View Full Version : Obama Jobs Speech
Davy Jones
09-08-2011, 06:42 PM
This speech will be looked back when he wins re-election as the defining speech. The "Campaign Obama" is back, and the Republicans have nobody.
phrisbee
09-08-2011, 08:26 PM
Let's hope that Congress takes it as more than a campaign speech. We need exactly what he said.
it for me please. Tivo stopped before he finished. I got to where the magic money was coming from to pay for the give aways when it stopped. What did I miss?
Davy Jones
09-08-2011, 10:16 PM
it for me please. Tivo stopped before he finished. I got to where the magic money was coming from to pay for the give aways when it stopped. What did I miss?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/09/08/fact-sheet-american-jobs-act
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjdC_ciCLrY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VSkXVP6SOM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBjmBtnrUFw
Davy Jones
09-08-2011, 10:42 PM
for the u tube links!
not sure if serious
how are these construction jobs different from the "shovel ready" jobs that money was appropriated for during the last stimulus give away? By the way, those public works and road projects did not happen, so what is to make us think these will?
And if you don't believe me, look at Vulcan Materials stock. There were a lot investors sinking money into their stock expecting them to do well with the construction projects (they are one of the world's largest gravel producers). Not only did Vulcan Materials loose money, so did their investors - double whammy for folks trying to buy into the Dem Pie in the Sky plans!
Davy Jones
09-08-2011, 10:54 PM
how are these construction jobs different from the "shovel ready" jobs that money was appropriated for during the last stimulus give away? By the way, those public works and road projects did not happen, so what is to make us think these will?
And if you don't believe me, look at Vulcan Materials stock. There were a lot investors sinking money into their stock expecting them to do well with the construction projects (they are one of the world's largest gravel producers). Not only did Vulcan Materials loose money, so did their investors - double whammy for folks trying to buy into the Dem Pie in the Sky plans!
Obama admitted that there were not as many "shovel ready" projects as was thought, however, more time has passed, which would mean more "shovel ready" projects are ready to go.
And you mean to tell me someone lost money in the stock market? Holy crap, how is this not bigger news? People took a risk (which is what the stock market is) and lost. That's life. I'm losing money in the Stock Market right now, you don't hear me bitching about it (until now).
Obama admitted that there were not as many "shovel ready" projects as was thought, however, more time has passed, which would mean more "shovel ready" projects are ready to go.
And you mean to tell me someone lost money in the stock market? Holy crap, how is this not bigger news? People took a risk (which is what the stock market is) and lost. That's life. I'm losing money in the Stock Market right now, you don't hear me bitching about it (until now).
evidence of the utter failure of the first plan and wondering how the second is supposed to be different. The sales pitch sounds like deja vu all over again.
Why would anyone think there are more shovel ready projects now? Municipalities and government agencies have been cancelling bond projects because of no funding. No one has, or at least few have been planning new construction projects with the state of the economic conditions.
Construction projects take time to prepare and big projects take a lot of time (as in years). Neither of which either of the plans allowed for.
This smells like more pie in the sky before the election. I don't see it happening unless Congress actually cuts loop holes and taxes the ultra rich. Neither of which are likely to happen.
Davy Jones
09-08-2011, 11:15 PM
evidence of the utter failure of the first plan and wondering how the second is supposed to be different. The sales pitch sounds like deja vu all over again.
Why would anyone think there are more shovel ready projects now? Municipalities and government agencies have been cancelling bond projects because of no funding. No one has, or at least few have been planning new construction projects with the state of the economic conditions.
Construction projects take time to prepare and big projects take a lot of time (as in years). Neither of which either of the plans allowed for.
This smells like more pie in the sky before the election. I don't see it happening unless Congress actually cuts loop holes and taxes the ultra rich. Neither of which are likely to happen.
So your solution is instead of funding those that actually ARE ready, to not fund any?
So your solution is instead of funding those that actually ARE ready, to not fund any?
was how is this any different than before? I haven't heard or read an answer, just deflections to avoid answering the question.....
Davy Jones
09-08-2011, 11:51 PM
was how is this any different than before? I haven't heard or read an answer, just deflections to avoid answering the question.....
Am I an expert in "shovel-ready" work? No. I can tell you there is a lot of construction going on in my neck-of-the-woods, and there is more to come. Plenty of shovel-ready projects here, and plenty of people willing to work them.
I think the greater point that you're missing is that it doesn't matter if there are a bunch of "shovel-ready" projects. This isn't an overnight fix. The economy is going to slowly recover. To think that this plan is designed to have the economy back to what it was when Bush was handed the reigns in 01 by the time Obama runs for re-election is silly. This is a LONG TERM plan. Saying that there IS money available will be the extra incentive for those projects who are ready but have no money or are nearly ready to start.
It doesn't really matter if there are tons of ready projects. The idea is to get MORE projects ready in the future.
Am I an expert in "shovel-ready" work? No. I can tell you there is a lot of construction going on in my neck-of-the-woods, and there is more to come. Plenty of shovel-ready projects here, and plenty of people willing to work them.
I think the greater point that you're missing is that it doesn't matter if there are a bunch of "shovel-ready" projects. This isn't an overnight fix. The economy is going to slowly recover. To think that this plan is designed to have the economy back to what it was when Bush was handed the reigns in 01 by the time Obama runs for re-election is silly. This is a LONG TERM plan. Saying that there IS money available will be the extra incentive for those projects who are ready but have no money or are nearly ready to start.
It doesn't really matter if there are tons of ready projects. The idea is to get MORE projects ready in the future.
how is this going to be any different than before? There were shovel ready projects before that did not get funded. The money went somewhere, but did not make it to actual projects. How is this going to be any different? What controls or assurances that the money will actually be appropriated for real projects will be put in place?
