US News
As stock markets plunge, US candidates duel over way out (Roundup)
By Pat Reber Oct 8, 2008, 4:58 GMT
Moderator Tom Brokaw (R) visits with Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama (L) and his wife Michelle (2-L) as Republican presidential candidate John McCain (2-R) walks behind them after the second presidential debate at Belmont University in Nashville, Tennessee, USA 07 October 2008. The format of the debate is town hall with questions coming from the audience. EPA/CHRISTOPHER BERKEY
Washington - As the financial crisis erodes the retirement nest eggs of millions of Americans, the US Republican and Democratic presidential nominees battled Tuesday over how to get out of the mess.
But despite a turn to nasty attacks in the waning weeks of the White House race, Senator John McCain, 72, the centre-right Republican, and Senator Barack Obama, 47, the centre-left Democrat, remained mostly civil during the 90-minute debate at Belmont Universiy in Nashville, Tennessee.
And even as they sparred, the two men agreed that billionaire investor Warren Buffett would be a strong candidate for secretary of the treasury if either was elected. Buffett has been a strong supporter of Obama's.
Elections are November 4.
Questions submitted by the 80 noncommitted voters seated around the nominees and others online showed how heavy the finance crisis is weighing on voters' minds.
The issue has overshadowed the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the nuclear conflict with Iran and the traditional US cultural issues of abortion and same-sex marriage.
Obama's rise in the polls is strongly attributed to his strength on the financial issue, but on Tuesday night, McCain scored points by wading into the audience and telling a questioner he had gone 'to the heart of America's worries tonight.'
'Americans are angry, they're upset, and they're a little fearful. It's our job to fix the problem,' he said.
McCain said if elected president, he would order an immediate government buy-up of the bad home loan mortgages at the heart of the global financial meltdown and renegotiation to accommodate plunging home values.
'Until we stabilize home values in America, we're never going to start turning around and creating jobs and fixing our economy,' McCain said. 'And we've got to give some trust and confidence back to America.'
The 700-billion-dollar finance industry rescue plan approved last week has failed to stop the free-fall of global stock markets.
The idea of directly negotiating with homeowners was discussed during two weeks of tense negotiations over the plan, but US Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson insisted it would not free up the stalled flow of credit needed to keep the economy going.
Obama said the bail-out was only the first step on the road back to stability, and insisted that the next step is giving tax relief to the middle class, which he said has borne the brunt of stagnant income and rising prices during the eight years under US President George W Bush.
The global meltdown was 'a final verdict on the failed economic policies of the last eight years,' Obama said.
He was 'confident' about the US economy, but said it was essential that high-income earners, above 250,000 dollars a year, not receive the tax breaks favoured by McCain.
'It's important for the president to set a tone that all of us are going to contribute, all of us are going to have to make sacrifices,' Obama said.
He said Washington needed to coordinate with other countries to set out regulations for the '21st century financial markets' to prevent such crises in the future.
McCain said the key to economic recovery was stabilization of home prices and showing confidence in American workers who he said are the 'best in the world.'
The nominees skirmished over health insurance coverage, a vital issue to 45 million Americans who lack medical plans.
McCain said he believed health insurance was a 'responsibility' of the government andemployers, but which type of policy should not be mandated. He also proposed a 5,000-dollar tax credit to families so they can go out on the market and buy what they want.
The amount is less than half of what average family plans cost, Obama has noted.
Obama stated that health insurance is a 'right,' and would make coverage mandatory for children and accessible for the uninsured. He noted that even the US Chamber of Commerce, usually a strong advocate of government deregulation and free-market practices, opposed McCain's plan because it would speed up the erosion of employer-sponsored health insurance plans.
COMMENT
blog comments powered by DisqusLatest Headlines in US
- 1. Mitt Romney Addresses Tea Party Summit Pictures
- 2. Seven injured as US Navy plane crashes into apartments
- 3. At least three injured in US Navy plane crash
- 4. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, others to face death penalty trial
- 5. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, four others to face death penalty trial
Older Talkback
page: 1
First look at how we got in to tis mess:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=PECBIPeQpsA
The following is abridged:
Obama’s two economic advisors are former Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac CEO’s who may have pulled strings to give Obama a “heads up” on the recent government bail-out plan. [...] Why was the Obama campaign so keen on getting advanced word about the bailout?
“They have a huge problem with the mortgage and housing market story, and everyone is missing it,” says a Republican political media consultant with ties to the Obama campaign due to the bipartisan nature of the firm he does work with.
“You look at Obama’s economic advisers, the guys he has counted on from day one and who have raised him a ton — and I mean a ton — of money: Franklin Raines and Jim Johnson, both of them are waist to neck deep in the mortgage debacle.”
Both Raines and Johnson have served as CEO of Fannie Mae, with Raines taking over from Johnson. Both are key political and economic advisers to Obama.
