Reply By: danielost Posted: Monday, August 06, 2007
"i have answered your points

but your too dumb to know it. "


You have not answered anything. You just post BS pure and simple. The results prove the policies Bush have failed on every major issue.

Only in your fantastic little mind, oh Colonel of the pup tent!

OK it is real simple no one fixes their infrastructure unless it breaks. as when i asked you about your house. the only other time anyone fixes things in their house and it hasn't broken is when they buy it. that is why i said it didn't count that you had all of those things fixed. because you did what everyone else on the planet does.


we won't fix our house but we will go done the block and help someone else fix theirs. this is what we are doing in Iraq. that and the fact that we helped to break it.


but i expect you won't understand this.

Reply By: Gideon MacLeish Posted: Monday, August 06, 2007
The results prove the policies Bush have failed on every major issue.


Only in your fantastic little mind, oh Colonel of the pup tent!

If you are saying the results of the past 7 years show we have made progress on Social Security, Medicare, Trade, Education, Energy, The Deficit, Health care, Immigration or Iraq, you deny reality. You could ask 1000 people if they believe we have made progress on these important issues under the leadership of GWB and I doubt that more then one or two would say we have made progress on ANY of them. If you are one of the one or two, it shows you have totally lost touch with reality and have not looked at the actual results. No one who looks at the deficit, the millions that have come into our country illegally since 2000, the fact we are MORE dependent on Foreign Oil then when the two oil men took office could say these things are better today then in 2000 when GWB took office. There was no war in 2000 in which our troops were being killed each week in a Civil war that we enabled to begin. Please do not spout the BS that we were attacked on 9/11 because you and I know that has nothing to do with Iraq! In fact those that did attack us are still not killed or captured, Dead or Alive as the BIG BAD Bush put it. Al-Qaeda after 6 years of fighting is about as strong as it was in 2002 according to our Intelligence report. Yes GWB has done NOTHING about the problems that existed what he took office but make them worse and has created several new problems for our country. GREAT JOB Mr. Bush!

Go Ahead show us the data that disproves ANYTHING I have said in this post!

I'm pretty sure Bush's policy of lowering taxes has succeeded in growing the economy. Or maybe that's just a myth too.

As soon as the story recedes from the headlines so does the debate about infrastructure lol.

of course it is a myth. anything good that bush has done wasn't bush ask gene boy.

If Gene ever made the argument that Bush cornered himself into the role of lame duck president he would be right about that one. Bush may have done some, right and wrong, but right now its hard to find that he is doing anything but marking time and keeping troops in Iraq. Oh yeah, and spending lots of money and mortgaging the future of the nation.

everybody in washington is spending lots of money.


even the city has spent all of its money.

Well I didn't say it was just Bush, but certainly going to war in Iraq without an exit strategy and then staying forever in order to never score a loss, isn't a responsible decision making process, financially as well as in other terms.

There is no question congress should stop excessive spending, but nobody seems to agree on ways to enforce that, or which of the spending is excessive and which is not.

What I will say in regards to this thread, is that this bridge collapse is not an indication of a systemic failure of infrastructure because there are tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands just like it, that do not collapse with people on it. Even if it were an indication, the bridge should have been condemned and not driven upon until the congress figured out where the money to fix it was going to come from.

that's the whole point we haven't loss.



all of it.



not their job it was the cities job. they decided to spin the money on a new stadium first. now of course the feds have to go in and save their butts.

we cannot keep increasing spending across the board 5% a year. without a new income source. and taxing the rich isn't going to help.

"not their job it was the cities job"

How is an interstate highway section not the responsibility of the Federal Government? It would seem to me that all miles on a Federal highway ought to be inspected by the Feds so shit like this doesn't happen.

It's interesting and sad that there is finger pointing because if the bridge situation was that bad nobody should have been driving on it.

The best place to cut spending is the Pentagon Budget for the airforce, the army and the navy. We have little need for new fighters in a War on Terror where the weapon of choice is infantry and suicide bombers and even less need for submarines against a foe that doesn't have ships. As for the Army, if we stopped occupying Iraq and let them take care of their own affairs as a sovereign nation should we would find plenty of soldiers to do any jobs we need done.