Eva N
09-09-2011, 09:11 AM
was how is this any different than before? I haven't heard or read an answer, just deflections to avoid answering the question.....
QFE. This is the same "I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today" that we've heard from him before.
DiscoGary
09-09-2011, 09:40 AM
how are these construction jobs different from the "shovel ready" jobs that money was appropriated for during the last stimulus give away? By the way, those public works and road projects did not happen, so what is to make us think these will?
And if you don't believe me, look at Vulcan Materials stock. There were a lot investors sinking money into their stock expecting them to do well with the construction projects (they are one of the world's largest gravel producers). Not only did Vulcan Materials loose money, so did their investors - double whammy for folks trying to buy into the Dem Pie in the Sky plans!
Sorry to hear some people fell for Obama's head fake about building infrastructure. If your buddies want to know what's really happening they should come here.
Everything Obama is doing is designed to "reward his friends, punish his enemies, and consolidate his power". Once you believe that, you will know that building roads is not the top priority, and then you will know how to invest accordingly.
My overall reaction to this proposal, and this should be everyone's reaction, is that none of the things the Dems have done have worked the way the said they would. Everything's been a disaster. They have no credibility at all.
Why should we believe anything they say? They should be asked to explain why none of their earlier programs worked, before anyone even considers implementing any of their new programs.
Remember when the MSM spent a lot of energy trying to get Bush to apologize for his mistakes? I remember. Why isn't anyone asking President Obama to apologize for his mistakes?
evidence of the utter failure of the first plan and wondering how the second is supposed to be different. The sales pitch sounds like deja vu all over again.
Why would anyone think there are more shovel ready projects now? Municipalities and government agencies have been cancelling bond projects because of no funding. No one has, or at least few have been planning new construction projects with the state of the economic conditions.
Construction projects take time to prepare and big projects take a lot of time (as in years). Neither of which either of the plans allowed for.
This smells like more pie in the sky before the election. I don't see it happening unless Congress actually cuts loop holes and taxes the ultra rich. Neither of which are likely to happen.
Shovel ready is loaded term, not that projects don't exist that are essentially ready to go, but often shovel ready money requires the project be let in short period of time. Its the amount of time allowed before a project is bid that has greatly reduced the number of projects that meet the criteria more so than the number of projects on the shelf that are completely designed and ready to be bid. Bridges and roads are the best examples of projecst that can be completely designed sitting on the shelf ready to be built. The problem a lot of the higher priority projects like this have been done. On the other hand there are a lot of facility projects for schools and what not that are probably higher needs than the road and bridge projects and they take longer to complete design to current code and include best technology than what has been allowed in past shovel ready programs.
The ability for this new program to be successful will be in the details of the bill. The length of time allowed to get construction started, the local match requirements, the type of projects eligible, etc. The last shovel ready program didn't ripple the water much because it basically supplanted state spending and allowed states to cut more from their transportaion spending to make up for revenue shortfalls elsewhere. Hopefully the details in the new bill will curb that type of action.
Davy Jones
09-09-2011, 10:58 AM
Sorry to hear some people fell for Obama's head fake about building infrastructure. If your buddies want to know what's really happening they should come here.
Everything Obama is doing is designed to "reward his friends, punish his enemies, and consolidate his power". Once you believe that, you will know that building roads is not the top priority, and then you will know how to invest accordingly.
My overall reaction to this proposal, and this should be everyone's reaction, is that none of the things the Dems have done have worked the way the said they would. Everything's been a disaster. They have no credibility at all.
Why should we believe anything they say? They should be asked to explain why none of their earlier programs worked, before anyone even considers implementing any of their new programs.
Remember when the MSM spent a lot of energy trying to get Bush to apologize for his mistakes? I remember. Why isn't anyone asking President Obama to apologize for his mistakes?
Probably because Bush's mistakes (and lies, with the evidence we now have) started two wars and led to the deaths of thousands of Americans.
Comparing Obama's economic promises and Bush's promises that Saddam had WMDs and was behind 9/11 is incomparable.
Davy Jones
09-09-2011, 10:59 AM
Shovel ready is loaded term, not that projects don't exist that are essentially ready to go, but often shovel ready money requires the project be let in short period of time. Its the amount of time allowed before a project is bid that has greatly reduced the number of projects that meet the criteria more so than the number of projects on the shelf that are completely designed and ready to be bid. Bridges and roads are the best examples of projecst that can be completely designed sitting on the shelf ready to be built. The problem a lot of the higher priority projects like this have been done. On the other hand there are a lot of facility projects for schools and what not that are probably higher needs than the road and bridge projects and they take longer to complete design to current code and include best technology than what has been allowed in past shovel ready programs.
The ability for this new program to be successful will be in the details of the bill. The length of time allowed to get construction started, the local match requirements, the type of projects eligible, etc. The last shovel ready program didn't ripple the water much because it basically supplanted state spending and allowed states to cut more from their transportaion spending to make up for revenue shortfalls elsewhere. Hopefully the details in the new bill will curb that type of action.
This. I don't know why geds is asking me about details of the bill, I didn't write it, so I can't lay out every little detail.
DiscoGary
09-09-2011, 11:21 AM
Probably because Bush's mistakes (and lies, with the evidence we now have) started two wars and led to the deaths of thousands of Americans.
Comparing Obama's economic promises and Bush's promises that Saddam had WMDs and was behind 9/11 is incomparable.
It's time I addressed that bit of propaganda in detail. Stay tuned.
Davy Jones
09-09-2011, 11:35 AM
It's time I addressed that bit of propaganda in detail. Stay tuned.
This should be outstanding.
This should be outstanding.
