Bush wants 87 Billion to fight terror

[JPhillips]

QS: Fair enough. I think, though, that we have gotten to a point where we need to pressure not just foriegn governments, but also American companies to raise wages. That's the only way we will ever get some of these jobs back. As long as other countries are fine with five dollar a day wages or less we our workforce can't compete.

I think this is a major problem for two reasons. One our middle class is shrinking. The wealthy are getting richer but the middle class isn't gaining wages. This will eventually , maybe it already has, but a dent in the economy. The middle class is the engine of our economy. We rely on a deep pool of people that can purchase goods. As that pool shrinks we won't need to make as much stuff. Eventually this hurts everybody, not just the middle class. There is a reason why almost every history of economics credits the development of the middle class with increased development.(and to be fair vice versa)

Secondly, I'm worried from a national security standpoint. Did you know 90% of microchips are built in one industrial park in Taiwan? One earthquake, or typhoon, or missile from N. Korea or China could wreck the world electronics industry for months. We have simply allowed too much manufacturing to be placed overseas. We won't ever really support an insurgency in China because of economic ties, most notably the vast amount of manufacturing they do. I don't believe it is in the USA's best interest to produce nothing and consume everything. This leaves us very vulnerable.

Now maybe my solution isn't the best approach. As you say I am not an economic scholar. I don't have all the answers. I do believe though that we need to look at the repurcussions of the mass exodus of manufacturing jobs. I think the "they won't ever come back" idea is simply defeatist. Let's at least acknowledge the problem and see what we can do about it.

As to Dean, the reason I say its idiotic is because his statements say that we will cut trade with any nation that doesn't follow our laws. I'm all for tough talk, but if he really did that we would cut at least 3/4 of our trade and the economy would collapse. His approach uses far too blunt a weapon.

Fritz: I agree. I'm not saying they have to be on equal terms. I think some rise in the conditions for foriegn workers will eventually pay off for us. We don't export a lot to Indonesia, Malaysia, and others because the middle class is too small. We need to develop purchasers in other markets. That benefits the workers as well as the shareholders. But, yes an equality around the globe is not in our best interests.

[Swaggs]

JPhillips, not sure if you realize this or not, but at the Democratic debate in New Mexico, Joseph Lieberman raised the same question to Howard Dean as you are raising about his "statements."


Here are a few excerpts:

Lieberman argued that if Dean's support of stricter environmental and labor standards in international trade accords came to pass, the Bush recession would be followed by the "Dean depression." He also questioned Dean's claim that the Bush tax cuts had not helped the middle class. Unlike Dean, Lieberman would retain some of the provisions that he sees as aiding the middle class.

Pittsburgh Post Gazette

___
Dean answered Lieberman by saying the human rights, labor and environmental standards in trade accords need not be American, but could be those set by the International Labor Organization. He added, “We can not continue to ship our jobs to countries where they get paid 50 cents an hour with no occupational safety and health, no overtime, no labor protections, and no right to organize.”

And the Dean campaign issued a statement that said Lieberman had misled the audience by using a paraphrase from the Washington Post story, not a direct quote from Dean.



MSNBC
___

[Sharpieman]

Actually Bush wants 87 billion dollars to pay some more of his friends like Halliburton, not to fight terror.

[sabotai]

"Secondly, I'm worried from a national security standpoint. Did you know 90% of microchips are built in one industrial park in Taiwan? One earthquake, or typhoon, or missile from N. Korea or China could wreck the world electronics industry for months."

A few years ago, an earthquake in Taiwan destroyed a buidling where they made RAM chips. Prices for RAM doubled for awhile. So this is a very real possibility.

[CamEdwards]

Originally posted by Sharpieman
Actually Bush wants 87 billion dollars to pay some more of his friends like Halliburton, not to fight terror.

I would ask you if you're joking, but you're from Palo Alto... so I think I really don't want to know the answer.

[The Afoci]

I heard this today. Oddly 87 Billion gets more press than the 400 Billion Dems want for prescrition drugs. Imagine all the money teachers could get with that. They could just hand people cash once they get their masters degree. It would be glorious.

