Obama wins!

darthtang aw

Active Member
VinnyRaptor;2655594 said:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/2654592
Questions - the mandatory spending, is that specifically alotted for such programs? in other words do we have to spend that amount on those programs to do law. and is that the minimum or maximum amounts?
the discretionary spending, this is the actual amount policy makers get to work with right? i honestly dont know, but if so half on defense and the war is blasphemy to me. especially when the current enemy has no real army. tanks, aircraft, and battleships are nearly useless, i think we could easily cut that down 200 billion and concentrate on intel, and special forces. i assume that defense includes all of our bases globally, including those in Iraq. closing the Iraqi bases will save us billions alone.
heres how i see it...
Education + Energy + Justice + Agriculture + N.A.S.A. + Health and Human services + Housing + Transportation = 254.6 billion
Defense + War = 626.6 billion
and you call me nuts, lol
I apologize, I didn't post everything. There was a footnote on this page regarding defense. This did not include war costs. Those are appropriation bills added through the course of the year. The budget you see before you for 2008 is the cost to maintain our miltary at peace time....not at war.
If you want I will get you the link for this so you can see the footnote yourself. I have it on my other computer.
Taking the military down to 200 billion would be a mistake....That would be the equivalent to France (their military budget is around that cost per year) To give you an idea of the scale of defense we have. France is roughly 211,000 square miles. The U.S. is 3.79 million square miles. France's population is 64.5 million in 2005, the U.S. 304 million. So by comparison our military budget doesn't equal out to other "less military minded" country with regards to percentages. We should be spending more.
I do agree though that closing some european bases would help reduce this, but then we risk a global political backlash. Look at what happens in our own country when we consider closing bases in some states, muchless in another country we have to deal with politically and rely on for political backing in the U.N. It is a catch 22.
 

reefraff

Active Member
I don't think we need to be in Germany or Japan. SHould tell China we wouldn't mind if they "annexed" North Korea too. Then we could get out of there
 

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/2656234
I don't think we need to be in Germany or Japan. SHould tell China we wouldn't mind if they "annexed" North Korea too. Then we could get out of there
I actually think we need all 3.
Germany is a staging point to oppose Russia; Japan and South Korea remind China not to get too frisky.
 
V

vinnyraptor

Guest
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2654586
So, instead of continuing to pump oil from Iraq into the Persian Gulf, these (because now you are talking about multiple pipelines) pipelines will all join in the Caspian sea? Why???
Why would Iraq quit exporting their oil directly and instead pump it into a Soviet controlled pipeline that would entail building a huge pipeline across hostile Iran?
Look again at the map Vinny... You've almost convinced me the Afghan invasion and Iraq WAr were Soviet plots at this point.
if they run it to the caspian sea they could easily ship it to northern Europe and Russia, by running it thru Iran and Afghanistan they could feed Pakistan and China, this pipeline is a gold mine and now the oil companies are there to make sure it happens. why do you think there is such an uproar about Iran? intell says they are atleast 5 to 10 years away from building a nuke, sure they have the missles to carry a warhead but so does 3rd world countries. its because they are in the way of said pipeline. Iran's government will either be ousted and replaced with a more U.S./ oil industry friendly one, or we'll invade. i predicted this 3 years ago. Barrack could throw a wrench inot this plan and if so i expect him to be assasinated. if McCain wins this plan will move forward and within 2 years of his presidency we will be in Iran in some way, shape, or form. i understand that you cant believe this and thats fine, but sometimes truth is stranger than fiction...
 

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by VinnyRaptor
http:///forum/post/2656341
if they run it to the caspian sea they could easily ship it to northern Europe and Russia, by running it thru Iran and Afghanistan they could feed Pakistan and China, this pipeline is a gold mine and now the oil companies are there to make sure it happens. why do you think there is such an uproar about Iran? intell says they are atleast 5 to 10 years away from building a nuke, sure they have the missles to carry a warhead but so does 3rd world countries. its because they are in the way of said pipeline. Iran's government will either be ousted and replaced with a more U.S./ oil industry friendly one, or we'll invade. i predicted this 3 years ago. Barrack could throw a wrench inot this plan and if so i expect him to be assasinated. if McCain wins this plan will move forward and within 2 years of his presidency we will be in Iran in some way, shape, or form. i understand that you cant believe this and thats fine, but sometimes truth is stranger than fiction...
Again, please refer to the map.. Why would Iraq risk running oil 1000's of miles across hostile Iran when they ship it currently directly into awaiting tankers in the persian Gulf (where the bulk of the oil is currently shipped anyway)
Have you listened to what the Iranian President has been saying? "Death to America", "Death to Israel", "Israel will be exterminated", etc. Gee, ya, let's let him continue to develop nuclear weapons...
The goofiest part of your conspiracy theories regarding these pipelines is that they beneift Russia and Europe. Neither would benefit America.
I'm all for military action against Iran, btw. President Clinton allowed N. korea to develop nuclear weapons and now we are stuck with a crazy lunatic with his finger on the red button; i'd like to avoid that in iran for as long as possible, thanks.
 