“How can Obama go out with a straight face and saw it was Republicans who made this mess, when it is his key advisers who ran the agencies that made the big mess what it is?” says a Democrat House member who supported Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. “It’s his people who are responsible for what may well be the single largest government bailout in history. And every single one of them made millions off the collapse that are lining Obama’s campaign coffers. If the McCain campaign lets this one go, they deserve to lose.”
It isn’t just Fannie Mae where Obama has a problem. Another close political adviser, in fact the one man responsible for rallying support for Obama early on among Congressional Democrats, is Rep. Rahm Emanuel, who served on the Board of Directors for Freddie Mac after leaving the Clinton White House. According to Freddie Mac insiders, Emanuel during his time on the board opposed every reform proposed by the Bush Administration that would have impacted Freddie and Fannie Mae.
Emanuel claimed to be neutral in the primary race between the wife of his old boss and his longtime Chicago acquaintance, Obama. But the chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, who would be first in line for the vacated Senate seat of Obama should he win the presidency, quickly dumped Clinton when it was clear Obama had a head of steam for the nomination.
“We ought to be able to — rightly — hang the Fannie and Freddie scandal around the neck of Obama, if they can get out in front,” says a House Republican. “Middle-class folks’ mortgages are probably safe, but the American taxpayer will also be paying for this scandal for years to come.”
overthehilloracles.wordpress.com/2008/09/09/the-obama-fannie-freddie-co nnection/
Lehman Brothers collapse is traced back to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two big mortgage banks that got a federal bailout a few weeks ago.
Freddie and Fannie used huge lobbying budgets and political contributions to keep regulators off their backs.
A group called the Center for Responsive Politics keeps track of which politicians get Fannie and Freddie political contributions. The top three U.S. senators getting big Fannie and Freddie political bucks were Democrats and No. 2 is Sen. Barack Obama.
Now remember, he's only been in the Senate four years, but he still managed to grab the No. 2 spot ahead of John Kerry — decades in the Senate — and Chris Dodd, who is chairman of the Senate Banking Committee.
Fannie and Freddie have been creations of the congressional Democrats and the Clinton White House, designed to make mortgages available to more people and, as it turns out, some people who couldn't afford them.
Fannie and Freddie have also been places for big Washington Democrats to go to work in the semi-private sector and pocket millions. The Clinton administration's White House Budget Director Franklin Raines ran Fannie and collected $50 million. Jamie Gorelick — Clinton Justice Department official — worked for Fannie and took home $26 million. Big Democrat Jim Johnson, recently on Obama's VP search committee, has hauled in millions from his Fannie Mae CEO job.
Now remember: Obama's ads and stump speeches attack McCain and Republican policies for the current financial turmoil. It is demonstrably not Republican policy and worse, it appears the man attacking McCain — Sen. Obama — was at the head of the line when the piggies lined up at the Fannie and Freddie trough for campaign bucks.
Sen. Barack Obama: No. 2 on the Fannie/Freddie list of favored politicians after just four short years in the Senate.
Next time you see that ad, you might notice he fails to mention that part of the Fannie and Freddie problem.
McCain Warned Of Freddie, Fannie Problems In 2006 and tried to get the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 passed. The Democrats blocked it.
Google the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act.
brought to you by the scrambled egg society, AKA the GOP.
Does the McCain orchestrated group which consistently inputs items such as those above really believe that readers take them seriously?
t is so obviously a politically motivated campaign to try and persuade the more moronic readers to vote for Mccain that anyone taking them seriously is effectively admitting their own stupidity in believing such biased propaganda.
If you believe this lot, you will probably take SP4 seriously as well
The issue and solution has always been the same and is very simple:
Balance your checkbook stupid!
It is an 'unspoken truth'. Politicians are addicted to handing out money to anyone be it the rich, the poor, criminals or saints. It makes no difference, all they care about is doling it out. They are addicted to spending and credit.
Amen!
'Does the McCain orchestrated group which consistently inputs items such as those above really believe that readers take them seriously?'
You should.
'is so obviously a politically motivated campaign to try and persuade the more moronic readers to vote for Mccain'
No, Obama has the moron vote locked up.
'that anyone taking them seriously is effectively admitting their own stupidity in believing such biased propaganda.
If it is propaganda you should be able to refute it. Right? So, where is it wrong?
'Balance your checkbook stupid!'
Lance and I agree for once. Sadly, it isn't going to happen though.
'Hidden Imam, Lance and I agree for once.'
Lets also remember: There is nothing wrong with being an imam. They are just like catholic priests or anyone else except under a different name. The problem occurs when you put an imam or priest above another.
So, if you say I am a 'Hidden Imam' then it is of no consequence as it is meaningless and a stupid diversion from important issues which is:
Unwise wars, unwise spending and unwise polices deplete the ability for society to help its own. People go without healthcare, heating oil, food and other essential needs simply because others were greedy and stupid. In this case: Bush AND Congress, Democrats and Republicans alike.
