State of the Union Address

I have a company provided health care plan. I have had to change doctor's because the primary physician did not accept the plan. This year my contributions have gone up (co-pays for drugs and visit). When the HR group did the briefing they claimed the insurance cost went up 8% to the company.
 
Ronkh said:
Call me STUPID but I still believe they had wmd in Iraq. IMHO we find it out in 50 years, or when Syria falls
Click to expand...

Call me STUPID but I still believe they had wmd in Iraq. IMHO we find it out in 50 years, or when Syria falls.


Okay STUPID, I mean Ron. Though we have differences of opinion you are certainly not stupid and though we disagree on certain issues at least you’ve taken the time to do some research. If we sat down over a cup of coffee we might find some issues we agree upon.

I’ve read accounts that some people believe WMD may have been moved across the border by the Republican Guard and other accounts that differ. At this point in time my belief is that WMD did not exist and G.W. Bush knew it.

Who knows, maybe they'll find some canisters in a Syrian cave stating"Property of Sadam Hussein - If found return to Presidential Palace in Baghdad or drop in nearest mailbox". Anything's possible in this crazy world.

Now go wax something!
 
Paul Mitchell said:
Call me STUPID but I still believe they had wmd in Iraq. IMHO we find it out in 50 years, or when Syria falls.


Okay STUPID, I mean Ron. Though we have differences of opinion you are certainly not stupid and though we disagree on certain issues at least you’ve taken the time to do some research. If we sat down over a cup of coffee we might find some issues we agree upon.

I’ve read accounts that some people believe WMD may have been moved across the border by the Republican Guard and other accounts that differ. At this point in time my belief is that WMD did not exist and G.W. Bush knew it.

Who knows, maybe they'll find some canisters in a Syrian cave stating"Property of Sadam Hussein - If found return to Presidential Palace in Baghdad or drop in nearest mailbox". Anything's possible in this crazy world.

Now go wax something!
Click to expand...

As far as Bush "knew it".... Most all countries agreed that there was wmd. Just most weren't willing to do anything about it.
That said, I also believe a comment that was made about Iraq (by Colin Powell), which is "you break it, you bought it", meaning if we went in, we had to be in it for the long haul, not just go in, wipe him out and leave. That being exactly what we did, that area is going to heck. Iran/Syria are running rampant and we just sit here fiddling, as the middle east burns. So whether or not you believe we were there for good reason or not, staying there is a completely different subject.

As far as "property of sadam" that comment is more accurate than people know. Biologics, and chem weapons have "signatures", and since he used em on the Iranians and his own people, there are actual samples available to test them if found. (actually I hope that it's found sometime so I can feel validated/vindicated, since I guess i'm one of the few that believe that he had em)
 
I just think of the trillions wasted on the Haliburton welfare fund in Iraq and countless lives lost or forever changed. We just cannot solve Islamic based country problems in the way we did in Europe after WWII.
 
Bunky said:
I just think of the trillions wasted on the Haliburton welfare fund in Iraq and countless lives lost or forever changed. We just cannot solve Islamic based country problems.
Click to expand...

Don't care about solving other countries problems, I do care about US security.

So staying in Iraq was important as far as keeping Iran in check. Now they are the big kids on the block, and all of the mid-east is scared. Watch how fast the Saudi's turn a blind eye if Israel decides to go it alone against Iran. They may make a little "noise", but that'll be all it is.

Haliburton ain't the only one, one of the calif senator's husbands got the "re-build" construction contracts.
 
Ronkh said:
...As far as "property of sadam" that comment is more accurate than people know. Biologics, and chem weapons have "signatures", and since he used em on the Iranians and his own people, there are actual samples available to test them if found. (actually I hope that it's found sometime so I can feel validated/vindicated, since I guess i'm one of the few that believe that he had em)
Click to expand...

I too believe he had them. To think that the few he used on his own people were all he had on hand seems a bit naive to me.
 