I was watching PBS today. They were showing the towers crumbling and as corny as it sounds, I was nearly moved to tears. 87 Billion doesn't seem so big. But what do I know.

[Swaggs]

What's the joke? The $87B is to go toward the reconstruction of Iraq. It is no secret that Haliburton got a massive government contract to rehabilitate the damage done to Iraqi oilfields during the war.

CNN Article on Haliburton Contract


It is also no secret that Dick Cheney received a huge buyout from Haliburton when he agreed to leave to run for vice president.

CNN Article on Bush/Cheney Income Tax Records


While I can respect the leadership a Dick Cheney could bring to a company, I hardly think he is worth $36M a year. Hell, A-Rod is only worth $25M a year. I don't think it is much of a stretch to consider that some of the money that Haliburton is getting from this new contract will go to fill the void that Cheney's buyout caused on their balance sheet.

[Easy Mac]

How much money was spent on terrorism fighting in the 2 years prior to 9/11, when there were no attacks? How much money was spent fighting terrorism in the 2 years since 9/11, when there were no terrorist attacks? I can spend $1 or $87 billion on a dog, but its dumb luck as to whether he's going to talk. There's a reason they're called terrorist attacks... if we knew they were going to happen, they'd just be called attacks.

Oh, and on the $400 million drug policy, I really don't care. Would it be nice to get free pills when I'm 65 or older? Sure, but I don't want to have to survive by taking pills, so I really don't want to pay for other people to do it (of course, the same can be said for social security).

[Buccaneer]

It must be frustrating to know that a good chunk of change (multi-billions) going to operations throughout the world and in homeland security have reaped their benefits but cannot be publicized. It is coincidental that there have been no major attacks in the US since 9/11/01?

[Dutch]

How much money was spent on terrorism fighting in the 2 years prior to 9/11, when there were no attacks? How much money was spent fighting terrorism in the 2 years since 9/11, when there were no terrorist attacks? I can spend $1 or $87 billion on a dog, but its dumb luck as to whether he's going to talk.

No offense Easy, but this is the exact type of ignorance the media feeds on.

The Al Qaeda was powerful enough to get hundreds of millions of dollars. They trained dumb suicide bombers how to guide jet airliners into strategic targets. They trained their people to do extensive surveillance on airport security, shipping security, embassy security, military barracks security, patterns, standards, effective bomb making skills, assault tactics, chemical and biological testing (remember the dogs in the video?), and extensive documentation on dirty bombs and nuclear detenators have already been uncovered in Afghanistans hideouts.

They hate you. They want you dead. And they feed on the fact that all you care about is money. They expect Americans don't have the stomach to fight a war if it's gonna cost them the chance to buy another Playstation 2 game machine. Because they assume we are fat, dumb, and lazy. They have nothing but time, and will use that to their advantage while we get lazy and forget. Until the organization is gone, they will try to harm you. As long as they are on the run, we have a chance for success. The key is to get Iraq on track first, and when that happens, the support for Al Qaeda will dry up as a frivelous adventure by rich Saudi Clerics...

Obviously you have already forgotten about the Dahran barracks bombing, the Army Liaison office in Riyahd bombing, the USS Cole, the 2 African U.S. Embassy bombings, the 93 WTC attack, and whatever else the media forgets to tell you about. Ignorance? No, it's laziness. You need to remember on your own, don't rely on the media.

[Sharpieman]

Cam I am joking, but its not unknown that Bush has been giving out sweetheart contracts to his friends at Halliburton.

[Dutch]

Cam I am joking, but its not unknown that Bush has been giving out sweetheart contracts to his friends at Halliburton.

I don't see what the problem is.

If my car breaks down, I will go to my known auto-repair shop to get it fixed. You know, the one that you can trust to get the job done.

Now, if my car wasn't broken, and I was just going to have new rims and a good paint and detail done....then charging it to my auto insurance company I would see the problem.

But other than going with what he knows, what's the problem here?

[Easy Mac]

Originally posted by Dutch
No offense Easy, but this is the exact type of ignorance the media feeds on.