I can feel the awesomeness of the webs being sucked hard to the right.:cool:
Shovel ready is loaded term, not that projects don't exist that are essentially ready to go, but often shovel ready money requires the project be let in short period of time. Its the amount of time allowed before a project is bid that has greatly reduced the number of projects that meet the criteria more so than the number of projects on the shelf that are completely designed and ready to be bid. Bridges and roads are the best examples of projecst that can be completely designed sitting on the shelf ready to be built. The problem a lot of the higher priority projects like this have been done. On the other hand there are a lot of facility projects for schools and what not that are probably higher needs than the road and bridge projects and they take longer to complete design to current code and include best technology than what has been allowed in past shovel ready programs.
The ability for this new program to be successful will be in the details of the bill. The length of time allowed to get construction started, the local match requirements, the type of projects eligible, etc. The last shovel ready program didn't ripple the water much because it basically supplanted state spending and allowed states to cut more from their transportaion spending to make up for revenue shortfalls elsewhere. Hopefully the details in the new bill will curb that type of action.
Major road projects (even bridges) require environmental impact assessments and cultural impact studies before the Feds will allow them to proceed. This is done after preliminary engineering has been done and multiple alternatives evaluated. Factor in public hearings, land acquisition (including condemnation hearings if necessary), then final design and surveys. Then you bid the work, evaluate the proposals, select contractor(s) and THEN you can stick the first shovel in the ground. This process takes years.
To build a school, you don't have to have environmental impact studies or you only have to evaluate a small piece of land looked at. The design can be a cookie cutter design (one that has been built and used at multiple locations) or a design from scratch - in any case, months not years. Public hearings still have to happen, but the land should already be acquired eliminating condemnation hearings and acquisition phases. The work is bid, proposals evaluated, contractor(s) selected, and work started. All this can be done in less than a year.
You whole explanation is exactly reverse of reality.
This. I don't know why geds is asking me about details of the bill, I didn't write it, so I can't lay out every little detail.
did or can Obama!
Davy Jones
09-09-2011, 04:30 PM
Major road projects (even bridges) require environmental impact assessments and cultural impact studies before the Feds will allow them to proceed. This is done after preliminary engineering has been done and multiple alternatives evaluated. Factor in public hearings, land acquisition (including condemnation hearings if necessary), then final design and surveys. Then you bid the work, evaluate the proposals, select contractor(s) and THEN you can stick the first shovel in the ground. This process takes years.
To build a school, you don't have to have environmental impact studies or you only have to evaluate a small piece of land looked at. The design can be a cookie cutter design (one that has been built and used at multiple locations) or a design from scratch - in any case, months not years. Public hearings still have to happen, but the land should already be acquired eliminating condemnation hearings and acquisition phases. The work is bid, proposals evaluated, contractor(s) selected, and work started. All this can be done in less than a year.
You whole explanation is exactly reverse of reality.
So what you're saying is that this long-term plan of Obama's will take time.
Davy Jones
09-09-2011, 04:31 PM
did or can Obama!
I think he probably had a little hand in it.
Major road projects (even bridges) require environmental impact assessments and cultural impact studies before the Feds will allow them to proceed. This is done after preliminary engineering has been done and multiple alternatives evaluated. Factor in public hearings, land acquisition (including condemnation hearings if necessary), then final design and surveys. Then you bid the work, evaluate the proposals, select contractor(s) and THEN you can stick the first shovel in the ground. This process takes years.
To build a school, you don't have to have environmental impact studies or you only have to evaluate a small piece of land looked at. The design can be a cookie cutter design (one that has been built and used at multiple locations) or a design from scratch - in any case, months not years. Public hearings still have to happen, but the land should already be acquired eliminating condemnation hearings and acquisition phases. The work is bid, proposals evaluated, contractor(s) selected, and work started. All this can be done in less than a year.
You whole explanation is exactly reverse of reality.
I am not going to say your wrong, but your explanation of road and bridge projects that are on the shelf is off base, and schools take longer than a year to go from noting to the start of construction.
You are right road and bridge projects don't get past preliminary engineering without the environmental work being done. Thus a project that is on the shelf is truly ready to go, why do you think the ARRA was so heavy in these types of projects? Bridge replacement projects and resurfacing highways are the easiest shovel ready projects going. I would agree that a new highway between point A and point B is never going to be shovel ready project for allof the reasons you laid out and more.
As far as schools go the timeline is somewhat dependent on the way the district procures construction management. If they seek proposals for a CM and the CM participates in the development of a RFP for design, and then design is developed and then construction bids are taken you have seen well over a year to get to that point, closer to two and that's if you can get through design programming without blowing up the budget.
I am not going to say your wrong, but your explanation of road and bridge projects that are on the shelf is off base, and schools take longer than a year to go from noting to the start of construction.
You are right road and bridge projects don't get past preliminary engineering without the environmental work being done. Thus a project that is on the shelf is truly ready to go, why do you think the ARRA was so heavy in these types of projects? Bridge replacement projects and resurfacing highways are the easiest shovel ready projects going. I would agree that a new highway between point A and point B is never going to be shovel ready project for allof the reasons you laid out and more.
As far as schools go the timeline is somewhat dependent on the way the district procures construction management. If they seek proposals for a CM and the CM participates in the development of a RFP for design, and then design is developed and then construction bids are taken you have seen well over a year to get to that point, closer to two and that's if you can get through design programming without blowing up the budget.
the project is just a resurfacing project. And, yes, some schools take over a year because of bureaucracy - I've seen them done in about a year if fast tracked. I was using best-case examples since we are supposedly releasing funds for immediate job production.
It is also interesting that these types of jobs are temporary in nature although necessary for our society. They do not provide long term employment as alluded to by Obama.
I think he probably had a little hand in it.
right there. But there's no telling where that hand had been before.....:eek:
Davy Jones
09-10-2011, 01:17 PM
It is also interesting that these types of jobs are temporary in nature although necessary for our society. They do not provide long term employment as alluded to by Obama.
