> Nick wrote: > the people who came to the site first said they didn't care too much about high > explosives, they could deal with those fairly easily.
They didn't care because they didn't have enough troops to care and as to dealing with them later, yeah it was easier: just let them be looted and then there's nothing to deal with. > I do agree that there seems to be a problem now, however the generals aren't > requesting additional troops, they would be given that if they wanted them This is completely false and a misunderstand of how the military works. The Pentagon civilians set policy: Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith, etc. That is, they say, "I only want you to secure the airport. Do you have enough troops to secure the airport?" If the generals do, then of course they don't ask for more troops, but that means that only the airport is guarded! The truth is the Pentagon set a certain agenda with certain targets, based on certain plan. The generals didn't need more troops to accomplish the plan, because it was faulty as we can see everyday. Don't confuse tactics (military) with strategy (the Pentagon civilians). > To me it stands to reason that Bush would be one of the biggest spenders Mr. Bush's fiscal policy has expanded the federal gov't more than the "Great Society" and his discretionary spending has increased at double the rate of Mr. Clinton's. All of that is non-defense, non-security. For example Mr. Bush signed the Transportation Bill that was $280B pork and $20 billion of highway improvements. It should be pointed out that that's half of the pork its republican author wanted and double the amount the democrats tried to spend under Mr. Clinton. There's no skew; dude spends like a drunken sailor. > But could Mr. Kerry's policies have gotten us out, I don't think so, I think > Kerry's ideas were worse that the Bush ideas, hence my vote. > The founding fathers realized that people's good intentions couldn't be trusted so they built in checks and balances. When you're analyzing what the future might hold, trust the checks rather than the words. In this case we could expect a Republican congress, so the check would've been a Democratic president. Not only would this keep spending down (since anything controversial would be rejected), it would also create a marketplace of ideas for these big problems. That is, we'd have 2 parties competing on who could solve the problem better rather than one party who can choose short term pork over long term success and has a monopoly or "mandate" on ideas. > put troops on holy soil, this pissed a lot of people off I agree that al Queda's real goal was the overthrow of Saudi Arabia. The problem is we've had troops on "holy soil" for 40 years and the only reason we invaded Iraq was to protect oil which is why we had the troops there in the first place and why Mr. Bush 41 didn't invade Baghdad. The Saudi's have had American weapons and American military bases for decades. Hussein had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Gold Sponsor - CFHosting.net http://www.cfhosting.net Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:134119 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