The Al Qaeda was powerful enough to get hundreds of millions of dollars. They trained dumb suicide bombers how to guide jet airliners into strategic targets. They trained their people to do extensive surveillance on airport security, shipping security, embassy security, military barracks security, patterns, standards, effective bomb making skills, assault tactics, chemical and biological testing (remember the dogs in the video?), and extensive documentation on dirty bombs and nuclear detenators have already been uncovered in Afghanistans hideouts.

They hate you. They want you dead. And they feed on the fact that all you care about is money. They expect Americans don't have the stomach to fight a war if it's gonna cost them the chance to buy another Playstation 2 game machine. Because they assume we are fat, dumb, and lazy. They have nothing but time, and will use that to their advantage while we get lazy and forget. Until the organization is gone, they will try to harm you. As long as they are on the run, we have a chance for success. The key is to get Iraq on track first, and when that happens, the support for Al Qaeda will dry up as a frivelous adventure by rich Saudi Clerics...

Obviously you have already forgotten about the Dahran barracks bombing, the Army Liaison office in Riyahd bombing, the USS Cole, the 2 African U.S. Embassy bombings, the 93 WTC attack, and whatever else the media forgets to tell you about. Ignorance? No, it's laziness. You need to remember on your own, don't rely on the media.

And you have forgotten about Bali, the constant "terrorist" attacks on new high-ranking Iraqi's, American soldiers, the anthrax scare, the sniper shootings. And you forgot to mention the Oklahoma city bombing. Funny how something doesn't fit your "Al Qaeda is responsible for all terrorist activities" is ignored. But I guess Arabs are the devil, Bush has converted another. $87 billion is great, but no matter how much you spend, something will slip through the cracks, whether big or small.

[Easy Mac]

Originally posted by Buccaneer
It must be frustrating to know that a good chunk of change (multi-billions) going to operations throughout the world and in homeland security have reaped their benefits but cannot be publicized. It is coincidental that there have been no major attacks in the US since 9/11/01?

And it must be frustating to know that a smaller chunk of change (still multi-billions going to operations throughout the world and in America have reaped their benefits but cannot be publicized. Is it coincidental there were no major attacks in the US 2 years before 9/11?

[The Afoci]

Yeah, no major attacks in the US, but there were outside of it against US targets. So americans overseas aren't important. I guess people working on the USS Cole don't really matter. Embassies aren't that important. And you rip a guy about "All Arabs are evil" when he said nothing of the sort, but you come off as someone who cares nothing about someone who happens to be outside our borders. Isolationism will not work. It never has and never will.

[Dutch]

But I guess Arabs are the devil, Bush has converted another. $87 billion is great, but no matter how much you spend, something will slip through the cracks, whether big or small.

I never said the Arabs are the devil, so don't put words in my mouth. (EDIT: Hey, AFOCI already pointed that out, but what the hell, I don't mind doubling the effort for Easy-Mac.)

And like I said, it's gonna always be hot in Africa. But that shouldn't stop us from putting out that big assed forest fire that's engulfed the first few buildings in our village.

Your suggestion that we close our eyes and forget about it is quite sadly....flawed.

[CamEdwards]

Originally posted by Easy Mac
And you have forgotten about Bali, the constant "terrorist" attacks on new high-ranking Iraqi's, American soldiers, the anthrax scare, the sniper shootings. And you forgot to mention the Oklahoma city bombing. Funny how something doesn't fit your "Al Qaeda is responsible for all terrorist activities" is ignored. But I guess Arabs are the devil, Bush has converted another. $87 billion is great, but no matter how much you spend, something will slip through the cracks, whether big or small.

Just to clear up a few points.

1- The Bali bombing. There is a clear link to Al Qaeda in regards to that case.

2- The terrorist attacks on high ranking Iraqis and American soldiers. There is also a clear presence of Al Qaeda in Iraq. Some would have you believe that the link is new, but considering Makawi and Zarqawi were meeting before the war, it's a pretty safe assumption that Iraq was at the very least allowing terrorists safe haven long before we went to war.