The question is, what do we need to do, to rid the world of these ass clowns that want to kill us. I think we need to find out a lot more about them, like

-how many of them there are,
-where they are,
-why they want to kill us,
-how we can turn them against themselves,
-how we can most efficiently kill them.

I don't see the airforce and navy fitting into that as much as in past wars. Certainly one has a hard time arguing for a dozen nuclear carriers, three dozen nuclear subs, hundreds of stealth fighters.

What's really interesting is that some reports have said that the bridge had been inspected, it was scheduled to be inspected every year, then changed to every 2 years then had some patch jobs then was in line to have repairs done in about 13 years. Apparently they did not feel the bridge was in any imminent danger of falling. And as you said there are hundred if not thousand of bridges, roads, buildings, etc that are in the same situations. But let's be realistic, we can't fix everything at the same time. As I tried to point out to the clueless one, imagine trying to fix the 100 year old steam pipelines in New York, imagine bringing the city to a halt while digging 100 feet down thru power lines, phone lines, water lines, fiber optics, sewer lines and every other antique system underground. Can you imagine the impact it will have in traffic, businesses, public transportation, the New York economy? I mean it's not like they will start on a small street and only occupy a small section of it, it would take them years before they get done. By then other parts can burst, then what, keep blaming Bush?



You have to keep in mind that these weapons and forces are not just for fighting terrorist but also for facing other nations who may want to go to war and can match our fire power. I would not feel to comfortable having other countries have better weapons, vehicles and ships than we do just to save a few bucks. It's more of a deterrent than something just we can't use. But hey, let's just leave Iraq, lets just walk away and let them slaughter each other, what do we care right? I mean it's not like it would be our fault. It seems to be a common trend for us Americans to simply walk away from a job we think we can not finish, just give up, right? Who cares about responsibility, who cares about finishing what you started, who cares about those Iraqis that will most likely die because of our ignorance, arrogance and our lack of will to finish what we started and fix what we broke. Who cares anyways?





How many are there? Hmmm, a lot? Or are you looking for an unrealistic number that does not exist since God only knows how many there are?

Where they are? Everywhere? Anywhere?

Why they want to kill us? Because we let our women vote and don't have to cover their faces? Because we eat pigs? Are you serious?

How we can turn them against themselves? What planet do you live on? Hello!!! Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds? How much more do you want to turn them?

How can we most efficiently kill them? A nuke? Ignoring the innocent lives that will be lost in the process when we drop bombs or missiles?

Are you being realistic about these questions? You want to take money away from armed forces and then want to have all these ideas accomplished?



It's not really that hard, when was the last time anyone really wanted to screw with us in a direct confrontation? Terrorist use terrorist tactics cause the know we will hold back because we somewhat value life. We wont destroy entire cities to kill a handful of them. If anything we are being beat by our own rules. But it's the price you pay for fighting fair, for being the good guys.

"You have to keep in mind that these weapons and forces are not just for fighting terrorist but also for facing other nations who may want to go to war and can match our fire power."

We have had a larger defense budget that the combined rest of the world for at least a decade and the only military force on the world that is comparable would be the Chinese. They are interested in selling to us not sticking it to us with a big war, of which everybody knows we'd end up nuking them into history.

At a $700 billion dollar budget, I think we could have found a few million to fix this bridge up and still fight the endless war on intergalactic terror.

"I would not feel to comfortable having other countries have better weapons, vehicles and ships than we do just to save a few bucks."

The question isn't one of cutting all the funding, the reality is stacked against us, nobody has even comes close to military power, we have a dozen carriers, the closest anybody has is the UK with 2 and they are our closest ally. China, looking to build 1, Russia 1, France 1, India 1.

How about subs? We have nearly 50 subs in the ocean closest potential enemy, China which is building them faster than we are. A rate of about 2 per year. Air force, In the air force, and air superiority is key to winning any conflict, we have more planes with longer range attack capabilities, better maneuverability, more forwardly deployed, and better stealth than anybody else and what do they do year after year for the most part. Train and sit idle. We haven't had a war since the first gulf war in which we have needed a large military force in order to complete a mission, and considering some President's will go to war without the force necessary to complete such a mission, (GWB) I don't see why keeping all the extra equipment on hand is necessary. It certainly is the military-industrial complex which Eisenhower warned us about. For each ship we launch that's a school not buildt, for each carrier, that's a few powerplants, a few dozen bridges, a few hundred miles of roads.