' you say: 'So, if you say I am a 'Hidden Imam' then it is of no consequence as it is meaningless and a stupid diversion from important issues which is:'
It can also be stated this way:'So, if you say I am Lance then it is of no consequence as it is meaningless and a stupid diversion from important issues which is:'
Your statement is a non sequitur. It is inflamatory. It is not needed. Statements like that throw unnecessary disord into an already overly fractious site. It does no good. Statements like that make you sound like an SP4.
'Your statement is a non sequitur'
Nah. That guy has been hanging around for months trying to psychoanalyze me to be a terrorist islamist.
The fact is: IT IS IMPORTANT.
The Iraq war and the resulting deficit spending and unwise polices is the result of islamaphobia.
islamaphobia is real and has real consequences.
doesn't anyone remember 'the Russians are coming, the Russians are coming' repeated often during the Reagan years because of his phobia about the Soviet Union attacking??
The United States is full of corruption. From greedy corporate CEOs, to senators and congressmen who are influenced by lobbyists, to the VP himself with favoritism to Halliburton.
The whole of America seems to be diseased. Damaged beyond repair. This country is sooooo corrupt the senators and congressmen want to make believe they are angry at the greedy corporate CEOs. It is these same politicians who not so long ago were wined and dined by lobbyists. The same lobbyists that both presidential candidates are desperately trying to distance themselves from.
The most important thing America needs right now is political reforms.
Next thing economic reforms.
Than more specific: financial reforms.
And lastly, social reforms.
If America does not do this than it will risk falling further behind.
get your own handle.
The whole world MUST coordinate their efforts from this moment forward to 'engineer' the economic collapse of the 'west.'
The whole world must ignore the IMF and the World Bank not to mention the G7.
The whole world must dump their dollar and euro holdings in exchange for gold.
The oil and gas producing countries must refuse to ship to 'western' countries and this must happen during winter time
let's solve this small problem the necon artist way. We throw a big party a la AIG, invite all the excutives and their neocon artist lobbyist friends, and give them all golden parachutes and buyouts at the taxpayers and stockholders expense. Of course we can cut some costs by outsourcing the catering to an overseas based outfit that employs low cost illegal immigrants to do all the work.
I am an idiot. Such a dumb idiot.
You say: 'Nah. That guy has been hanging around for months trying to psychoanalyze me to be a terrorist islamist.'
Ignore the boor. Flick him off like the booger that you think he is. There is a lot of that sort of stuff coming from the bowels of the Republicans. It is meaningless drivel from the mindless.
Man you are all over the place. You are a sick f....
'Lets also remember: There is nothing wrong with being an imam.'
It is wrong to teach hate and subjugation of the 'infidel' which is what they do if they are following the teachings of Mohammad.
'The problem occurs when you put an imam or priest above another.'
When I see a priest flying an aircraft full of people in to a building full of people I will agree with you. As it is, I think it is all a bunch of hogwash.
'
So, if you say I am a 'Hidden Imam' then it is of no consequence as it is meaningless and a stupid diversion from important issues which is:'
Google 'Hidden Imam +ahmadinejad' and you will see that it does have meaning to some very evil people. 12th imam will do.
' That guy has been hanging around for months trying to psychoanalyze me to be a terrorist islamist.'
That was a different guy and I am not trying to 'psychoanalyze' you as such, You demonstrate it by your dogged defense of the monsters who commit atrocities all over the world, simply because they belong to your tribe.
'The Iraq war and the resulting deficit spending and unwise polices is the result of islamaphobia.'
'Islamophobia' as you call it is as a result of an accurate reading of a belligerent religion which continually attacks everyone else that is not muslim. The Iraq war was a result of those continued attacks on civilization and the deficit spending is a result of stupidity and greed.
'islamaphobia is real and has real consequences.'
Perhaps it wouldn't exist if their weren't islamist attacks in ndia and the Sudan and Algeria and Afghanistan and New York and Pakistan and Israel and Russia and Chechnya and the Philippines and Indonesia and Nigeria and England and Thailand and Spain and Egypt and Bangladesh and Saudi Arabia and Ingushetia and Dagestan and Turkey and Morocco and Yemen and Lebanon and France and Uzbekistan and Gaza and Tunisia and Kosovo and Bosnia and Mauritania and Kenya and Eritrea and Syria and Somalia and California and Kuwait and Virginia and Ethiopia and Iran and Jordan and United Arab Emirates and Louisiana and Texas and Tanzania and Germany and Australia and Pennsylvania and Belgium and Denmark and East Timor and Qatar and Maryland and Tajikistan and the Netherlands and Scotland and Chad and Canada and China and Nepal and the Maldives and Argentina and Angola and..... Where tomorrow?
'Fight those who do not believe in Allah, ... nor follow
the religion of truth... until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.'
Qur'an, Sura 9:29
'When I see a priest flying an aircraft full of people in to a building full of people I will agree with you. '
Priest do not fly aircraft into buildings ... they rape little children.
No imam flew into a building, so your analogy is incorrect.
A handful of mentally ill people flew into the world trade center buildings, etc.
You are psychotic and full of hate.