3- Anthrax scare. This is a domestic incident that wouldn't be covered under the 87 billion dollars Bush is requesting. Same for the sniper attacks and the Oklahoma City bombing.

You do speak the truth when you say no matter how much you spend, something will slip through the cracks. But how much do you stop with the additional money? How small can you make those cracks? Your attitude seems to be since we can't stop every terrorist attack, we should therefore make no attempt to stop any terrorist attack.

By the way, if you believe that anybody who supports the war on terror believes all Arabs are devils... if you believe that President Bush believes all Arabs are devils, then you've been indoctrinated far more than those you're accusing.

[John Galt]

I don't dare enter this debate fully as Dutch is just arguing complete nonsense (Iraq created Al Qaeda?!??!).

One thing to consider and something I think people have been slow to understand is that Al Qaeda is no longer an organization and is now a movement. Attempts to eliminate infrastructure and people are just band-aids because anyone can "join" Al Qaeda simply by adopting a worldview. And as long as the war goes on, more people will "join" the movement.

If you want to see more about the organization to movement idea, read:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...books&n=507846

[sabotai]

FOFC is the perfect model for american politics! I see it now.

People here take what someone else says, twists it, apply a slippery slope fallacy, and a bunch of others to what people say, insult them off those twisted words....and then cry when someone does it to them!

It's exactly what goes on between democrats and republicans in congress!! Anyone in a political science class would do well to study FOFC's political threads. It'll give real insight to how politics are practiced in capital hill.

[Dutch]

I don't dare enter this debate fully as Dutch is just arguing complete nonsense (Iraq created Al Qaeda?!??!).

C'mon John, give me somebody other than Easy to argue with.

Iraq did not create Al Qaeda. Saddam Hussein made Al Qaeda globally legitimate and a powerhouse to be reckoned with. This is long, but you asked for it!

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...n/who/bio.html

(Bin Laden) reacted swiftly to Iraqi invasion and saw it fulfilling his prophecy. He immediately forwarded another letter to the king suggesting in detail how to protect the country from potentially advancing Iraqi forces. In addition to many military tactics suggested, he volunteered to bring all the Arab mujahedeen to defend the kingdom. That letter was presented in the first few days of the incident, and the regime response was of consideration!

While he was expecting some call to mobilize his men and equipment he heard the news which transferred his life completely. The Americans are coming. He always describes that moment as shocking moment. He felt depressed and thought that maneuvers had to change. Instead of writing to the king or approaching other members of the royal family, he started lobbying through religious scholars and Muslim activists. He succeeded in extracting a fatwah from one of the senior scholars that training and readiness is a religious duty. He immediately circulated that fatwah and convinced people to have their training in Afghanistan. It was estimated that 4000 went to Afghanistan in response to the fatwah.

...

The car bomb in spring 1995 in Riyadh was the first major anti-American action in the kingdom. Bin Laden never claimed responsibility, but the Saudi government tried to link the incident to bin Laden by showing video confessions of four "Arab Afghans" involved in the bombing.

...

June 1996, after his arrival in Afghanistan was the Khobar bombing. Nobody claimed responsibility, but sources from inside the Saudi ministry of interior confirmed involvement of Arab Afghans, with possible link to bin Laden The Saudi government wanted to frame Shi'a, at the beginning but Americans were very suspicious of the Saudi story. Bin Laden himself never claimed responsibility but gave many hints that he might have been involved. The Saudi government has acknowledged recently that bin Laden's men were behind the bombing.

...

After few months of his arrival (back in Afghanistan) he issued his first anti-American message, a Declaration of War. That declaration was limited to expelling American forces outside the Arabian Peninsula. His sense of security and nobody to embarrass must have been the drive to release that 12 page declaration. Interest in him by the Saudis never stopped and they tried very hard to convince Yunis Khalis to hand him over, and he flatly refused despite the luxurious offers.

...

The bombings in Kenya and Tanzania July 1998 were not a big surprise. Yes, it was a surprise but in terms of choice of location and targets. Despite his declaration of war against America anywhere, the attack was expected inside Saudi Arabia. Having said that, it is not [to be taken] for granted that he is behind the bombing.