1journeyman

Active Member
Vinny, i'm still waiting for that UN link on 1.5 million casualties and for an explanation on how many people died in one day when we used an atomic bomb.
 

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2656271
I actually think we need all 3.
Germany is a staging point to oppose Russia; Japan and South Korea remind China not to get too frisky.
I think the Russians already understand empires don't work very well.
 

jmick

Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2656393
Again, please refer to the map.. Why would Iraq risk running oil 1000's of miles across hostile Iran when they ship it currently directly into awaiting tankers in the persian Gulf (where the bulk of the oil is currently shipped anyway)
Have you listened to what the Iranian President has been saying? "Death to America", "Death to Israel", "Israel will be exterminated", etc. Gee, ya, let's let him continue to develop nuclear weapons...
The goofiest part of your conspiracy theories regarding these pipelines is that they beneift Russia and Europe. Neither would benefit America.
I'm all for military action against Iran, btw. President Clinton allowed N. korea to develop nuclear weapons and now we are stuck with a crazy lunatic with his finger on the red button; i'd like to avoid that in iran for as long as possible, thanks.

What kind of action do you think we should take against Iran? Also, what do you feel would be the response of Ali Khamenei? What would this do to the region?
 
V

vinnyraptor

Guest
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2656393
Again, please refer to the map.. Why would Iraq risk running oil 1000's of miles across hostile Iran when they ship it currently directly into awaiting tankers in the persian Gulf (where the bulk of the oil is currently shipped anyway)
Have you listened to what the Iranian President has been saying? "Death to America", "Death to Israel", "Israel will be exterminated", etc. Gee, ya, let's let him continue to develop nuclear weapons...
The goofiest part of your conspiracy theories regarding these pipelines is that they beneift Russia and Europe. Neither would benefit America.
I'm all for military action against Iran, btw. President Clinton allowed N. korea to develop nuclear weapons and now we are stuck with a crazy lunatic with his finger on the red button; i'd like to avoid that in iran for as long as possible, thanks.
who ever said it would be to America's benefit? it's for the oil company's, the military industrial complexes, and large corp's like haliburton's benefit, thats who runs the world.... i know what the Iranian president said, but he doesn't run the country, the Ayatollah does, and he has said no such thing. the president most likely wont be re- elected and Iran DEFINATELY doesn't want war with us. they have also denied trying to build nukes and consistantly say the want nuclear energy not bombs. a country that size has every right to develop nuclear power for energy purposes. we were worried when Pakistan developed nukes, India, and N. Korea. but what came of it? negotiations, thats what, not war, and certainly not nuclear war. nuclear weapons are nothing more than bargaining chips, no one will EVER launch a nuclear bomb nowadays because it would mean there instant extinction from us and our allies, and you know that.
 

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2656393
Again, please refer to the map.. Why would Iraq risk running oil 1000's of miles across hostile Iran when they ship it currently directly into awaiting tankers in the persian Gulf (where the bulk of the oil is currently shipped anyway)
Have you listened to what the Iranian President has been saying? "Death to America", "Death to Israel", "Israel will be exterminated", etc. Gee, ya, let's let him continue to develop nuclear weapons...
The goofiest part of your conspiracy theories regarding these pipelines is that they beneift Russia and Europe. Neither would benefit America.
I'm all for military action against Iran, btw. President Clinton allowed N. korea to develop nuclear weapons and now we are stuck with a crazy lunatic with his finger on the red button; i'd like to avoid that in iran for as long as possible, thanks.
LOL I just tripped over what looks to be the source of Vinnie's conspiracy theory. The Author is a member of the 9-11 truth group. So much for it's credibility but he's gotten a number of the "facts" twisted around so bad it makes his argument look absolutly rediculous.
About 5 years ago I bought stock in the Kazakhstan oil company and some of this was mentioned in some of the research I did before I bought.
Here's some straight info on the pipelines.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/caspgase.html
 
V

vinnyraptor

Guest
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/2656533
LOL I just tripped over what looks to be the source of Vinnie's conspiracy theory. The Author is a member of the 9-11 truth group. So much for it's credibility but he's gotten a number of the "facts" twisted around so bad it makes his argument look absolutly rediculous.
About 5 years ago I bought stock in the Kazakhstan oil company and some of this was mentioned in some of the research I did before I bought.
Here's some straight info on the pipelines.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/caspgase.html
dude you have know idea where i get my info from... but you can bet it isnt "mainstream" media, lol
 

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by VinnyRaptor
http:///forum/post/2656661
dude you have know idea where i get my info from... but you can bet it isnt "mainstream" media, lol
Still waiting on that UN link and an explantaion as to how we killed more people in a single day with an atomic bomb than most wars have killed combined...
 