I don't think the people who flew the planes on 911 were mentally ill, they were just following their beliefs. In fact, it was an ingenious plan, and they were intelligent enough to almost complete most of it. And why were they able to infiltrate the U.S., live here, and receive pilot training?? I'm not sticking up for their beliefs in any way, or what happened, but I just don't think they were mentally ill - at least in the regular sense of the word. They were terrorists according to our beliefs.
ATTENTION: PALIN APOLOGISTS
STILL WAITING FOR ONE OF YOU 'INTELLECTUALS' (SP4) TO EXPLAIN HOW SUCH A STUPID ANSWER COULD COME FROM SOMEONE NOT EQUALLY STUPID.
COURIC: 'Why should the government spend 700 billion dollars to bail out Wall Street instead of giving the funds to ordinary citizens?'
PALIN: 'Ultimately, what the bail-out does is help those who are concerned about the healthcare reform that is needed to help shore up our economy, helping the - it's got to be all about job creation, too, shoring up our economy and putting it back on the right track. So healthcare reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions and tax relief for Americans.'
'Priest do not fly aircraft into buildings ... they rape little children.'
No. Pedophiles rape children. (Like Mohammad did with Aisha) It is not in the bible that it is OK to rape children. It is in the Koran that it is OK to terrorize the infidel. As a matter of fact it is 'obligatory'. It is one of the 'pillars' of islam.
'No imam flew into a building, so your analogy is incorrect.'
Yes, technically the analogy was incorrect however, just as we put Charles Manson in prison for the crimes of his followers anyone who preaches violence and terrorism should be locked up. Pedophiles should be locked up too by the way, and pedophilia doesn't make murder somehow more acceptable.
'A handful of mentally ill people flew into the world trade center buildings, etc.'
They were just following the words of the 'prophet' and it is hardly just a 'handful'; it is going on all over the world, wherever civilization intersects with islam ... I have even posted the verses of the Koran used to justify the crimes. That usually leaves you with nothing to say.
'You are psychotic and full of hate.'
Nope and nope. You are a terrorist apologist. Poisoned by the words of another long dead pedophile.
'No. Pedophiles rape children'
Exactly, at least 10,000 priests in the U.S. were/are also pedophiles. And that is just in the U.S., and only the ones that they caught. There are probably hundreds of thousands of child molesting catholic priests in the world. Who knows how many, the catholic church looked the other way on purpose for so long.
I don't defend such actions, I just state the facts.
Imams do not (have not) fly planes into buildings, but they obviously do spread hate around the world, but not all of them do that, just as not all catholic priests rape children.
from a link in wikipedia about the taliban that was a topic in this forum:
(Osama Bin Laden was one of the key players in organizing training camps for the foreign Muslim volunteers. The U.S. poured funds and arms into Afghanistan, and 'by 1987, 65,000 tons of U.S.-made weapons and ammunition a year were entering the war.'[17])
the link was copied and pasted as it stands!, with no alterations!
Could somebody explain why Regan who Mccain was working with during his long record, along with Mccain would (do or alow)! for such a thing?
And if this was a logical thing to (do or alow)!, isn't Bin Laden the world number one terrorist, is (arming him or alowing him to be armed with USA weapons) under any scenario a reasonable thing to do?
Was it a mistake after we get to see what happened afterwards?
Even if at the time it could pass as not so illogical in the minds of those who favor such agressive policies?, from where we are now, was it a mistake or the right thing to do and why?
I would like to see SP4////// give an explanation, he can find the link if he does a taliban search in wikipedia.
its a link about the taliban, named taliban.
And i would appreciate a logical argument with no hard words or hight emotions, just something reasonable.
Our governments dealings with Bin Laden, were before he became an international terrorist.
At that time, he was a fighter against the Russian war in Afghanistan.
It was only after that war in Afghanistan ended, and then later as a direct result of GHW Bush the first, creating a permanent military base in Saudi Arabia (as often stated by Bin Laden) after the first gulf war against Iraq, that Bin Laden then turned his terrorist hatred towards the US.
Bin Laden views permanent US military bases in Saudi as an afront to the Holy land of Islam.
That's kind of a sumarry of it.
BEFORE he was a terrorist, he worked with our gov't ... then later he hated us for having troops in his nations holy land.
It's the sequence of events that clarify.
(and those who say he hates us because of our freedoms, don't know what they're talking about ... Bin Ladens own words are clear about why he hates the US ... paraphrased 'because we meddle in, and corrupt Islamic nations affairs')
'BEFORE he was a terrorist, he worked with our gov't ...'
No, the correct phrase is:
The U.S. government trained Bin Laden to be a terrorist against Russia and when that gig was over then Bin Laden went freelance and turned on his trainer.
So, he was a terrorist while employed by the U.S., infact the U.S. knew it because the U.S. trained and funded Bin Laden for his activities.
The U.S. also knew Iraq had WMDs because the U.S. supplied Iraq with the technology. The problem was: Iraq complied with the U.N. orders and got rid of the evidence of U.S. sanctioned WMDs.