...end of source...



While Iraq did not physically fund and establish Al Qaeda (as you would suggest I have implied ).....the refusal of Saddam Hussein to adhere to the agreements of the 1991 cease-fire agreement and the subsequent refusal to obey the UN's 17 resolutions created the enviroment (US troops in Saudi Arabia) that brought Al Qaeda out of the dark and into a full fledged organized crime unit that previously only included thousands of fanatics, now with the religious fatwah, it began to get the money, support, contacts, and planners it previously lacked.

I might be crazy, but leaving Iraq with the status quo seems to fuel Al Qaeda funding and Middle Eastern hatreds and fears towards the USA.

At least now, with Saddam Hussein gone, there are options for fixing the problem....and as far as Al Qaeda is concerned, American troops in Iraq is far less painful to swallow than troops in Saudi Arabia. Certainly they are still pissed because of all the Al Qaeda leaders we have killed or captured, but getting out of Saudi Arabia was the biggest hurdle to leap.

[Bonegavel]

Originally posted by Sharpieman
Cam I am joking, but its not unknown that Bush has been giving out sweetheart contracts to his friends at Halliburton.

Name one other company that can do what they do?

[John Galt]

Dutch, this was your quote from another thread:

"The War on Terrorism has been an outstanding success with the fall of Al Qaeda's only public safe haven in Afghanistan's Taliban regime and the removal of the dictator that basically created Al Qaeda in the Iraqi Baath Party regime."

The article you cite goes NOWHERE near proving that point. Saddam has always been more secular and has never been as cozy with terrorists as Saudi Arabia has. Saudi Arabia is of course the country we continue to befriend and aid while we proclaim victory of terrorism by attacking a country with almost no ties to Al Qaeda (and certainly nothing to the degree of Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Sudan, Somalia, or Iran).

[John Galt]

Originally posted by BoneGavel
Name one other company that can do what they do?

For oil well fires, these companies were available and did quite well in Kuwait: Boots-n-Coots, Red Adair, Safety Boss, and
Wild Well Control, Inc. None of them were allowed in the bidding process.

For oil infrastructure, the Bechtel group was available and wasn't allowed in the bidding.

I believe this stuff happens all the time, but don't pretend it was because there were no other options.

[CamEdwards]

John,

I can't speak for all the companies involved, but I've heard interviews with Boots and Coots employees who have come back from Iraq in recent months. You might want to double check those lists. It's also entirely possible that Halliburton has subcontracted out to one or more of those companies.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
John,

I can't speak for all the companies involved, but I've heard interviews with Boots and Coots employees who have come back from Iraq in recent months. You might want to double check those lists. It's also entirely possible that Halliburton has subcontracted out to one or more of those companies.

That very well may be. And I don't know enough to know if Halliburton was the best company available. I just hate rigged or closed bidding processes that smack of insider favoritism. And the Bush administration should understand that it isn't about impropriety, but rather the appearance of impropreity.

[Dutch]

the dictator that basically created Al Qaeda

Well, that statement does leave open argument for what I was implying. I agree with you, The Iraqi Baath Party and Saddam Hussein did not create Al Qaeda. But I think we are arguing over semantics. The bottom line is that this story is much more complicated. Most people understand it's complicated, but most don't know why or how. I like to think I do, but hell, I could be just another person who is misinformed.

But I believe that Iraq has a big role in the big picture of why Al Qaeda mobilized against America. And the Iraqi crisis was the 2nd step in the big picture of curing the problems of the middle east that bring rise to terror organizations like the Al Qaeda. (Removing the Taliban and fighting Al Qaeda was the immiediate first step in stopping the organization from planning attacks against the US).

[The Afoci]

Originally posted by John Galt
And the Bush administration should understand that it isn't about impropriety, but rather the appearance of impropreity.

That is a great point. I do have a feeling though, that no matter who gets the contract, there will be a link back to someone in the administration. People will always look for something. Although with this, they didn't have to look too deep.