I'm not saying we weaken our militarizes ability to fight or win wars, I'm saying we scale back in this area as well as others. We stop fighting out people's battles for them.

"It's more of a deterrent than something just we can't use. But hey, let's just leave Iraq, lets just walk away and let them slaughter each other, what do we care right? I mean it's not like it would be our fault. It seems to be a common trend for us Americans to simply walk away from a job we think we can not finish, just give up, right? Who cares about responsibility, who cares about finishing what you started, who cares about those Iraqis that will most likely die because of our ignorance, arrogance and our lack of will to finish what we started and fix what we broke. Who cares anyways?"

All of this incredible technological and militarily superiority didn't deter the beginners of this war on terror and they won't in the future. Get that? We could and now it seems very clear we should have left Iraq as soon as we setup their chance to take control of their own lives, form their own government. You seem to believe the Bush propaganda that the rest of the world cannot fight for itself without us. Who fought for us during our Independence?

I don't think that you can argue that if freedom love and craving people can't do it on their own because it's been proven in this country through our struggles against tyranny. Remember we defeated the strongest navy backed by the strongest army on our own soil, and we did it twice. That's fighting for freedom, and we died for it too.

You can stay in Iraq for 25 more years and it wont guarantee that the people will want freedom or want it so bad they will fight any that oppose that, and die for it, for their children's future.

When I start asking questions like how many are there you start coming up with answers to hide the fact there is no known answer. Yet in every conflict we have ever fought before we have known, both the capabilities of our enemies and the numbers of them. Maybe not to a precise magnitude but certainly to a point where we were saying things like "Hmmm, a lot?"

How about where are they? "Everywhere? Anywhere?" Really, then why are we focused solely on Iraq when the rest of the world is being infested by this danger? If it is such a crucial battle in Iraq, why doesn't the rest of the world seem interested in assisting at this point? Certainly the Europeans are no where to be found in Iraq.

Why they want to kill us, I'll agree that your reason is one of many I've heard. But usually it's because we are infidels in their holy land, or some political cause. I'm not saying he disengage from the world only that we stop occupying countries that are sovereign nations. I.e. IRAQ.

"How we can turn them against themselves? What planet do you live on? Hello!!! Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds? How much more do you want to turn them?"

Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds, but no Al Qaeda, Aren't we at war with Al Qaeda and global terrorist organizations? I see Iraqi's wanting to form 3 states one for Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds. I don't see anybody over there wanting to make room for Al Qaeda to setup shop. I think if we left they would have to turn to each other to work together or fight over their scarce resources. Either way it's not our problem or business. It really isn't, the only reason we are making it our business is this idea that AQ is going to give a ratsass if we win or lose there. Suppose we win. And the Iraqis all fall in love in brotherly love with each other, and kick out any AQ presence, and work hand in hand with us, even spill a few billion barrels of free oil our way. Does that deter AQ. NO!!!

"You want to take money away from armed forces and then want to have all these ideas accomplished?"

I want to stop adding money to a defense budget which is spending money on things we don't need to fight a war on terror i.e. dozens of brand new stealth fighters, half a dozen carriers we don't need, 25 nuclear subs. One more huge financial drain is the half a trillion dollar damage control fund in Iraq which isn't going to ever pay us back ever. Nor is investing in Iraq's security or ability to fight its war, going to make us safer. It will not deter radical extremists from attacking civilized nations because that's what makes them radical and extreme duh!

"When was the last time anyone really wanted to screw with us in a direct confrontation?"

8:46 AM on September 11, 2001

"We wont destroy entire cities to kill a handful of them. If anything we are being beat by our own rules. But it's the price you pay for fighting fair, for being the good guys."

We have done it before in WW2, both with area bombing, i.e. carpet bombing of cities in Europe during Operation Overlord and against the NAZI's, and we did it twice to Japan, Nagasaki, Hiroshima. Don't you dare think for even a second, that if a nuke went off in one of our cities, that we wouldn't be spreading the love radiologically, around the world in a move in the name of "deterrence".