At the time, leaving Saddam in place was the best deterrent for Iran. He was contained to some degree. The chemical weapons, since he had used some in the past, probably ended up in another country and do not believe we had to invade Iraq at the time we did. It was a poor excuse to invade the country. He did not pose a direct threat to the US and it diverted our attention and resources from Afghanistan. I would like the thousands of Americans killed and wounded back and the money wasted. At the time, it was politically imprudent to oppose "for America" crap so most of Congress went along with it.
 
Bunky said:
At the time, leaving Saddam in place was the best deterrent for Iran. He was contained to some degree. The chemical weapons, since he had used some in the past, probably ended up in another country and do not believe we had to invade Iraq at the time we did. It was a poor excuse to invade the country. He did not pose a direct threat to the US and it diverted our attention and resources from Afghanistan. I would like the thousands of Americans killed and wounded back and the money wasted. At the time, it was politically imprudent to oppose "for America" crap so most of Congress went along with it.
Click to expand...

Definitely Sadam was Iran's deterrent. My point exactly that since we removed him, we need/needed a presence to keep it from falling (like it's doing)
 
Hussein, in my opinion, was a deterrent to Iran but that was before the Gulf Wars. After these two wars he was pretty much useless as a deterrent since we imposed a no-fly zone and destroyed most of his weapons. After the Persian Gulf War Iraq had sanctions placed on them that severely curtailed their military and the UN destroyed most, if not all, of the chemical weapons and missiles. We've already had discussions regarding WMDs and the possibility there may still be some and hopefully we'll never find out, or if we do, they won't be used against us or anybody else.

Hussein had his shot to take down Iran during the Iran-Iraq war when he invaded Iran but ultimately failed and the UN was successful in forging a ceasefire. Hussein was worried the Shia majority in Iraq would rise up and challenge his Ba'athist party rule due to the rise of the Iranian Islamic Revolution and Ayatollah Khomeini.

I'll throw out another thought. The real deterrent, in my opinion, to Iran is, and always has been, Israel. They are the only country in the middle east with the weapons to successfully attack Iran and they don't have to worry about any Muslim backlash if they do attack since the Muslims already hate them.

What G.W. Bush didn't consider was what would happen to Iraq if Hussein was disposed? Sure, the guy was a tyrant and a dictator and a totally despicable human being but he was the glue that held the country together, if only by fear. After he was deposed the Sunnis and Shias had free rein to kill each other and the rest is history. There's still unrest in the country and probably always will be. Even with a U.S. troop presence in Iraq they (Sunnis and Shias) would still find a way to wreak havoc on each other in the name of Allah.

The same thing happened in Yugoslovia when their dictator Marshal Tito died. He was another strongman who ruled with an iron first. Remember how the Croats, Serbs and Bosnians were held in check until he died and what happened after? The hatred that had festered for centuries was released again and killing each other became the national pastime.

In both Iraq and the former Yugoslovia we're talking about centuries of hatred between groups of people and it's really sad that people can't put aside their differences and work together to make the world a better place.
 
Last edited:
Paul Mitchell said:
Hussein, in my opinion, was a deterrent to Iran but that was before the Gulf Wars. After these two wars he was pretty much useless as a deterrent since we imposed a no-fly zone and destroyed most of his weapons. After the Persian Gulf War Iraq had sanctions placed on them that severely curtailed their military and the UN destroyed most, if not all, of the chemical weapons and missiles. We've already had discussions regarding WMDs and the possibility there may still be some and hopefully we'll never find out, or if we do, they won't be used against us or anybody else.

Hussein had his shot to take down Iran during the Iran-Iraq war when he invaded Iran but ultimately failed and the UN was successful in forging a ceasefire. Hussein was worried the Shia majority in Iraq would rise up and challenge his Ba'athist party rule due to the rise of the Iranian Islamic Revolution and Ayatollah Khomeini.

