Who said the following quotes?

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

The "war on drugs terror" is not a real war....there is not an organized group called "Drugs" terror....it's simply the US and the police trying to enforce their laws on a SUBSTANCE tactic.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Quote

I also know that if there was an off budget funding method for war that showed up each week on your pay stub that the chickenhawks would change their tune pretty quickly. A draft would have the same effect.

Great idea. Let's also do that for welfare and other entitlement programs.

See "FICA"
edited to add: Oooops. You said "welfare".
I don't have a problem with listing that either.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Quote

I also know that if there was an off budget funding method for war that showed up each week on your pay stub that the chickenhawks would change their tune pretty quickly. A draft would have the same effect.

Great idea. Let's also do that for welfare and other entitlement programs.

I actually did write my Congressman and asked him to propose doing this with the DoD budget. What I'm asking is that people actually look at these programs, defense, entitlements etc., and seriously look at the numbers. When people see how much money is coming out of their pockets for something specific they'll be much more likely to ask "and where exactly are you spending this money? Let me see a breakdown." I don't have a problem with a government that shrewdly (I can't write that without laughing) spending my money in an effort to keep our population healthy and well educated. I also don't have a problem with building up a strong defensive force. But what I absolutely do NOT support is exploitation and fraud in any of those programs. Trim the fat and we can have it all and probably put some change back in our pockets. Unfortunately, to "trim the fat" we're going to have to purge the incumbents.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Trim the fat and we can have it all and probably put some change back in our pockets. Unfortunately, to "trim the fat" we're going to have to purge the incumbents.

Yippeee - purge em all. Get rid of the war mongers and and the bleeding hearts, and put in some everyday people that actually pay taxes and have a life outside of politics.

(do people actually say yippee in real life? - that, and "yummy")


Edit; Actually, I don't want the "automatic deductions" itemized. I want an itemized bill sent to everyone each month or quarter that they have to write out a check for. (to make the point, I really don't want to have another service that I pay for just to do this, but in concept, it might drive everyone but the fanatics and the leeches to a more fiscally conservative philosophy - which, obviously , is the correct way for people to think)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kallend 2,183]

Quote

Quote

Trim the fat and we can have it all and probably put some change back in our pockets. Unfortunately, to "trim the fat" we're going to have to purge the incumbents.

Yippeee - purge em all. Get rid of the war mongers and and the bleeding hearts, and put in some everyday people that actually pay taxes and have a life outside of politics.

(do people actually say yippee in real life? - that, and "yummy")


Edit; Actually, I don't want the "automatic deductions" itemized. I want an itemized bill sent to everyone each month or quarter that they have to write out a check for. (to make the point, I really don't want to have another service that I pay for just to do this, but in concept, it might drive everyone but the fanatics and the leeches to a more fiscally conservative philosophy - which, obviously , is the correct way for people to think)

Tsk tsk - you're NOT thinking of the children.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,132]

>In reference to MCDP 1 . . .

I'll readily agree that from that definition, any time we use the military in a big way it's a war.

>I could go on, but this simply backs up that war is an extension of
>politics.

I agree that war is generally the result of politics, and that is is generally driven by political considerations. Sometimes (as in the case of WWII) it is the result of an attack by another political entity who wants to destroy you. Defense, in other words. Sometimes (as in the case of the Iraq war) it is a desire to implement a political policy.

>The "war on drugs" is not a real war....there is not an organized
>group called "Drugs"....it's simply the US and the police trying to
>enforce their laws on a SUBSTANCE.

Correct. But read the language of PATRIOT II - they make it pretty clear that narco-terrorism _is_ a huge threat to us.

There is no entity fighting us called "drugs" just as there is no entity fighting us called "terror." There IS a specific group of people (drug importers/dealers) that we fight, often using our military (i.e. Coast Guard.) Likewise, there IS a specific group of terrorists we are targeting (Al Qaeda) as well as a nebulous, disorganized group of people in Iraq referred to as "the insurgents."

Drugs and Al Qaeda are arguably threats to americans; the Iraqi insurgents are not. Thus from the point of view of defending us from harm, the wars against drugs and Al Qaeda are indeed wars; the war against the insurgents is not. (Though as I mentioned the latter two are indeed wars by your definition.)

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Tsk tsk - you're NOT thinking of the children.

Children,... you're either with 'em, or against 'em

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Iceburner 0]

so we are back on the statement that if it's not a direct threat to America we shouldn't do anything about it? The iraqi insurgents are threating american interests in iraq...which is more than the warlords in darfur as far as "threating" America/her interests....yet now we are supposed to get outta iraq and go to darfur?

sry this is quick, i got more work to do today. i'll check back after work.

[billvon 3,132]

>if it's not a direct threat to America we shouldn't do anything about it?

Not at all! We SHOULD do something about vague, indirect threats. Some ideas might be getting better intelligence on them, containing the threat, using our allies to apply pressure etc etc.

A bad idea would be to invade, kill tens of thousands of innocent people - and ending up making the problem worse.

What you have presented is a false choice - do nothing at all or kill lots of civilians via an invasion and lengthy occupation. There are other choices.

>The iraqi insurgents are threating american interests in iraq...

Yes. And if we invaded Sri Lanka, the Tamil Tigers would threaten american interests in Sri Lanka. That's a poor reason to invade.

>which is more than the warlords in darfur as far as "threating" America/her
>interests....yet now we are supposed to get outta iraq and go to darfur?

Well, look at it this way. If we invaded Darfur, they'd fight back - and soon you'd be able to claim that they are threatening american interests in Darfur with just as much justification.