The goal of making sure there were no WMD capabilities in Iraq was a noble one, getting rid of Saddam was equally noble. But that was an 18 month mission. Setting up a post war government was extra and of course necessary, but that is where our commitment should have ended. To continue to occupy Iraq is mortgaging our future elsewhere in the world and at home.

And therefor no one dares to mess with us as a military force. But I wouldn't be fooled into thinking China is only interested in selling. Human nature has shown that people can hold grudges for long periods of time whiting for the right moment.



Hello, is this thing on? Are you saying that we are only funding this war and not funding any other thing in this country? Here's an idea, hows about we take the money that was suppose to used to build the infamous border fence that was never built? Or those millions that were gonna be used for that bridge to nowhere? But wait, there was already money for the bridge, it was part of previous transportation budgets, maybe you should go to the local Gov't and find out why it was not fixed.

Keep in mind the war started in 2003 but this bridge has been under inspection and found faulty since 1998, wasn't Clinton president back then?



Yea, I wonder if you are one of those people who would stop putting mice poison just because you don't see mice around the house anymore. I don't care if we have to make 50 more carriers, so long as we keep the would be enemy at bay, I'm OK with it. I never see military funding as a waste so long as there are others out there just waiting for us to lower our guard.



Keep in mind (again) this is military. Our own rules are own weakness. We chose to fight by the rules, we chose to give all immigrants the benefit of the doubt, we do our best to respect other cultures and because of this our enemies have a weakness to exploit. All they need is patience and time. They pass themselves as normal citizens and then strike when we least expect it because we think we so bad that no one would dare to touch us. But how do you fight an enemy with no country, with no military uniform to identify them, with no fear of death, with no care for any life? This is not the kind of enemy we were prepared for, but these past few years have taught us to learn to fight a new level of fighting, without breaking the rules. But I still think that won't be enough. Rule will have to be bent or broken if we are to win.



I believe the Iraqi people can fight for themselves, they just lack the motivation. We can't expect people with thousands of years of culture to just change over night. But changes have been seen and reported. Of course like many others you don't acknowledge them.



Raising a child for 18 years won't guarantee he will be successful either but we still try (those of us who do anyways).

Because Iraq was not about terrorist, it was about Saddam. Funny how you say "then why are we focused solely on Iraq when the rest of the world is being infested by this danger?" when just a little while ago you said "We stop fighting out people's battles for them.".



Hello!!!! Osama is Shiite (I believe or is it Sunni? cant remember) . Who do you think will side with him?



Arrrg, again, it's not just for the war on terror. I bet some of these weapons would come in handy in Pakistan if they let us in to use them. The problem is you think Iraq is the only war on terror, we also have Afghanistan and Pakistan, there is also Israel with Lebanon and Palestine. This isn't just about Iraq you know.



Dude, read the question completely before answering. I said "screw with us in a direct confrontation". Sept 11 was not a direct confrontation that was the acts of cowards.



Because those were wars against military enemies not a group of Islamic extremist. We are fighting a religious group, not a country. We can't just bomb the hell out of a country just because there are a few terrorist in it. Look at Iraq, we bombs the hell out of it, somewhat anyways, because we were fighting Saddam's military forces. Not the same as the insurgents we see today. You need to get your fighters straight.



Do you realize you just contradicted yourself here? It was extra but necessary? How could the commitment end when they don't have a stable Gov't yet? Or did you just want to pick any joe blow from the street and tell them "well Saddam is gone, I pick you as the next leader, good luck, don't call us we'll call you."?

I'm sorry Greene but your replies are full of emotion and lack reality, logic and understanding of the situation in Iraq. You can't make decisions based on feelings that can put millions of lives in danger. It is what it is, we can't go back now. The only real solution is to finish what we started, otherwise we will lose the little bit of what makes us the great country we are.

For Gene, everything is a zero-sum game, with only one villain. He's so impressed with himself he can't see past his mirror.

You forgot 2 major ones....Iran and North Korea.

Thank you drmiller, shame on me for forgetting those 2. Though maybe we really should. they deserve to be forgotten. While we at it let me add another one that Fox News was so kind to point out for me in this title and clip:



Russia Flexes Military Muscle

I wonder if Greene wants to reduce aircraft funds now?

