged contract by Iraq with Niger to import uranium oxide was a forgery, Blix said.

Following attributed to VP Dick Cheney after ElBaradei, director of the IAEA stated he was "pretty convinced" that Iraq had not resumed its nuclear weapons program.

Cheney states, "We believe Saddam Hussein has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons. I think Mr. ElBaradei, frankly is wrong. And I think if you look at the track record of the International Atomic Energy Agency in this kind of issue, especially where Iraq's concerned, they have consistently underestimated or missed what Saddam Hussein was doing."

A year after the invasion, Mr. ElBaradei is quoted as saying, "I haven't seen anything on the ground at that time that supported Mr. Cheney's conclusion or statement, so -- and I thought to myself, well, history is going to be the judge. No evidence of a nuclear weapons program has been found so far."

We did find plenty of water trucks though...

[Carl White]

I'm not sure why, but the Progressive are still trying to send us to the dark ages using "global climate change" and elaborate, but wrong computer models.:

Globalization is doing a far better job of returning us to an era of feudal masters and serfs than anything to do with global warming.

[Axil]

ScottL your latest post on this thread brings to mind the old refrain…and moves me to respond... Bush took a page out of the Democrat playbook.

Democrats are infamous for using fear, dishonesty, and misrepresentation as a tool of political power...a dishonest and despicable way to move the American people to their counterproductive agendas. A look at some recent American History shows that both LBJ and Truman were lairs, hypocrites and fear mongers of the first order...and so was Bush.

First a recapitulation of this American history shows the details of how this misrepresentation is done...


Back in 1964, to gain intelligence as to the naval strength of the North Vietnamese, American naval destroyers were sent into North Vietnamese waters. On August 2nd 1964, three North Vietnamese torpedo boats fired on the ‘USS Maddox’ in the Gulf of Tonkin. ‘Maddox’ defended itself and fired back, hitting all three torpedo boats. One of them sank. The US destroyer then sailed back to international waters. On August 3rd, Captain Herrick, commander of the ‘Maddox’, was ordered back into the Gulf of Tonkin and he again radioed that his ship was under attack once it had sailed into North Vietnamese waters. However, a later message contradicted this and in the second radio message, Herrick claimed that his men had over-reacted and that freak weather action may have led his men to make mistakes. The final sentence in the second message was telling:
 
“Suggest complete evaluation before further action.”
 
Johnson and his advisors ignored this second message. The President ordered the bombing of four known North Vietnamese torpedo-boat bases and an oil storage depot. What Johnson needed to do was to convince the US public (and the future voters in the November 1964 Presidential election) that this was a deliberate attack on US forces. In this task he was supported by major media concerns. The ‘New York Times’ carried the headline:
 
‘US planes attack North Vietnam bases: President orders limited retaliation after communist’s torpedo boats renew raids. Reds driven off.”
 
When Johnson spoke to the American people, he said:
 
“Repeated acts of violence against the armed forces of the United States must be met not only with an alert defense, but with a positive reply. That reply is being given as I speak tonight.”
 
Johnson’s decision to bomb military targets in North Vietnam received overwhelming backing from Congress in what was known as the ‘Gulf of Tonkin Resolution’. In the House, 416 supported the President with no dissenters. In the Senate, 88 supported Johnson and only 2 did not. The resolution authorized the President to take all necessary measures against North Vietnam.
 


Now for Truman...In the latest survey of historians, Harry S Truman has now ascended to even greater heights in the pantheon of great American presidents. C-SPANs 2nd annual survey of Presidential scholars places Abraham Lincoln at the top of the class; George Washington, FDR, Teddy Roosevelt and Harry Truman round out their top 5.

Truman was the father of the cold war and his claim to presidential stardom. Once recognizing the present and growing threat of Great Red Menace, he resolved to mobilize both the US government and the American people absolutely and irrevocably against the new enemy.

At this dawn of the atomic age lie the seeds of the fear of nuclear energy and its handmaiden nuclear radiation.

It all begins with Uncle Joe.

To rule, Josef Stalin relied on mass terrorism, which in turn required mass murder. Truman needed to form a strategy to effectively impress this hard man.

In a secret meeting in the Garden Room occurred the first military strategy session of the United Nations, because it was dedicated to its mission of exploding the world's first atomic weapon on a living population. It also forecast the entire strategy of the Cold War, which lasted forty-three years, cost American taxpayers five trillion dollars, and accomplished exactly nothing, as it was intended to do.

There, Truman polled for advice from the various attendees. On of them; Senator Vandenberg, leader of the Republican loyal opposition, said (as quoted in American Heritage magazine, August 1977), "We have got to scare the hell out of "em."

Later, it became necessary to mobilize the American people to support the cold war. Once again Truman dipped into the strategy tool bag remembering what Senator Vandenberg said: We have got to scare the hell out of "em."

General Douglas MacArthur and President Truman never quite got along. MacArthur warned the American people of the now well established political tactic inspired by Vandenberg; promised disasters never seemed to materialize; they seem never to have been quite real. As quoted in American Ceaser, MacArthur lashed out at the large Pentagon budgets. 'Our government has kept us in a perpetual state of fear—kept us in a continuous stampede of patriotic fervor—with the cry of grave national emergency. Always there has been some terrible evil to gobble us up if we did not blindly rally behind it by furnishing the exorbitant funds demanded. Once again the echoes of Senator Vandenberg's famous comment, "We have to scare the hell out of 'em."

Down through the ages, it had been the same tried and true tactic.