Unless it is an construction company that goes from project to project with mostly the same workers, as I know some do.
Probably because Bush's mistakes (and lies, with the evidence we now have) started two wars and led to the deaths of thousands of Americans.
Comparing Obama's economic promises and Bush's promises that Saddam had WMDs and was behind 9/11 is incomparable.
Are you really trying to say we shouldnt have went to war with Afgahnistan atfer 9/11? We should have just let Bin Laden get away with it with no retaliation? O wait this is because Bush was really behind the attacks. Yea that makes sense to me too now...
SprintsFTW19
09-10-2011, 02:31 PM
Are you really trying to say we shouldnt have went to war with Afgahnistan atfer 9/11? We should have just let Bin Laden get away with it with no retaliation? O wait this is because Bush was really behind the attacks. Yea that makes sense to me too now...
Is this sarcastic or are you actually retarded enough to have not read where Davy specifically pointed out the WMDs which didn't exist and Saddam Hussein, neither of which actually had anything to do with Afghanistan or the planning of 9/11.
Davy Jones
09-10-2011, 04:03 PM
Are you really trying to say we shouldnt have went to war with Afgahnistan atfer 9/11? We should have just let Bin Laden get away with it with no retaliation? O wait this is because Bush was really behind the attacks. Yea that makes sense to me too now...
Get Bin Laden, sure. War WITH Afghanistan, hard to say. We could have simply gone after Bin Laden, and not taken down the Afghanistan Government. Would that have been better? Maybe, maybe not. We could have gone after Bin Laden without having to fight wars in 2 different countries.
And my comments about lies was about WMDs in Iraq and Yellow Cake Uranium being bought by Iraq. They knew the evidence was slim, but they doubled down on it and started the wars anyways.
Davy Jones
09-10-2011, 04:05 PM
Is this sarcastic or are you actually retarded enough to have not read where Davy specifically pointed out the WMDs which didn't exist and Saddam Hussein, neither of which actually had anything to do with Afghanistan or the planning of 9/11.
I wasn't sure either. I don't think Bush was behind 9/11, mainly because I don't think he is pure evil like some of those on the Left do. I think he was misguided is a lot of the things he did, but I don't believe he actually tried to do something like 9/11 against his own people.
Eva N
09-10-2011, 04:25 PM
And my comments about lies was about WMDs in Iraq
FWIW, both Clintons, Gore, Kerry, and a bunch of other folks from both sides of the aisle told those same "lies".
Davy Jones
09-10-2011, 06:19 PM
FWIW, both Clintons, Gore, Kerry, and a bunch of other folks from both sides of the aisle told those same "lies".
Clinton and Gore had seen SOME evidence, and Kerry and that "bunch of other folks" were being feed the selective intelligence that said there might be. They weren't being shown the evidence from people like Joe Wilson who were telling them that those informants were wrong.
Kerry, Clinton, etc were simply restating what they had been shown, Bush and Cheney were the ones who had seen it all, and ignored the overwhelming evidence that Iraq didn't have WMDs and weren't trying to buy Yellow Cake Uranium from Africa.
And I'm still waiting for DiscoGary to "addressd that bit of propaganda in detail." When's that laugh-factory coming, DG?
KenA55
09-11-2011, 09:54 PM
Don't forget that Cheney himself made the statement in about '06 I believe it was, that no compelling evidence had ever surfaced that Bin Laden had any involvement in the planning of 911. Plenty of evidence in other, earlier incidents however.
Fillet-o-fish
09-12-2011, 12:08 PM
I wasn't sure either. I don't think Bush was behind 9/11, mainly because I don't think he is pure evil like some of those on the Left do. I think he was misguided is a lot of the things he did, but I don't believe he actually tried to do something like 9/11 against his own people.
That's the main reason you don't think the POTUS orchestrated a massive attack on his own country without leaving behind even a smudge of reasonable doubt?
Garbage conspiracy theories invented because of some misguided infallible sense of our countries defense are not even worth discussion.
a very good speech at the Kennedy Center 9/11/11 to commemorate the 10th anniversary of 9/11. He did a good job keeping the politics out of it and focusing on the event, victims, survivors, rescuers, and their families.
His speech presentations remind me of Regan. We went through a long dry spell of lack luster orators, then Regan came along. Another dry spell, and now Obama. It used to be required for a politician to be a great orator, but alas, another by gone tradition....
boltoncct&f
09-13-2011, 10:45 AM
Clinton and Gore had seen SOME evidence, and Kerry and that "bunch of other folks" were being feed the selective intelligence that said there might be. They weren't being shown the evidence from people like Joe Wilson who were telling them that those informants were wrong.
Kerry, Clinton, etc were simply restating what they had been shown, Bush and Cheney were the ones who had seen it all, and ignored the overwhelming evidence that Iraq didn't have WMDs and weren't trying to buy Yellow Cake Uranium from Africa.
And I'm still waiting for DiscoGary to "addressd that bit of propaganda in detail." When's that laugh-factory coming, DG?
__________________
My big problem is that the UN was not allowed to immediately come in and investigate. If there was nothing to hide, then why not welcome the UN with open arms to prove the US and the World wrong?
Let's put it in High School terms: The principal gets on the 1st period morning announcements and says, "after 3rd period, we are going locker to locker checking for drugs and weapons." ..............
I wonder how many people "clean" out those lockers during 2nd period?;)
My big problem is that the UN was not allowed to immediately come in and investigate. If there was nothing to hide, then why not welcome the UN with open arms to prove the US and the World wrong?
Let's put it in High School terms: The principal gets on the 1st period morning announcements and says, "after 3rd period, we are going locker to locker checking for drugs and weapons." ..............