Your answer is ok. Thank you.
at first bin laden was our alie, then our enemy, thats cool.
but my question is......was it the right thing to fund him and arm him, or the wrong thing?, from were we stand now, not from the past, but looking into the past!
thats my question.
thank u for your answer, it was logical...but did not fully answer my question, i want to know what people think about this issue.
Wrong, wrong, wrong to all of the above, and it don't make me wrong to say it. Everyone knows that billy boy clinton and the demonrats were bin laden's only enabler because they all want to destroy America. Pakistan has nothing to do about this, as the terrorist sympathizing b HUSSEIN o would like to fool you into believing. We all know that the phony messiah is actually the SON of SATAN. Heck! And every Joe Six Pack like me knows that bin laden fled to his base in Iraq after 9/11, and that's why we just had to go there to get him. You bettcha! When we find him, we'll find all the WMD we've been looking for also. Darn it! Don't you know that it's a win-win situation for us? You sickos should stop believing in dinosaurs and global warming, and read the bible more often if you want the truth told. Just check out akip.org if you have the guts to join the real patriots instead of being a bunch of effeminate couch potatoes milktoast wimps rather than being real men. But all you commie pinko libnazi friends of the terrorists just can't stand to hear the truth, can you?
i don't really anderstand your answer?
what are you talking about?
Heck and darn it! You must be one of them college educated wanna be so called intellectuals who are ruining the county if you can not see what I am saying. I am speaking plain straight talk, instead of the libnazi lies and mumbo jumbo that you are used to hearing. You bettcha!
John Murtaugh, whose home was firebombed by agents of William Ayers’ Weather Underground when he was nine years old, released the following statement for the McCain campaign today:
Today, John M. Murtagh made the following statement on Barack Obama’s relationship with William Ayers:
“When I was 9 years-old the Weather Underground, the terrorist group founded by Barack Obama’s friend William Ayers, firebombed my house. Barack Obama has dismissed concerns about his relationship with Ayers by noting that he was only a child when Ayers was planting bombs at the Pentagon and the U.S. Capitol. But Ayers has never apologized for his crimes, he has reveled in them, expressing regret only for the fact that he didn’t do more.
“While Barack Obama once downplayed his relationship with Ayers, today his campaign took that deceit one step further. Barack Obama now denies he was even aware of his friend’s violent past when, in 1995, Ayers hosted a party launching Obama’s political career. Given Ayers’ celebrity status among the left, it’s difficult to believe. The question remains: what did Obama know, and when did he know it? When did Obama learn the truth about his friend? Barack Obama helped Ayers promote his book in 1997, served on charitable boards with him through 2002, and regularly exchanged emails and phone calls with him through 2005. At what point did Barack Obama discover that his friend was an unrepentant terrorist? And if he is so repulsed by the acts of terror committed by William Ayers, why did the relationship continue? Any honest accounting by Barack Obama will necessarily cast further doubt on his judgment and his fitness to serve as commander in chief.
“Barack Obama may have been a child when William Ayers was plotting attacks against U.S. targets — but I was one of those targets. Barack Obama’s friend tried to kill my family.”
'
Exactly, at least 10,000 priests in the U.S. were/are also pedophiles. And that is just in the U.S., and only the ones that they caught. '
I don't know where you got your numbers but whatever.. .The point that you ignore is that the bible doesn't condone pedophilia, so these 'priests' were not behaving as their religion instructs them to behave.
The Koran does condone violence, indeed it calls for it. That is the difference.
'Imams do not (have not) fly planes into buildings, but they obviously do spread hate around the world,'
Thank you.
@That One poster
'And if this was a logical thing to (do or alow)!, isn't Bin Laden the world number one terrorist, is (arming him or alowing him to be armed with USA weapons) under any scenario a reasonable thing to do?'
The USA never trained or sent money to bin laden. We didn't train or send money to the Taliban. Both entities came into the vacuum that we left in Afghanistan which we should not have left.
Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are responsible for bin Laden and the Taliban respectively. In so far as 'alowing[sic] him to be armed with USA weapons' what were we supposed to do? Invade Afghanistan when the government there fell to collect all the Kalashnikov's? We had gotten what we had wanted, the ouster of the Soviets and we didn't want to get in the middle of a bunch of savages killing each other.
@to That One poster
'Our governments dealings with Bin Laden, were before he became an international terrorist.'
We didn't deal with Bin Laden. Pakistani ISI did, but not on our behalf.
'as a direct result of GHW Bush the first, creating a permanent military base in Saudi Arabia (as often stated by Bin Laden) after the first gulf war against Iraq, that Bin Laden then turned his terrorist hatred towards the US.'
Yet another reason to get rid of Saddam. Iraq invaded Saudi Arabian territory during the first gulf war which is why we were there. We are still there by the way.
'and those who say he hates us because of our freedoms, don't know what they're talking about'
He hates us because we are Kuffar. We were in Saudi Arabia and we support Israel. His terms of surrender are that we all convert to islam, abandon the middle east and let them kill off the Israelis.