I'll throw out another thought. The real deterrent, in my opinion, to Iran is, and always has been, Israel. They are the only country in the middle east with the weapons to successfully attack Iran and they don't have to worry about any Muslim backlash if they do attack since the Muslims already hate them.

What G.W. Bush didn't consider was what would happen to Iraq if Hussein was disposed? Sure, the guy was a tyrant and a dictator and a totally despicable human being but he was the glue that held the country together, if only by fear. After he was deposed the Sunnis and Shias had free rein to kill each other and the rest is history. There's still unrest in the country and probably always will be. Even with a U.S. troop presence in Iraq they (Sunnis and Shias) would still find a way to wreak havoc on each other in the name of Allah.

The same thing happened in Yugoslovia when their dictator Marshal Tito died. He was another strongman who ruled with an iron first. Remember how the Croats, Serbs and Bosnians were held in check until he died and what happened after? The hatred that had festered for centuries was released again and killing each other became the national pastime.

In both Iraq and the former Yugoslovia we're talking about centuries of hatred between groups of people and it's really sad that people can't put aside their differences and work together to make the world a better place.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

The fact is though, right, wrong or whatever, we went in there and toppled him. So US had to keep a presence there to sort of chaperone the neighborhood. If we had done that, the Iraqi people would love us. Instead, we cut and run and let them fend and defend for themselves. Letting Iran fill the void. Afghanistan on the other hand is a quagmire. Every "invader" in history has been sent packing in embarrassment.

Had we kept troops in Iraq, Iran wouldn't be so emboldened.
 
Sorry..... forgot to add this

As far as Israel, the need the US, and lots of other countries to aid. If not for anything more but military equipment. SO yes the can "go it alone", but they really can't.
 
I, again, would like to commend everybody on this thread for keeping it civil. I really love that fact that neither I, or any mod, has had to step in and keep such a sensitive issue civil. This is just another (of many) reasons that I am so proud to be a part of this forum.
 
Todd Helme said:
I, again, would like to commend everybody on this thread for keeping it civil. I really love that fact that neither I, or any mod, has had to step in and keep such a sensitive issue civil. This is just another (of many) reasons that I am so proud to be a part of this forum.
Click to expand...

 
Todd Helme said:
I, again, would like to commend everybody on this thread for keeping it civil. I really love that fact that neither I, or any mod, has had to step in and keep such a sensitive issue civil. This is just another (of many) reasons that I am so proud to be a part of this forum.
Click to expand...

I'm actually amazed haha :autopia:

It's great to read I'll tell you that
 
Back to the original post, I usually do not watch the state of the union speeches. They are long (too many different subjects) and full of promises that will never be fulfilled. President's usually get one of their main agendas passed in their term and the rest is watered down.

I think the lack of interest this year is the view they have decreasing value since we all know we will just see mostly gridlock through the election. The leaked speech topics were pretty dull except the challenge to bypass Congress when possible.
 
I don't really watch state of the union for any president, red or blue..I just read the news.

I never understand who say Obama is the worst president ever and America is ruined. I fail to see it. I have a job and I voted for Obama, twice. Quite honestly I would have voted for McCain but he lost me when he chose Palin.

This thread is filled with untruths though. There are not half of americans on assistance. The population of the us is some 316 million. 12.8 million people are on welfare, less than 5%. 46 million are on food stamps, a little more than 15%. The demographics of people on welfare are pretty even. 38.8% are white, 39.8% are black, 15% are hispanic.

The impression that Obama has not done anything other than ACA is untrue as well. He accomplished 85% of his first term agenda in his first two years, including the passage of the START treaty building on Reagan's goal of a nuclear free world, not to mention the Fair Pay act for women, hate crime legislation, tobacco regulation, credit card reform, student loan reform and the stimulus, improvements to the GI Bill, Food Safety, the repeal of Don't ask Don't tell, the death of Osama Bin Laden among other accomplishments.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top