I wonder how many people "clean" out those lockers during 2nd period?;)
That's a not a good analogy; most anything you can put in your locker can be snuck out in a book bag or placed in the trash. A WMD program doesn't get swept under the rug so easily. We went through an entire cold war with the Soviets with both sides pretending they were were stronger than they were in areas they were weak and down playing some areas of strength. Deception is one the strongest weapons avaialble in geo-political posturing.
That's a not a good analogy; most anything you can put in your locker can be snuck out in a book bag or placed in the trash. A WMD program doesn't get swept under the rug so easily. We went through an entire cold war with the Soviets with both sides pretending they were were stronger than they were in areas they were weak and down playing some areas of strength. Deception is one the strongest weapons avaialble in geo-political posturing.
plenty of time to move, hide and cover up any WMD programs they were working on.
boltoncct&f
09-13-2011, 12:16 PM
plenty of time to move the weapons to Syria, hide and cover up any WMD programs they were working on.
Fixed;)
Edit: ...and TNG, like the analogy or not, that still does not change the fact that that the UN inspectors were not allowed in immediately. Sure, they could have been keeping up the image that they had the stuff, but if the U.S......er.....uh....NATO is about to steam roll my country, I'm cooperating.
Fixed;)
Edit: ...and TNG, like the analogy or not, that still does not change the fact that that the UN inspectors were not allowed in immediately. Sure, they could have been keeping up the image that they had the stuff, but if the U.S......er.....uh....NATO is about to steam roll my country, I'm cooperating.
You seem to believe the invasion was not a preordained destiny. No different than the facts leaking out that indicate an invasion of Iraq was inevitable, is the fact that little evidence exists in the form of credible sources to support any claim of a WMD program between 1998 & 2003.
boltoncct&f
09-13-2011, 02:01 PM
You seem to believe the invasion was not a preordained destiny. No different than the facts leaking out that indicate an invasion of Iraq was inevitable, is the fact that little evidence exists in the form of credible sources to support any claim of a WMD program between 1998 & 2003.
That's fine. So then why did Saddam prevent the UN from inspections?
What we can agree on is the mass graves found all over Iraq, many which were current, when we finally did occupy the country. The people were too scared to do what Libya did. They did not want to be in one of those mass graves with their entire family. Is Iraq better with or without Saddam? Is the world a better place with or without him? I guess your argument is "who are we to judge, regardless."
Davy Jones
09-13-2011, 02:41 PM
My big problem is that the UN was not allowed to immediately come in and investigate. If there was nothing to hide, then why not welcome the UN with open arms to prove the US and the World wrong?
Let's put it in High School terms: The principal gets on the 1st period morning announcements and says, "after 3rd period, we are going locker to locker checking for drugs and weapons." ..............
I wonder how many people "clean" out those lockers during 2nd period?;)
Lets amend the HS Terms. Think of it as a Dirty Principle. Someone who they don't trust. Someone who they think might plant weapons. That's how they view the US and the UN. Would you let a dirty cop come search your home? Would you let a dirty principle search your locker?
Let's also not forget that the US was on the sidelines during the whole UN Search saying "You're never going to find them" and then started getting ready to invade before the UN Inspectors were done.
That's fine. So then why did Saddam prevent the UN from inspections?
What we can agree on is the mass graves found all over Iraq, many which were current, when we finally did occupy the country. The people were too scared to do what Libya did. They did not want to be in one of those mass graves with their entire family. Is Iraq better with or without Saddam? Is the world a better place with or without him? I guess your argument is "who are we to judge, regardless."
Yup, Saddam was an SOB, probably not in the Top 10 of despots in the 20th Century though, as a society we are probably better off with all of those guys out of power. No different than Qaddafi losing control of Libya. IMO we are hyper-aware of the atrocities in Iraq under Saddam, and not so much on some of the African and Asian regimes.
The link below places Iran-Iraq war at 18th with 1 milion deaths and estimates place Saddam's culling of Iraq citizens near 1/2 million. Is Iraq better of without him, right now, yes, 20 years from now, not sure if it won't be one bad situation exchanged for another.
http://users.rcn.com/mwhite28/atrox.htm
boltoncct&f
09-13-2011, 03:35 PM
Lets amend the HS Terms. Think of it as a Dirty Principle. Someone who they don't trust. Someone who they think might plant weapons. That's how they view the US and the UN. Would you let a dirty cop come search your home? Would you let a dirty principle search your locker?
Let's also not forget that the US was on the sidelines during the whole UN Search saying "You're never going to find them" and then started getting ready to invade before the UN Inspectors were done.
So everyone, outside of the U.S., views us as dirty.......?????? Hmmm.... The UN is dirty too?
Yup, Saddam was an SOB, probably not in the Top 10 of despots in the 20th Century though, as a society we are probably better off with all of those guys out of power. No different than Qaddafi losing control of Libya. IMO we are hyper-aware of the atrocities in Iraq under Saddam, and not so much on some of the African and Asian regimes.
The link below places Iran-Iraq war at 18th with 1 milion deaths and estimates place Saddam's culling of Iraq citizens near 1/2 million. Is Iraq better of without him, right now, yes, 20 years from now, not sure if it won't be one bad situation exchanged for another.
http://users.rcn.com/mwhite28/atrox.htm
The Middle East is full of countries just waiting to explode. That's been the case for awhile now. Why allow it to continue? Just say, "it's their problem?"
Davy Jones
09-13-2011, 07:12 PM
So everyone, outside of the U.S., views us as dirty.......?????? Hmmm.... The UN is dirty too?
Don't think I said that, but if you think a country that we invaded less than 15 years ago (from the point in which Bush took over) didn't distrust us, you're kidding yourself.
boltoncct&f
09-13-2011, 08:19 PM
Don't think I said that, but if you think a country that we invaded less than 15 years ago (from the point in which Bush took over) didn't distrust us, you're kidding yourself.