"And therefor no one dares to mess with us as a military force."

Nobody except North Korea, Iran, Syria, Al Qaeda, Iraq.

"Hello, is this thing on? Are you saying that we are only funding this war and not funding any other thing in this country?"

No I'm not saying that and if you read anything I have written on the subject in the past, or the comments on this thread by me, you'd know that. Since you haven't let me clue you into my perspective.

The bridge and the war in Iraq are separate issues.

I think the war in Iraq since we helped establish a government to run the country has been largely a waste. The original mission, Get Saddam, Get the regime, Get the WMD, is over and done with. We are spending way too much of the defense budget which is overinflated occupying a country that we have little interest in staying in. Remaining in indefinetly will not deter extremist groups. Winning the situation in Iraq ever, will not deter extremist groups. Extremist groups exist to use any means available to attack their stated enemy regardless of actual facts. Losing the war in Iraq also, does not increase the threat from extremist groups because they are already going to attack us with, again, any means available. THATS WHAT I'M SAYING!

"Keep in mind the war started in 2003 but this bridge has been under inspection and found faulty since 1998, wasn't Clinton president back then?"

I'm not placing blame with any particular department. I am saying that in a first world country, we should be able to manage our shit sufficient to the extent that citizens are not driving over bridges that could collapse with people commuting on them.

Bush, Clinton, Federal, State, Local, mayor, engineer, inspector, it doesn't matter now, somebody fucked up. Placing blame doesn't bring the people back or raise the bridge.

My question regarding, a bridge, part of the interstate highway system, was, why is the local transit department able to make decisions on federal infrastructure? To me that didn't make sense.

"Yea, I wonder if you are one of those people who would stop putting mice poison just because you don't see mice around the house anymore."

Actually I have a field mouse infestation during the winter in the garage, mouse poison is in the garage year round. The difference between mouse poison and a nuclear carrier is the mouse poison costs me about $3 annually, the nuclear carriers I actually pay more for in taxes. At about $2 billion dollars a carrier and a $10 million dollar a day operating expense I can see mothballing a few carriers could allow us to spend that saved money more effectively here at home.

"I don't care if we have to make 50 more carriers, so long as we keep the would be enemy at bay, I'm OK with it."

That is just the problem you don't care and neither do many others right now, but two things are facts. We are running up huge deficits that will have to be repaid some day, and 50 carriers isn't going to give us any more protection that 12 is, or 6.

"But how do you fight an enemy with no country, with no military uniform to identify them, with no fear of death, with no care for any life? This is not the kind of enemy we were prepared for, but these past few years have taught us to learn to fight a new level of fighting, without breaking the rules. But I still think that won't be enough. Rule will have to be bent or broken if we are to win."

I think you ought to look at what happens to societies that make a habit of breaking the rules when it it convenient. Start with Nazi Germany.

You are very right when you say we were not prepared to engage this enemy. The bulk of our technological sophistication cannot be effectively applied against this enemy. Moreover, this is less are war of military conflicts than of intelligence, infiltration and uprooting of these extremist organizations both at home and abroad.

"I believe the Iraqi people can fight for themselves, they just lack the motivation. We can't expect people with thousands of years of culture to just change over night. But changes have been seen and reported. Of course like many others you don't acknowledge them."

I see car bombs going off daily/weekly over there, and a lack of Iraqi responsibility for their own nation in a large segment of their troops so yeah I guess you could call me a pessimist. If I believed this mission was in the best interest of our nation I would be in support of it. I acknowledge that there is progress on the ground, but it is slow, too slow, we don't have the resources to continue to support a country that isn't making enough of the sacrifices on its own.

"Because Iraq was not about terrorist, it was about Saddam. Funny how you say "then why are we focused solely on Iraq when the rest of the world is being infested by this danger?" when just a little while ago you said "We stop fighting out people's battles for them."."

It was the other guys assertion that our enemy is everywhere and anywhere. I countered with saying why are we focused in Iraq. I await a response.

"Hello!!!! Osama is Shiite (I believe or is it Sunni? cant remember) . Who do you think will side with him?"