However, it would be wise (IMO) to not invade Darfur, and rather concentrate our energies on ending the genocide without killing the very people we're trying to "liberate."

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>if it's not a direct threat to America we shouldn't do anything about it?

Not at all! We SHOULD do something about vague, indirect threats. Some ideas might be getting better intelligence on them, containing the threat, using our allies to apply pressure etc etc.

A bad idea would be to invade, kill tens of thousands of innocent people - and ending up making the problem worse.

What you have presented is a false choice - do nothing at all or kill lots of civilians via an invasion and lengthy occupation. There are other choices.

>The iraqi insurgents are threating american interests in iraq...

Yes. And if we invaded Sri Lanka, the Tamil Tigers would threaten american interests in Sri Lanka. That's a poor reason to invade.

>which is more than the warlords in darfur as far as "threating" America/her
>interests....yet now we are supposed to get outta iraq and go to darfur?

Well, look at it this way. If we invaded Darfur, they'd fight back - and soon you'd be able to claim that they are threatening american interests in Darfur with just as much justification.

However, it would be wise (IMO) to not invade Darfur, and rather concentrate our energies on ending the genocide without killing the very people we're trying to "liberate."

Do I understand you right? You are saying the US killed 10s of thousands of inocents?


Do you also realize that more than 95% of the insurgents caught or killed in Iraq are not Iraqis?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,132]

>You are saying the US killed 10s of thousands of inocents?

Yes. Even the most conservative estimates put the number of innocent dead at 70,000 people. During the initial phases of the war, we were the primary cause of 'collateral damage.' Now insurgents are killing many more than we are - but a claim that "they did it all" is not supportable. We are responsible for most of the casualties at the beginning of the war, and a small percentage now. A report in 2005 estimated we are responsible for 37% of the innocent deaths in Iraq, putting the number we've killed at around 25,000.
-------
Staff Sgt. Jimmy Massey:

Q: You spent 12 years in the Marines. When were you sent to Iraq?

A: I went to Kuwait around Jan. 17. I was in Iraq from the get-go. And I was involved in the initial invasion.

Q: What does the public need to know about your experiences as a Marine?

A: The cause of the Iraqi revolt against the American occupation. What they need to know is we killed a lot of innocent people. I think at first the Iraqis had the understanding that casualties are a part of war. But over the course of time, the occupation hurt the Iraqis. And I didn't see any humanitarian support.
------

>Do you also realize that more than 95% of the insurgents caught or killed
>in Iraq are not Iraqis?

That's an excellent bit of bullshit there - it makes us sound like we're battling evil Al Qaeda foreigners instead of home-grown insurgents! But it ain't supportable either, outside a Rush Limbaugh show.
----------------------------------
Among Insurgents in Iraq, Few Foreigners Are Found

By Jonathan Finer
Washington Post Foreign Service
Thursday, November 17, 2005; Page A01

BAGHDAD -- Before 8,500 U.S. and Iraqi soldiers methodically swept through Tall Afar two months ago in the year's largest counterinsurgency offensive, commanders described the northern city as a logistics hub for fighters, including foreigners entering the country from Syria, 65 miles to the west.

About 1,000 suspected insurgents, apparently all Iraqis, were detained in September in the northern city of Tall Afar after house-to-house searches involving 8,500 U.S. and Iraqi troops.

When the air and ground operation wound down in mid-September, nearly 200 insurgents had been killed and close to 1,000 detained, the military said at the time. But interrogations and other analyses carried out in recent weeks showed that none of those captured was from outside Iraq. According to McMaster's staff, the 3rd Armored Cavalry last detained a foreign fighter in June.

. . .

The relative importance of the foreign component of Iraq's two-year-old insurgency, estimated at between 4 and 10 percent of all guerrillas, has been a matter of growing debate in military and intelligence circles, U.S. and Iraqi officials and American commanders said. Top U.S. military officials here have long emphasized the influence of groups such as al Qaeda in Iraq, an insurgent network led by a Jordanian, Abu Musab Zarqawi. But analysts say the focus on foreign elements is also an attempt to undermine the legitimacy of the insurgency in the eyes of Iraqis, by portraying it as terrorism foisted on the country by outsiders.
--------------
Headlines for July 16, 2007

Report: Nearly Half of Foreign Militants in Iraq Are Saudi

The Los Angeles Times is reporting that nearly half of all foreign militants targeting U.S. troops in Iraq have come from Saudi Arabia – one of Washington's closest allies in the Middle East. Of the 19,000 prisoners being held by the U.S. in Iraq only 135 are foreign-born fighters and half of them are Saudi. U.S. officials have so far refused to publicly criticize Saudi Arabia's role in Iraq. Meanwhile in Washington the Democratic-led Senate has unanimously passed a resolution sponsored by Independent Senator Joe Lieberman to censure not Saudi Arabia but Iran for complicity in the killing of U.S. soldiers in Iraq. Lieberman said the Senate has a "choice between turning a blind eye to the murder of our troops and confronting those who are murdering them."
-------------
July 15, 2007
Foreign Fighters in Iraq

. . .

Some other interesting numbers from the Times article:

* Number of foreign fighters in U.S. detention facilities in Iraq - 135
* ~50% of these are Saudis
* There are a total of 19,000 insurgents being held by the US military. Foreign fighters make about 0.7% of these detainees. It is reasonable to assume that the percentage of foreign fighters still in the field is about the same.
* Most of the Saudi fighters seem to come into Iraq through Syria
* Al Qaeda in Iraq and affiliates have between 5,000 to 10,000 fighters
* Iraqi's make up the majority of Al Qaeda in Iraq membership
--------------