[JPhillips]

Dutch: But how far back do you go? Is Al Queda our fault because we didn't discourage Saddam from invading Kuwait? Is it the Shah's fault for oppressing his people who revolted and eventually went to war with Iraq, which strengthened Saddam? Is it Britain's fault for throwing up the random borders that became Iraq?

At some point you have to say some things are seperate. I don't believe that Al Queda would not have existed if we didn't have troops in Saudi Arabia. That's a good rallying cry for Osama, but its not their fundamental motivation. This is about a cultural war. Al Queda hates the modernity and secularity of the west. This isn't about a base in Saudi Arabia, if it was why hasn't the fighting stopped now that we are out? This is a clash of cultures nutured and fed by a egomaniacal, but extrememely capable zealot.

Iraq didn't cause Al Queda. The inability and outright refusal of the Arab states to modernize caused Al Queda.

[dread]

We have spent hundreds of billions already and amount of terrorist attacks have not been reduced in fact hardly a day goes by without some kind of international terrorism. The deficit will soon double and I feel no more or less safe than I did before 9/11.

[The Afoci]

Originally posted by dread
We have spent hundreds of billions already and amount of terrorist attacks have not been reduced in fact hardly a day goes by without some kind of international terrorism. The deficit will soon double and I feel no more or less safe than I did before 9/11.

Might as well just give up on it then. We are all going to die anyways right.

[Hyde]

87 Billion???

All he needs is a $14.99 blanket from Wal-mart to throw over his wife when she goes out in public. Think of all of the terror that could be prevented.

[Dutch]

But how far back do you go? Is Al Queda our fault because we didn't discourage Saddam from invading Kuwait?

In part, I would say it is. So what do we do about that today?

Is it the Shah's fault for oppressing his people who revolted and eventually went to war with Iraq, which strengthened Saddam?

(http://www.fsmitha.com/h2/ch29ir.html ) Oppressing his own people? That's in the eye of the beholder I guess. The fundamentalists dissapproved of all the westernized modernization that was going on in the country. When the Shah left and the Ayahtollah took over, I'd say the middle class/upper class and anybody who wasn't a hardliner fundamentalist was then oppressed...."Khomeini declared that all non-Islamic forces were to be removed from the government, the military, judiciary, public and private enterprises and educational institutions. Corrupt behavior and customs were to be ended. Alcohol and gambling were to be banned and so too were nightclubs and mixed bathing. Friday noon prayer and sermons were to be focal point of the week, and all Friday prayer leaders were to be appointed by Khomeini. Men and women were to be publicly segregated, women to enter busses through one door, men through another, each with a separate seating section. In school classrooms prayers were to become mandatory.

In Iran it was declared that any raising of arms against the Islamic state or any spreading of corruption would be punished by death. Revolutionary courts condemned to death a variety of the Shah's former friends, colleagues and generals -- the number of executions reaching 200. While enjoying support from the joyous masses, Khomeini spoke of music corrupting youth, and he banned all music on radio and television and closed twenty-two opposition newspapers. While the West had been growing in tolerance, more eclectic in religion and wilder in its taste in music, Iran had become more focused on what was described as traditional values. Partying was over.
"

Also, Iran did not go to war with Iraq, they were invaded at a time of trouble as the new Islamic order was still trying to consolidate itself.

( http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/war/iran-iraq.htm ) Above all, Iraq launched the war in an effort to consolidate its rising power in the Arab world and to replace Iran as the dominant Persian Gulf state. Phebe Marr, a noted analyst of Iraqi affairs, stated that "the war was more immediately the result of poor political judgement and miscalculation on the part of Saddam Hussein," and "the decision to invade, taken at a moment of Iranian weakness, was Saddam's".

Is it Britain's fault for throwing up the random borders that became Iraq?

Good one, I hate the old colonial pomp that has resulted in so much strife, let's take the Israeli/Palestine issue as evidence #1, but again, what can we do about that today? In Palestine, you are dealing with territory that is not sovereign Israeli soil and not wanted as such. Iraq, you are dealing with sovereign soil, much more complicated and much more bloody to change a border.

We can only fix (or break) what we can control now.