Well yeah.... we sent them running with their tails between their legs after invading Kuwait. Then the regime continued their antics. They were begging for it and just hoping that oil would keep us at bay. When 9/11 happened, they were probably saying, "Oh $h*t, we will be first", but I'm sure it sounded better in Arabic.;)
Davy Jones
09-13-2011, 08:44 PM
Well yeah.... we sent them running with their tails between their legs after invading Kuwait. Then the regime continued their antics. They were begging for it and just hoping that oil would keep us at bay. When 9/11 happened, they were probably saying, "Oh $h*t, we will be first", but I'm sure it sounded better in Arabic.;)
So you agree that their government hated us?
Would you let Al Qaeda come in and search us for weapons? Would you let Pakistan have free reign in our country to search wherever they want? Would you invite the Taliban to roam the countryside of America?
THAT'S HOW THEY VIEW US. As the terrorists that came in and attacked them, and killed their people.
Eva N
09-13-2011, 09:05 PM
That's a not a good analogy; most anything you can put in your locker can be snuck out in a book bag or placed in the trash. A WMD program doesn't get swept under the rug so easily. We went through an entire cold war with the Soviets with both sides pretending they were were stronger than they were in areas they were weak and down playing some areas of strength. Deception is one the strongest weapons avaialble in geo-political posturing.
Yeah.
Sadly for Saddam, he never got to watch the WSOP on TV... and therefore didn't grasp how bad a play bluffing with a very short stack is. :cool:
So you agree that their government hated us?
Would you let Al Qaeda come in and search us for weapons? Would you let Pakistan have free reign in our country to search wherever they want? Would you invite the Taliban to roam the countryside of America?
THAT'S HOW THEY VIEW US. As the terrorists that came in and attacked them, and killed their people.
kick the big dog on the porch and expect to make it to the car before you get bit in the butt....
There is a big difference Davy. The Taliban and Al Qaeda are independent renegade gangs akin to mafia. The U.S. of A is a sovereign country. If they view as a renegade gang - then the fault is theirs and that of their propagandists, not ours, as we have never promoted ourselves as anything other than a sovereign nation.
Davy Jones
09-13-2011, 10:07 PM
kick the big dog on the porch and expect to make it to the car before you get bit in the butt....
There is a big difference Davy. The Taliban and Al Qaeda are independent renegade gangs akin to mafia. The U.S. of A is a sovereign country. If they view as a renegade gang - then the fault is theirs and that of their propagandists, not ours, as we have never promoted ourselves as anything other than a sovereign nation.
No you're saying there is a HUGE difference between Al Qaeda attacking us and Japan attacking us at Pearl Harbor? Really?
When you're attacked, you don't care about whether it is a group of people, or a country.
We've never promoted ourselves anything other than a sovereign nation? Is that why in our short history we have so very much respected the "Sovereignty" of other Nations?
We invaded a country. We kill some of their people. You don't think they see us as monsters and gangs of thugs?
Look, I'm not saying you're right, but you aren't looking at it from the right side. Imagine if Iraq had said something we were doing was wrong, or was against the "sovereign rights" on another nation, so Iraq dropped bombs, invaded with Military forces, and arrested our leader? Would you think that the Iraqi government were thugs? You wonder why they consider us renegade?
There is no real difference. Both are attacks against the sovereignty of the country. The difference is you are letting your "AMERICA, **** YEAH" bias come in. You aren't looking at it objectively.
Yeah.
Sadly for Saddam, he never got to watch the WSOP on TV... and therefore didn't grasp how bad a play bluffing with a very short stack is. :cool:
And he was playing two tables at the same time trying to use rags to prevent both the US and and Iran from going all in on him. The WMD bluff was directed at Iran at least as much if not more than at the US and the West.
No you're saying there is a HUGE difference between Al Qaeda attacking us and Japan attacking us at Pearl Harbor? Really?
When you're attacked, you don't care about whether it is a group of people, or a country.
We've never promoted ourselves anything other than a sovereign nation? Is that why in our short history we have so very much respected the "Sovereignty" of other Nations?
We invaded a country. We kill some of their people. You don't think they see us as monsters and gangs of thugs?
Look, I'm not saying you're right, but you aren't looking at it from the right side. Imagine if Iraq had said something we were doing was wrong, or was against the "sovereign rights" on another nation, so Iraq dropped bombs, invaded with Military forces, and arrested our leader? Would you think that the Iraqi government were thugs? You wonder why they consider us renegade?
There is no real difference. Both are attacks against the sovereignty of the country. The difference is you are letting your "AMERICA, **** YEAH" bias come in. You aren't looking at it objectively.
I don't know why I even bother responding to your posts. You make stupid statements then switch, duck and dodge when called on them. (By the way, I'm still waiting on the address for the bet you made on the NFL thread.)
There IS a huge difference between Japan attacking us and Al Qaeda. One is a sovereign nation with the resources and legal system, the other is a renegade gang with no rules, defined resources, or specific location. The first has leadership in control who could speak for the organization. The other is a lawless organization with a nebulous cloud of authority and no one to really speak for the organization. An analogous situation would be the German government and NeoNazis.
Any country that is at war looks at the enemy as monsters. Such is the propaganda that gels one group against another. It is called human nature.
boltoncct&f
09-14-2011, 06:36 AM
I think geds covered a lot of what I would have said, but in your comparing 9/11 to Pearl Harbor, do remember how we took care of Japan versus what we did in Iraq and Afghanistan. We sent missions into those countries looking for and killing terrorists. We were selective. We knew who the problem was, and it was not the country itself. Did innocent people get caught up in the mix? Yes. Japan as a nation decided to do what they did. My guess is that they would have loved to have that decision back. We have since been two nations that have worked hand in hand helping each other become economic giants. Are we going to get that kind of cooperation from the Saddam's and Osama's of the world? Of course not, so our country has to do what we have to do and who cares if they don't like or trust us.