@lance
'The U.S. government trained Bin Laden to be a terrorist against Russia and when that gig was over then Bin Laden went freelance and turned on his trainer.'
Nope.
'The U.S. also knew Iraq had WMDs because the U.S. supplied Iraq with the technology. '
Conspiracy theories are always the first resort of the weak mind.
@That one
.....was it the right thing to fund him and arm him, or the wrong thing?,
We didn't fund and arm him. He got his funds from the Saudis. He got his arms from Russia and China. In the case of 9/11 he got his arms at some Florida flight schools and home depot.
from a link in wikipedia about the taliban that was a topic in this forum:
(Osama Bin Laden was one of the key players in organizing training camps for the foreign Muslim volunteers. The U.S. poured funds and arms into Afghanistan, and 'by 1987, 65,000 tons of U.S.-made weapons and ammunition a year were entering the war.'[17])
the link was copied and pasted as it stands!, with no alterations!
the link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban
Is my reading wrong?
Specifically - research Charlie Wilson
He pushed for and got, US funding and weapons for the Afghans to fight the Russians.
One of the fighters in Afghanistan was Osama Bin Laden.
Osama, a Saudi, went to Afghanistan to defend what he saw as an Islamic nation under attack by infidels.
Yes ... the US did work with Bin Laden at that time (regardless of what the uninformed claim) ... because the US wanted to help bring defeat to the Russians.
Like what's been posted before ... Once the Russians left Afghanistan ... we got out of there too ... leaving a country destroyed as fodder for the Taliban to take over, and become a haven for terrorism.
Iraq never 'invaded' Saudi during the gulf war ... they only launched SCUD missles into it (with liitle effect) ...
Before the gulf war, Osama pleaded with the Saudi prince to let him and his fighters (instead of western infidels) defend Kuwait from the Iraqi invaders ... The prince thought Bin Laden was too radical and potentially dangerous ... And then made a deal with Bush the first to allow the US to use Saudi as a base for fighting Saddam.
Osama was highly offended and angry towards the Saudi gov't for making deals with infidels to defend Islamic land. The Saudis expelled him for his speaking out against them - with the intent of inciting violence.
The Saudis made an agreement with Bush the first for permanent US military bases there.
That's when Bin Laden started attacking the US ... For being in what he views as sacred islamic land.
Thank you for your imput, i for one will look into what you wrote here.
Do u have any opinion about my question, if it was wrong to fund and arm bin laden from what we see at this point in time?
'from a link in wikipedia about the taliban that was a topic in this forum:'
The topic of the forum was:'As stock markets plunge, US candidates duel over way out (Roundup)' and the Taliban did not come in to existence until after the CIA left Afghanistan under the 1st Bush/Early Clinton administration.
'from a link in wikipedia about the taliban that was a topic in this forum:
(Osama Bin Laden was one of the key players in organizing training camps for the foreign Muslim volunteers'
What immediately proceeded that quote was:
'Alhough[sic] there is no evidence that the CIA directly supported the Taliban or Al Qaeda, some basis for military support of the Taliban was provided when, in the early 1980s, the CIA and the ISI (Pakistan's Interservices Intelligence Agency) provided arms to Afghans resisting the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and the ISI assisted the process of gathering radical Muslims from around the world to fight against the Soviets.'
And what came shortly after that quote was:
'The first major military activity of the Taliban was in October-November 1994 when they marched from Maiwand in southern Afghanistan...'
So I suspect we have 2 things going on here concurrently:
1) the article is written poorly.
2) You are taking selective statements out of context.
Clinton had pulled the CIA out by the first activity of the Taliban and regarding Bin Laden, he might have been getting American money from the Pakistanis and the Saudis to help with the effort indirectly.
From another entry:
CNN journalist Peter Bergen, known for conducting the first television interview with Osama bin Laden in 1997, calls the idea 'that the CIA funded bin Laden or trained bin Laden ... a folk myth. There's no evidence of this. ... Bin Laden had his own money, he was anti-American and he was operating secretly and independently. ... The real story here is the CIA didn't really have a clue about who this guy was until 1996 when they set up a unit to really start tracking him.'
Either way, the assertions that we 'sent him billions' and 'trained him' are denied and the 9/11 commission report said that there was no aid to bin laden.
'Is my reading wrong?'
Selective.
My question was: whas it wrong that the USA under Regan armed and funded BIN LADEN from what we see now at this point in time?
Not the taliban,not anything about the CIA.
Do you have an opinion?
from a link in wikipedia about the taliban that was a topic in this forum:
(Osama Bin Laden was one of the key players in organizing training camps for the foreign Muslim volunteers. The U.S. poured funds and arms into Afghanistan, and 'by 1987, 65,000 tons of U.S.-made weapons and ammunition a year were entering the war.'[17])
the link was copied and pasted as it stands!, with no alterations!
the link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban
Hindsight provides a perspective that wasn't available at that time.