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by VinnyRaptor
http:///forum/post/2656509
.... i know what the Iranian president said, but he doesn't run the country, the Ayatollah does, and he has said no such thing. ...
"Iran's stance has always been clear on this ugly phenomenon (Israel). We have repeatedly said that this cancerous tumor of a state should be removed from the region." Khamenei told thousands of Muslim worshippers in Tehran.
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/m...ast.iran.reut/
Time to get a new source of info Vinny.
 
V

vinnyraptor

Guest
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2656743
Still waiting on that UN link and an explantaion as to how we killed more people in a single day with an atomic bomb than most wars have killed combined...
washingtonpost.com
A team of American and Iraqi epidemiologists estimates that 655,000 more people have died in Iraq since coalition forces arrived in March 2003 than would have died if the invasion had not occurred.
The estimate, produced by interviewing residents during a random sampling of households throughout the country, is far higher than ones produced by other groups, including Iraq's government.
A man mourns his son Friday in Baqubah, a city north of Baghdad. The child died in random gunfire near a family home in the village of Khan Bani Saad. (By Mohammed Adnan -- Associated Press)
Special Report
Washington Post coverage of the U.S. military and its operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
• Faces of the Fallen
» FULL REPORT
Who's Blogging?
Read what bloggers are saying about this article.
Vita Testimonium
Gymno
Living with the Conspiracy 24-7
Full List of Blogs (423 links) »
Most Blogged About Articles
On washingtonpost.com | On the web
Save & Share Article What's This?
DiggGoogle
del.icio.usYahoo!
RedditFacebook
It is more than 20 times the estimate of 30,000 civilian deaths that President Bush gave in a speech in December. It is more than 10 times the estimate of roughly 50,000 civilian deaths made by the British-based Iraq Body Count research group.
The surveyors said they found a steady increase in mortality since the invasion, with a steeper rise in the last year that appears to reflect a worsening of violence as reported by the U.S. military, the news media and civilian groups. In the year ending in June, the team calculated Iraq's mortality rate to be roughly four times what it was the year before the war.
Of the total 655,000 estimated "excess deaths," 601,000 resulted from violence and the rest from disease and other causes, according to the study. This is about 500 unexpected violent deaths per day throughout the country.
The survey was done by Iraqi physicians and overseen by epidemiologists at Johns Hopkins University's Bloomberg School of Public Health. The findings are being published online today by the British medical journal the Lancet.
The same group in 2004 published an estimate of roughly 100,000 deaths in the first 18 months after the invasion. That figure was much higher than expected, and was controversial. The new study estimates that about 500,000 more Iraqis, both civilian and military, have died since then -- a finding likely to be equally controversial.
Both this and the earlier study are the only ones to estimate mortality in Iraq using scientific methods. The technique, called "cluster sampling," is used to estimate mortality in famines and after natural disasters.
While acknowledging that the estimate is large, the researchers believe it is sound for numerous reasons. The recent survey got the same estimate for immediate post-invasion deaths as the early survey, which gives the researchers confidence in the methods. The great majority of deaths were also substantiated by death certificates.
"We're very confident with the results," said Gilbert Burnham, a Johns Hopkins physician and epidemiologist.
A Defense Department spokesman did not comment directly on the estimate.
"The Department of Defense always regrets the loss of any innocent life in Iraq or anywhere else," said Lt. Col. Mark Ballesteros. "The coalition takes enormous precautions to prevent civilian deaths and injuries."
 