Further more, don't you think that if we wanted to, we could have planted evidence somewhere in Iraq? THAT would have been dirty, but we did not do that.
I think geds covered a lot of what I would have said, but in your comparing 9/11 to Pearl Harbor, do remember how we took care of Japan versus what we did in Iraq and Afghanistan. We sent missions into those countries looking for and killing terrorists. We were selective. We knew who the problem was, and it was not the country itself. Did innocent people get caught up in the mix? Yes. Japan as a nation decided to do what they did. My guess is that they would have loved to have that decision back. We have since been two nations that have worked hand in hand helping each other become economic giants. Are we going to get that kind of cooperation from the Saddam's and Osama's of the world? Of course not, so our country has to do what we have to do and who cares if they don't like or trust us.
Further more, don't you think that if we wanted to, we could have planted evidence somewhere in Iraq? THAT would have been dirty, but we did not do that.
to Coach Bolton - we would not have gone into the sovereign nations of Iraq, Pakistan, and Afghanistan had those nations not allowed the rogue gangs to operate from within their borders to attack us and other sovereign nations.
to Coach Bolton - we would not have gone into the sovereign nations of Iraq, Pakistan, and Afghanistan had those nations not allowed the rogue gangs to operate from within their borders to attack us and other sovereign nations.
So are you saying Al-Qaeda was in Iraq before 911?
The similarities between Pearl Harbor & Iraq end right after it was a surprise attack that perhaps some at the top of the intelligence ladder may have had some knowledge of.
Pearl Harbor was Japan's offensive inititative to retard the inevitable US response to their imperilistic war effort.
911 was the desperate response of radical Islamic fundamentalists who justified their actions as reponse to what they believe are the imperilistic US actions in the Middle East.
Davy Jones
09-14-2011, 09:45 AM
I don't know why I even bother responding to your posts. You make stupid statements then switch, duck and dodge when called on them. (By the way, I'm still waiting on the address for the bet you made on the NFL thread.)
There IS a huge difference between Japan attacking us and Al Qaeda. One is a sovereign nation with the resources and legal system, the other is a renegade gang with no rules, defined resources, or specific location. The first has leadership in control who could speak for the organization. The other is a lawless organization with a nebulous cloud of authority and no one to really speak for the organization. An analogous situation would be the German government and NeoNazis.
Any country that is at war looks at the enemy as monsters. Such is the propaganda that gels one group against another. It is called human nature.
I think geds covered a lot of what I would have said, but in your comparing 9/11 to Pearl Harbor, do remember how we took care of Japan versus what we did in Iraq and Afghanistan. We sent missions into those countries looking for and killing terrorists. We were selective. We knew who the problem was, and it was not the country itself. Did innocent people get caught up in the mix? Yes. Japan as a nation decided to do what they did. My guess is that they would have loved to have that decision back. We have since been two nations that have worked hand in hand helping each other become economic giants. Are we going to get that kind of cooperation from the Saddam's and Osama's of the world? Of course not, so our country has to do what we have to do and who cares if they don't like or trust us.
Further more, don't you think that if we wanted to, we could have planted evidence somewhere in Iraq? THAT would have been dirty, but we did not do that.
Why does it matter that Japan has a legal system? You think they will use it against those who they sent to bomb us? Why does that matter? They aren't going to use it, IT'S A WAR. I think you are ignoring the fact that when Japan used a surprise attack against a country they weren't at war with, that's a "lawless organization" surprise attacking a country.
An attack is an attack. To address Coach Bolton, No, Japan as a NATION didn't decide it, their leaders did. They didn't take a national poll whether or not to attack the US. Much like how most Afghans didn't decide to harbor terrorists, but the Taliban did.
Davy Jones
09-14-2011, 09:53 AM
The similarities between Pearl Harbor & Iraq end right after it was a surprise attack that perhaps some at the top of the intelligence ladder may have had some knowledge of.
Pearl Harbor was Japan's offensive inititative to retard the inevitable US response to their imperilistic war effort.
911 was the desperate response of radical Islamic fundamentalists who justified their actions as reponse to what they believe are the imperilistic US actions in the Middle East.
Except the Japanese also viewed the US as Imperialists trying to impose US actions in their home Country. President Roosevelt had banned all exports of scrap iron, steel and oil to Japan. The reason for the embargo was the Japanese invasion of China. Japan had lost more than 90% of its oil supply. This crippled their economy and military. The Japanese were actively trying to expand, and we were "meddling" in their affairs.
Kinda like how the Middle East thinks of us.
I think Japan knew eventually we'd probably enter the war, but why would they attack us, and give us a reason to get in any sooner? That would only hurt them and the Germans. They knew the later the US waited, the better their chances in the war.
boltoncct&f
09-14-2011, 10:40 AM
Why does it matter that Japan has a legal system? You think they will use it against those who they sent to bomb us? Why does that matter? They aren't going to use it, IT'S A WAR. I think you are ignoring the fact that when Japan used a surprise attack against a country they weren't at war with, that's a "lawless organization" surprise attacking a country.
An attack is an attack. To address Coach Bolton, No, Japan as a NATION didn't decide it, their leaders did. They didn't take a national poll whether or not to attack the US. Much like how most Afghans didn't decide to harbor terrorists, but the Taliban did.
The same Taliban that was leading the country (at the time)?;)
But I digress...... My point was regardless of the reasons these countries came after us, look at our retaliation to those two incidences. Totally different. We could have just blown up everything in sight in Iraq and Afghanistan, not giving one flying flip about civilian casualties, and been done with both countries in a matter of weeks, rather than years. We were/are not "dirty" as what could have been our right to be so.
Davy Jones
09-14-2011, 11:09 AM
We were/are not "dirty" as what could have been our right to be so.