Of course looking back, the obvious answer would seem to be no.
But then again ... It was before we knew that Bin Laden would become the worlds number one terrorist ... And The idea of Communist Russia controlling Afghanistan, spreading it's empire further, was something we wanted to prevent.
Your question doesn't leave room for the actual sequence of events ... we had no way to know the future of what Bin Laden would become ... and there were very real concerns about a spreading Russian empire.
Hope that helps
'Specifically - research Charlie Wilson
He pushed for and got, US funding and weapons for the Afghans to fight the Russians.'
Yes, not all Afghans are Taliban and the taliban were not in existence when Charlie was sending the mujahadeen stingers.
'One of the fighters in Afghanistan was Osama Bin Laden.'
No. Bin laden was a facilitator and he came later.
'Yes ... the US did work with Bin Laden at that time (regardless of what the uninformed claim) ... because the US wanted to help bring defeat to the Russians.'
Not according to everyone involved.
'Iraq never 'invaded' Saudi during the gulf war ... they only launched SCUD missles into it'
Yes they did. I was circling overhead watching them. 'The Iraqis captured the evacuated border town of Ras al Khafji on January 30, 1991. After two days of heavy fighting, three Saudi mechanized battalions, one tank battalion, and two national guard battalions, joined by a battalion from Qatar and supported by United States Marines and attack helicopters, succeeded in driving the Iraqis out of the town on February 2.'
' they only launched SCUD missles into it (with liitle effect) ...'
They killed 28 Americans in Riyadh. Not just a 'little effect'.
'Before the gulf war, Osama pleaded with the Saudi prince to let him and his fighters (instead of western infidels) defend Kuwait from the Iraqi invaders .'
Whatever...
'That's when Bin Laden started attacking the US... For being in what he views as sacred islamic land.'
Because we are infidels.. And I have seen that 'sacred islamic land'.. A big pile of dirt and sand.
Land does not have religions, there is no such thing as 'muslim lands'. If we can't have infidels on their dirt pile then Muslims shouldn't be allowed infidel lands.
'My question was: whas it wrong that the USA under Regan armed and funded BIN LADEN'
The USA did not arm and fund Bin Laden.
'from a link in wikipedia about the taliban that was a topic in this forum:'
From the answer you got that you didn't read:
What immediately proceeded that quote was:
'Alhough[sic] there is no evidence that the CIA directly supported the Taliban or Al Qaeda, some basis for military support of the Taliban was provided when, in the early 1980s, the CIA and the ISI (Pakistan's Interservices Intelligence Agency) provided arms to Afghans resisting the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and the ISI assisted the process of gathering radical Muslims from around the world to fight against the Soviets.'
And what came shortly after that quote was:
'The first major military activity of the Taliban was in October-November 1994 when they marched from Maiwand in southern Afghanistan...'
So I suspect we have 2 things going on here concurrently:
1) the article is written poorly.
2) You are taking selective statements out of context.
Clinton had pulled the CIA out by the first activity of the Taliban and regarding Bin Laden, he might have been getting American money from the Pakistanis and the Saudis to help with the effort indirectly.
From another entry:
CNN journalist Peter Bergen, known for conducting the first television interview with Osama bin Laden in 1997, calls the idea 'that the CIA funded bin Laden or trained bin Laden ... a folk myth. There's no evidence of this. ... Bin Laden had his own money, he was anti-American and he was operating secretly and independently. ... The real story here is the CIA didn't really have a clue about who this guy was until 1996 when they set up a unit to really start tracking him.'
Either way, the assertions that we 'sent him billions' and 'trained him' are denied and the 9/11 commission report said that there was no aid to bin laden.
... and then wants to act like an expert.
His comment of 'whatever' testifies to that.
'That One' ... google Bin Ladens words ... you'll see he speaks often about foreign troops (infidels) being on Saudi land
The above poster doesn't know ... And has instead bought the neo-co nfalsehood that it's because Bin Laden hates our freedom.
BTW to the guy who wrote 'whatever' ... taking one little town ... after the war started ... was hardly an invasion ... It was an incursion .nothing more.
Please do not call other people names!
The writting is clear, the article is there, i do not understand this context that can exist within the same article and make it to contradict it self.
The article i believe was first used by you a couple of days ago if im not mistaken and got my interest, i thank you for that,do u have an opinion about my question?
I tried to answer your question.
But like I said, hindsight provides a perspective we didn't have then.
If you put it in the context of 'given what we know today?'
The answer would be no.
But then again, that would also leave the question of 'what would the world have turned out like, if Afghanistan had become part of the Soviet Union?'
You see, it's not as simple as saying yes or no
Thank you for your imput.
You are correct hindsight provides for a perspective that wasn't there before.
Do you believe that Regan or Mccain would have given the same answer?
We cannot ask Regan obviously, but should't someone ask Mccain, since he has a long record and he was involved in all these along with Regan, as he said him self,involved in every important national security issue?
Wouldn't people be interested to know the answer that he would give?