V

vinnyraptor

Guest
BALTIMORE, Maryland (CNN) -- War has wiped out about 655,000 Iraqis or more than 500 people a day since the U.S.-led invasion, a new study reports.
Violence including gunfire and bombs caused the majority of deaths but thousands of people died from worsening health and environmental conditions directly related to the conflict that began in 2003, U.S. and Iraqi public health researchers said.
"Since March 2003, an additional 2.5 percent of Iraq's population have died above what would have occurred without conflict," according to the survey of Iraqi households, titled "The Human Cost of the War in Iraq." (Watch as the study's startling results are revealed -- 1:55 )
The survey, being published online by British medical journal The Lancet, gives a far higher number of deaths in Iraq than other organizations. (Read the full report -- pdf)
The report's release came as nearly four dozen Baghdad civilians became casualties in another day of bombs and gunfire. (Full story)
President Bush slammed the report Wednesday during a news conference in the White House Rose Garden. "I don't consider it a credible report. Neither does Gen. (George) Casey," he said, referring to the top ranking U.S. military official in Iraq, "and neither do Iraqi officials."
"The methodology is pretty well discredited," he added. (Watch Bush dismiss the report -- 1:33 )
Ali Dabbagh, an Iraqi government spokesman, said in a statement that the report "gives exaggerated figures that contradict the simplest rules of accuracy and investigation."
Last December, Bush said that he estimated about 30,000 people had died since the war began.
When pressed whether he stood by that figure Wednesday, he said, "I stand by the figure a lot of innocent people have lost their life. Six hundred thousand -- whatever they guessed at -- is just not credible."
Researchers randomly selected 1,849 households across Iraq and asked questions about births and deaths and migration for the study led by Gilbert Burnham of Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, Maryland. The Center for International Studies at Massachusetts Institute of Technology cooperated.
They extrapolated the figures to reflect the national picture, saying Iraq's death rate had more than doubled since the invasion.
On Wednesday, Burnham defended his team's methodology, saying it was the standard used in developing countries to survey for HIV and other major health issues he said. In 87 of the interviews conducted, the researchers asked for death certificates, and people were able to produce one 92 percent of the time, he said.
In 13 percent of the interviews, the researchers had forgotten to ask for certificates, he said. (Watch Military and civilian experts question the methodology -- 1:45 )
The report said that Iraqis "bear the consequence of warfare" and compared the situation with other wars: "In the Vietnam War, 3 million civilians died; in the Congo, armed conflict has been responsible for 3.8 million deaths; in East Timor, an estimated 200,000 out of a population of 800,000 died in conflict.
"Recent estimates are that 200,000 have died in Darfur [Sudan] over the past 31 months. Our data, which estimate that 654,965 or 2.5 percent of the Iraqi population has died in this, the largest major international conflict of the 21st century, should be of grave concern to everyone."
The researchers estimated that an additional 654,965 people have died in Iraq since the invasion above what would have been expected from the pre-war mortality rate. They did not ask families whether their dead were civilians or fighters. (Read the report's appendix, including methodology and charts -- pdf)
Violence claimed about 601,000 people, the survey estimated -- the majority killed by gunfire, "though deaths from car bombing have increased from 2005," the study says.
The additional 53,000 people who are believed to have been killed by the effects of the war mostly died in recent months, "suggesting a worsening of health status and access to health care," the study said. It noted, however, that the number of nonviolent deaths "is too small to reach definitive conclusions."Other key points in the survey:
The number of people dying in Iraq has risen each year since March 2003.
Those killed are predominantly males aged 15-44.
Deaths attributed to coalition forces accounted for 31 percent of the dead.
Although the "proportion of deaths ascribed to coalition forces has diminished in 2006 ... the actual numbers have increased each year."
Burnham said the confidence interval of the data put the range of the number of deaths between 400,000 and 900,000. He suggested the media should not get too focused on the 655,000 number.
Professionals familiar with such research told CNN that the survey's methodology is sound.
 

1journeyman

Active Member
*That is not a UN report as you claimed...
*The Iraqi Government blasts it as inaccurate
*Nowhere do they talk about 1.5 million civilians being killed by US forces
Further, still waiting on the atomic bomb explanation.
 

darthtang aw

Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2656817
*That is not a UN report as you claimed...
*The Iraqi Government blasts it as inaccurate
*Nowhere do they talk about 1.5 million civilians being killed by US forces
Further, still waiting on the atomic bomb explanation.
Journey you would have better luck throwing a handball at a curtain and have it bounce back to you than get a link that does not exist.
 

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by VinnyRaptor
http:///forum/post/2656661
dude you have know idea where i get my info from... but you can bet it isnt "mainstream" media, lol
Dude, I didn't say I did. But every site I looked at (about a dozen) carrying this was either connected to or using an article that traces back to the same source.
And there is a reason the mainstream media doesn't cover this crap. There is no credible evidence to back anything up.
You mentioned a bush meeting in texas with a taliban leader and the Taliban guy being interviewed in Crawford, watched it on Youtube you said. Got link? I searched Youtube using several tags and got nothing as far as any Taliban guy being interviewed or any meeting with bush. Closest thing I can find on it period was a representative of the Taliban governent traveling to Houston to talk with Unocal to discuss the pipeline deal. .
 

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2656817
*That is not a UN report as you claimed...
*The Iraqi Government blasts it as inaccurate
*Nowhere do they talk about 1.5 million civilians being killed by US forces
Further, still waiting on the atomic bomb explanation.
The world health organization put the death toll around 151,000. Funny how the left wingers want to blame the United States for all the deaths in Iraq since Gulf War I including those Hussein executed or staved due to his diverting the resources from the oil for food program. Had Hussein followed the conditions of the cease fire and not obstructed the weapons inspection the sanctions they blame most of the deaths on would have been lifted years ago.
You gotta wonder why these people hate their country to the point they will make stuff up to attack it. I mean to dessent is highly patriotic in my book but when they grasp at any crackpot theory that makes America look bad, you gotta wonder
 
Top