From YOUR standpoint, yes, but look at the viewpoint from the Afghan and Iraqi people. We invaded and took down their governments.
Once again, I'm not saying they are right, but I'm also not saying they don't have a right to not like us.
boltoncct&f
09-14-2011, 12:04 PM
From YOUR standpoint, yes, but look at the viewpoint from the Afghan and Iraqi people. We invaded and took down their governments.
Once again, I'm not saying they are right, but I'm also not saying they don't have a right to not like us.
If they weren't (at the time) afraid of being shot in the head, you could have done a poll that would have overwhelmingly shown that the people would have been more than glad to get rid of those regimes.
The biggest reason, IMO, that they don't like us is due to religious differences. I think most people in both countries were more than willing to put that on the back burner to get help in ridding them of their regimes.
Doc Awesome
09-14-2011, 01:50 PM
Except the Japanese also viewed the US as Imperialists trying to impose US actions in their home Country. President Roosevelt had banned all exports of scrap iron, steel and oil to Japan. The reason for the embargo was the Japanese invasion of China. Japan had lost more than 90% of its oil supply. This crippled their economy and military. The Japanese were actively trying to expand, and we were "meddling" in their affairs.
Kinda like how the Middle East thinks of us.
I think Japan knew eventually we'd probably enter the war, but why would they attack us, and give us a reason to get in any sooner? That would only hurt them and the Germans. They knew the later the US waited, the better their chances in the war.
I understand where youre coming from, but some of your stuff is incorrect. The USA was not in the foreseeable future going to go to war. Germany made sure of that. When the 'Axis alliance' was created, Germany tied their fate to Japan, so, while Garmany was fighting an already taxing war with the Soviet Union (and at the same time attempting to deal with GB), the last thing they wanted was the USA to go to war. They planned to actually declare war themselves after they defeated the Allies in Europe.
Japan's attack on PH was politically a huge blunder, as it screwed the Nazi's and set up deja vu for them (2 fronts). Japan also didnt believe that we would go to war as long as our assets and resources were left untouched. You are right on the embargo though, the US actually forced their hand.
hurray for longer commutes
I understand where youre coming from, but some of your stuff is incorrect. The USA was not in the foreseeable future going to go to war. Germany made sure of that. When the 'Axis alliance' was created, Germany tied their fate to Japan, so, while Garmany was fighting an already taxing war with the Soviet Union (and at the same time attempting to deal with GB), the last thing they wanted was the USA to go to war. They planned to actually declare war themselves after they defeated the Allies in Europe.
Japan's attack on PH was politically a huge blunder, as it screwed the Nazi's and set up deja vu for them (2 fronts). Japan also didnt believe that we would go to war as long as our assets and resources were left untouched. You are right on the embargo though, the US actually forced their hand.
What are you talking about, the US was moving toward involvement pre-1940 election. However you need to put that period time into context. FDR held back until after the election before he made move after move that dismantled the isolationist stance the country had in the late 30's. At the time considerable money was being made by the powerful and elite on the "European War" Joseph Kennedy, Prescott Bush, and the like were doing quite well. The sh!t didn't hit the icicle on the eastern front for Germany until after Pearl Harbor. At the time it is entirely plausible for the Japenese to think that US interest would be more focused on the war where our ancestors were from and not in Asia. The Japenese had 6 months of little opposition after Pearl Harbor until Midawy. And let's not forget our success at Midway was predicated on having the ability to know what the target was, Japeneses mistakes and poor intelligence, and a bit of luck.
Davy Jones
09-14-2011, 09:05 PM
I understand where youre coming from, but some of your stuff is incorrect. The USA was not in the foreseeable future going to go to war. Germany made sure of that. When the 'Axis alliance' was created, Germany tied their fate to Japan, so, while Garmany was fighting an already taxing war with the Soviet Union (and at the same time attempting to deal with GB), the last thing they wanted was the USA to go to war. They planned to actually declare war themselves after they defeated the Allies in Europe.
Japan's attack on PH was politically a huge blunder, as it screwed the Nazi's and set up deja vu for them (2 fronts). Japan also didnt believe that we would go to war as long as our assets and resources were left untouched. You are right on the embargo though, the US actually forced their hand.
FDR wanted to go to war. He was pushing the US closer and closer. The Lend Lease Act was him essentially tipping his toe in the water to test the War Front. I think he knew eventually we'd have to go to war, whether it was with Japan or if it was simply giving more aid (and some troops) to those in Europe who were getting run over by the superior German Army. He knew that the US was probably the only thing from keeping Europe from getting ransacked by Hitler.
I agree it was a huge blunder. I don't think they really thought we'd jump head-first into the war. I think they literally hated us for the way we had treated them for the past 50 years, and they let it cloud their better judgement.
Doc Awesome
09-14-2011, 09:39 PM
What are you talking about, the US was moving toward involvement pre-1940 election. However you need to put that period time into context. FDR held back until after the election before he made move after move that dismantled the isolationist stance the country had in the late 30's. At the time considerable money was being made by the powerful and elite on the "European War" Joseph Kennedy, Prescott Bush, and the like were doing quite well. The sh!t didn't hit the icicle on the eastern front for Germany until after Pearl Harbor. At the time it is entirely plausible for the Japenese to think that US interest would be more focused on the war where our ancestors were from and not in Asia. The Japenese had 6 months of little opposition after Pearl Harbor until Midawy. And let's not forget our success at Midway was predicated on having the ability to know what the target was, Japeneses mistakes and poor intelligence, and a bit of luck.
I was attempting to show it was a blunder that it caught the Nazi's off guard, not that the Japs were militarily outmatched or afraid of US retaliation...They knew they had the advantage with the Zero and the massive fleets/armed forces they already had since they had been warring since the early thirties.
vBulletin v3.6.2, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.