Bush was a ardent student of the ways and means of Democratic presidents...When George W. Bush was elected he read the biography of great political world leaders to teach himself how to be president.

One of his favorites was the recently publish best selling biography of Truman by David McCullough. One thing he learned from the old master was the well tested strategy: We have to scare the hell out of 'em.

White House Information Group or WHIG was the marketing arm of the White House whose purpose was to sell the 2003 invasion of Iraq to the public. The task force was set up in August 2002 by White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card and chaired by Karl Rove to coordinate all the executive branch elements in the run-up to the war in Iraq. One example of the WHIG's functions and influence is the "escalation of rhetoric about the danger that Iraq posed to the U.S., including the introduction of the term 'mushroom cloud'

Bush liked it. Thus was born the quote that will personify the Bush legacy:

“America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof, the smoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.”

The old metaphor was once again dusted off and the nuclear bogyman was marched out to stunt his stuff.


We have to scare the hell out of 'em

[ladajo]

My point exactly. The marketing is independant to the desired goals and its actual rational. In the case of Iraq and Saddam, there was plenty of rational that was not used in the final marketing push. It was not deemed sexy enough for the commercials. But that said, the fundamental truth (IMO) remains, Saddam needed to go, sooner rather than later, as he had caused enough trouble, and future trouble was not worth it. Saddam's exisitence, like some others, was a slow bleed on US health. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure is somewhat a fitting aphorism.

[Jccarlton]

I'm not sure why, but the Progressive are still trying to send us to the dark ages using "global climate change" and elaborate, but wrong computer models.:

Globalization is doing a far better job of returning us to an era of feudal masters and serfs than anything to do with global warming.

What do you think this is about? How many top Progressive/Socialists say they think of themselves as citizens of the world. One of their favorate aphorisms is;"think globally, act locally."

[Axil]

Saddam's exisitence, like some others, was a slow bleed on US health.

The totally unfunded decade long three trillion dollar totally inept and incompetent removal of Saddam is one of the main reasons for the massive debt that America suffers today.

For America, it is like removing a splinter from our leg with a 10 gauge shot gun blast and about as damaging to our health.

[Axil]

Seed, my questions were not hostile if you took them as such, but purely questions. I wanted to know how you accounted for certain aspects or whether they were less of a concern. Next set of questions I guess:

1. Immigration and Citizenship, should we make the process easier or shorter in length (IE: not take months because of paperwork providing they completed the necessary steps)?

2. Do you feel education is a right up to college, but not including college?

I think those are my (hopefully) last two questions. I definitely see the appeal of this system in theory.

Not taking them as hostile. Answering honestly.

1) No, I would not make it easier. I don't even think this relates.
2) It is not a matter of what I think. It is a matter of what is written down. No, it is not a right. No, it is not a power of the Federal Government. If a state decided to stop public education all together, then that is their power, currently.

Now, if you want it to be a right, then you need to amend the Constitution, and I may even support you. But, I think states can do this just fine without the bloated fed getting in the way. No child left behind or any other number of ridiculous Federal programs are not the answer, nor is there going to be a 'next program' that is any better.

I am particularly offended by Federal confiscation of funds to be used for carrot dangling. We can't make that law because of the pesky Constution. OK, just collect a bunch of taxes and then make the state enact that law in order to get the money back. Ridiculous! The enumerated powers were enumerated for a reason. Skirting them is not something that the darn Supreme Court should have ever tolerated.

2) It is not a matter of what I think. It is a matter of what is written down. No, it is not a right. No, it is not a power of the Federal Government. If a state decided to stop public education all together, then that is their power, currently.

Bill Gates says that the US does not produce enough engineers and software scientists to fill his needs. That is why he first requested an large increase in the H-1B visas and latter relocated much of his technical development to Bangalore India where the Indian government produces a large number of University educated professionals from their Universities.


As part of the Indian Industrial Competitiveness Growth Plan, the Indian government sends its intellectually gifted poor to University for free; China does the same.

The various articles of the Indian Constitution provide for education as a fundamental right. Most universities in India are controlled by the Union or the State Government.

Most US companies that offshore jobs say that there are no educationally qualified workers here in America that can do the jobs that they are outsourcing.


How should the US keep itself in this industrial global competition for jobs? Who in the US should support this education function if any?

FYI

Microsoft plans to double the number of staff at its two main Indian software development and service centers.

At its main base in Hyderabad, the company plans to double the headcount to 2,000 by March next year; the center only opened last November.

And in Bangalore, Microsoft plans to double the number of staff to 1,000.

It is not clear whether the expansion will affect job creation in the US or Europe, although the extra jobs aren’t expected to result in any immediate redundancies in Microsoft’s other global operations.

SAP, Alcatel, Unisys, Siemens, Hewlett-Packard and IBM are among a few of the many companies to announce rapid expansion in staff numbers in the country, taking advantage of lower costs and broad IT skill-sets.

For example, between 2003 and 2007, IBM's head count in India has grown by almost 800%, from 9,000 in 2003 to nearly 74,000 in 2007.Since 2006, IBM has been the multinational with the largest number of employees in India. More than one quarter of IBM's employees are from India and is expected to grow. It is expected that in 2011 , IBM will recruit approximately 24,000 more employees taking it to a total of nearly 154,000 employees from India.

PS: In my area, there are empty IBM, Siemens, and Unisys facilities in empty office parks abandon and up for sale. The roads once packed with homeward bound commuters are now always free of traffic congestion.

It's a eerie ghost-town of America past.