I really find it hard to believe that AQ has any credibility in Iraq. Nobody really wants to go back to a country under Saddam, and economic opportunity has finally taken hold there in Iraq and Baghdad, seriously stop saying AQ or UBL has any rapport in Iraq. What is happening in Iraq is civil unrest, people inside each religion/sect fighting for power with their militias, us trying to keep it under control and the Iraqi military/police doing the same, but not a very effective job because there is a lack of troops.

"Dude, read the question completely before answering. I said "screw with us in a direct confrontation". Sept 11 was not a direct confrontation that was the acts of cowards."

Yeah, well maybe you think it's cowardly, and I think it's cowardly, meanwhile the majority of the Muslim world think the Bush administration did it to us to start a war on Islam, and from the Extremists view, attacking our symbols of economic, strength, leadership, and defense is as direct as you get! You are looking for a confrontation by another government and there is no other ideology that is interested in fighting democracy because democracies do not attack each other, they work their problems out. These guys aren't governments or interested in working out problems they are interested in killing us. September 11th is as direct confrontation as you can get bud, if you can't see that you don't belong talking on this topic.

"Because those were wars against military enemies not a group of Islamic extremist. We are fighting a religious group, not a country. We can't just bomb the hell out of a country just because there are a few terrorist in it. Look at Iraq, we bombs the hell out of it, somewhat anyways, because we were fighting Saddam's military forces. Not the same as the insurgents we see today. You need to get your fighters straight."

I think you need to understand that if we see a nuclear bomb detonate in the United States, you will see other areas of the world being nuked by us. That's why it is important to concentrate on terrorist organizations, not occupying a country for the possibility of free gas sometime in 2020 or 2030.

"Do you realize you just contradicted yourself here? It was extra but necessary? How could the commitment end when they don't have a stable Gov't yet? Or did you just want to pick any joe blow from the street and tell them "well Saddam is gone, I pick you as the next leader, good luck, don't call us we'll call you."?"

We were told we were going to be greeted as liberators, there was a provisional government put in place, remember Paul Bremer? The UN was supposed to be involved on some level, before the daily violence started and the security situation broke down to what is the rolling level of chaos we have seen for the last few years now.

The Iraqi's voted inside of 2 years of us invading, yet almost 5 years now we are still occupying. NO meaningful and deployable WMD was ever located, no WMD programs, Saddam has been captured, given justice, the regime uh well changed. The only thing that hasn't is the violence.

"You forgot 2 major ones....Iran and North Korea."

North Korea has decided through 6 party talks that they will not pursue nuclear power plants. Score one President Bush, an advocate for 6 party talks. Also sharing that victory with China, the dominate player and South Korea who has not interest in playing a nuclear game on the peninsula.

So now we can mothball three carriers, one for Yankee station, one for being dry docked while the other one is on station and one for the trip to and fro Yankee station.

"I wonder if Greene wants to reduce aircraft funds now?"

Why because the Russians sent some Tu-95 badgers near their border on an exercise. I sure as hell do want to reduce the air force budget. Any one of our fighters built from 1970 on, can intercept a Tu-95 before it can attack our nation. We don't need to worry about the Russians using bombers to attack us because they have hundreds of nuclear weapons. If they don't want to live more than a few more minutes longer then we do, they can just launch a few hundred of them at a time and wait for ours to return. I think this was already covered in the Cold war. So there is little sense in worrying about a Russian bomber threat. But if you want to pee your pants every time a nation sends jets into the air maybe we should have not done the same thing to China back in 2001, where one of their jets hotdogged and killed the pilot getting in too close to our spy plane, which by the way had to make an emergency landing in China, let the Chinese intern our pilots for a few weeks, until we told China we were "very very sorry" for our actions. We ended up carving up the plane, and shipping it back to the US.

"Russian President Vladimir Putin said Tuesday he is determined to make Russia the world’s leading producer of military aircraft."

You may as well add "that we can shoot down" to that sentence because in any air war, we already have air supremacy, with our AWACS aircraft and stealth capabilities. Thanks in large part to a huge air force budget, money has been well spent on a very unlikely threat in the near future, an enemy air force challenging ours, and a hardly employable weapon against Islamic extremism.

because the federal government doesn't hire construction crews.

OK Al-qaeda is not a country and is not a military force. North Korea is not messing with us they are playing games. Iran is just flexing some muscle but keeping their distance. Syria is a joke, they are probably expecting Iran to stick their heads in for them. And Iraq had Saddam's military before which we kicked butt and now their military force is fighting with us, not against us, excluding the few insurgents who have managed to infiltrate them. All in all your list is lame. China is more of a threat than all of these countries put together.



Really? So when you said "I think we could have found a few million to fix this bridge up" you didn't mean that money was not already set aside for this bridge before, like the transportation budget of 2005? Sounds to me like you think we are putting money in the military budget and nothing else. And how can you clue me in on anything when you don't seem to have a clue on what you say yourself? I see why your defending Cols ideas here, he too forgets what he says.



Sure, and in human nature things break all the time. It's sad that this tragedy happened but they could have simply closed the bridge or up the date for the repairs. But then the reasons for the bridge falling have not been determined yet and for all we know it was probably seen as nothing happening to it any time soon just like so many other bridges out there. This was most likely human error, not lack of funds. As I said before which, just like said to me "if you read anything I have written on the subject in the past, or the comments on this thread by me, you'd know that", you would have noticed I said the bridge was set for repairs in 13 years, apparently there were other priorities but not lack of money.



But you are placing blame. You are blaming Bush for spending money on, what you call, unnecessary weapons, money that could have been used to fix this bridge. And no one is here to bring back anyone, the idea alone is ridiculous to even be insinuated. It's about preventing future disasters. People like you need to understand that shit happens and no one is perfect. If you want perfection join the Borg. But buildings will fall, bridges will collapse, planes will crash and wars will break out because all of these things and more depend on humans to make sure they don't happen, humans who are prone to mistakes cause we are not perfect. We live and we learn, we were not born with the knowledge. In the end, it does matter.



Didn't they teach metaphors in your school? Why do I even bother, it's like talking to my wife. I couldn't make a point if God came down and did it for me. you make it sound like we have a carrier and airplane factory like we have car factories. That just goes to show how little you know.



Again you take things too literally. But I won't bother anymore. Listening and making logic is not your cup of tea. You, like Col gene and many others here are not debaters, you are deciders (as Bush put it so nicely). You make a decision and not even God can get you to listen to opposing views and rethink your point. people like you put barriers around your opinions so that nothing, not even facts can bring them down and beat them. Red is blue and God forbid anyone says to the contrary, right?



Maybe yo should look at the realities of life and realize that sometimes you just have to break the rules. Would you let your family starve to death if your only option to feed them was stealing? And maybe even hurt someone in the process? We live in a me, myself and I society and we must survive accordingly.



Look, I agree things are slow. I agree there is a lack of self motivation in the Iraqis. But 2 wrongs don't make a right and we started this dilemma and we need to finish it. Otherwise all the laziness and lack of motivation on the part of the Iraqi people will never cover the dishonor, disrespect and distrust we will place upon ourselves. I wanna live believing that my country does things for the right reasons, I wanna believe that we had more than selfish intentions in what we do, I wanna believe we are the nation we claim to be. To walk away from Iraq know will take all those beliefs away and convince me that we are everything but what we claim to be, the land of the free, the home of the brave.



The problem is you think we are focused only on Iraq because that is all the Media feeds us. We hardly see what goes on in Afghanistan, what the Pakistani Gov't is doing, what other countries are doing to fight terror in their own countries such as London, Spain and even India. But then what do you expect from a mostly Liberal leaning Media?



Wooaaa, hold on a sec. Are you saying there is progress in Iraq? And how exactly do you know what the Iraqi people want? You just accepted my idea that they lack motivation. Now you say they don't want someone like Osama? You're making me feel like Flubber bouncing off of 2 walla going back and forth here.



OK, let me get this straight. You're saying that the majority of Muslims think we did 9/11 to ourselves? You know what? I don't know where you're getting your ideas from but this is where I stop replying to you cause I can't deal with this kind of thinking. I can't deal with conspiracy theories that make for great Star Wars sequels.

Have a great day and see you in the next article. Later.

the navy deteremined that they needed 12 carriers to fight two wars at the same time. that way they could have two on station, two in port, two returning to port and two going to station. and i guess the other two for back up.