My answer should have been more complete
Given what we know today? ... No we shouldn't have funded and armed 'Bin Laden' in Afghanistan ... But we were right to fund and arm the Afghans so they could defend themselves against the Soviet Union. (reasons given above)
'Nothing worse than someone who doesn't know
... and then wants to act like an expert.'
You were proven wrong, no need to have the class to admit it but don't dig yourself deeper.
'His comment of 'whatever' testifies to that.'
Bin laden wasn't in any position to kick Saddam out of Kuwait so whether he said it or whether it is just jihadist propaganda is irrelevant.
' you'll see he speaks often about foreign troops (infidels) being on Saudi land '
Infidels are non muslims, not 'foreigners'. He uses the words Kafir and kuffar which have very specific meanings in islam.
' And has instead bought the neo-co nfalsehood that it's because Bin Laden hates our freedom.'
Show me where I wrote that? Guess you are a liar. He hates ME because I am not a muslim.
'. taking one little town ... after the war started ... was hardly an invasion'
Uninvited Iraqi tanks, APC's and troops on Saudi soil was an invasion. Just ask the Saudis. It took 2 days of serious fighting to dislodge them, so you are WRONG. The point you missed is that is why we had troops in Saudi Arabia.
I also agree that it would not be immoral to help people fighting for their freedom,whether we should actually do it, with weapons, im not in favor of that myself,cause you would not know where the weapons could be used or how once they are out of your hands, and also i would be more conservative in getting our selfs involved in foreign affairs, even if this is such global era that we live.
i think these are also important questions that should be asked to the two candidates, and they should give more specific answers,other than the usual we will protect the USA interests, cause they are important questions.
'Given what we know today? ... No we shouldn't have funded and armed 'Bin Laden' in Afghanistan .'
We didn't.
While I greatly appreciate the sincerity and intent of your question, as it's posed, it's not a fair question.
Please understand this isn't meant harshly ... But for example
Would you ask a father who gave a his son or daughter a car for a graduation gift ,if it was right to do so, if they were later killed in a crash with that car?
How would he know the consequence in advance?
No would be the simple answer, but again, how would he know the outcome?
There are many things that set up the chain of events that gave rise to Bin Laden.
First, the Russian invasion.
Second, our funding and arming him
Third we left a vaccuum in Afghanistan for his idealogy to grow and train others when we left
Fourth Saddam invaded Kuwait , the prince disregsrded him and we got involved where he thought it was island place to do so
Fifth we put permanent bases in Saudi
Understand, none of that justified what Bin Laden has done ... but who could have imagined that chain of events, and his reaction to it?
Asking McCain that question would not be fair.
Now if you were to ask Bush about invading Iraq in 2003 ... That would be fair .
The problems there were foreseeable ... especially given the Shia and Sunni history in the region.
I agree, i would not ask Mccain the question to insult him, but his answer would be important if he is asking for my vote, it will show how he thinks, how he plans to act in different situattions, to make it simple, if he said, we were wrong and we will be more carefull and change our ways and philosophy in the future, then he would earn my respect, not nescesarily my vote, but my respect.
But i would ask him the question, lots of blood was shed, and its the hard questions that are the important ones!
We know you from your previous posts.
You claim to be right about things when you are clearly wrong.
That One and I are not interested in your vile nonsense.
Have a nice day.
And I'm glad to see you take your vote so seriously.
This is my opinion (you are free to have your own)
In regards to McCains judgment in military action ... I feel he was wrong to support the invasion of Iraq. (Afghanistan yes. Iraq no)
The idea of attacking a country that hadn't attacked us, on the premise that 'they might have something, that they may use someday, maybe if they have them' shows a great disregard for the realities of war ... and was purely fear based.
I feel McCain used poor judgment in his support for it.
For that reason, I will not vote for McCain.
We will face the negative consequence of the Iraq invasion for generations ... and I feel it was avoidable.
Again, you should form your own opinions about him on that.
I feel lonely.
Council for the return of the Hawaiian islands to the Native Polynesian people. We will re-instate the Hawaiian monarchy asap after separating from so-called united states. We will have, like before the illegal annexation in the 1890s, a monarch as head of state and a prime minister as head of government. WE WANT COMPLETE SEPARATION FROM UNITED STATES.
Good points, but im also afraid about Agfanistan too!
Remember that, its in Agfanistan where the mighty USSR was burried.
Do not underestimate this, its no small thing!
And the USSR was fighting at its doorstep and lost!
And they had and still have the draft, meaning many millions of army!
Why waste so many resources to fight wars abroad, would we not had a better chance to get Bin Laden with some kind of special forces operation, and save our selfs from all these trouble?
Also, i find it difficult to believe that even the Agfanistan war was started for the reasons stated, i mean you send like 100 000 guys including the nato troops, to get one guy?
Is there still some of the same geopolitical mentality beeing played out here, the one of who controls what, like the one between the dead USSR and victor USA, this time between USA and Russia, don't also forget the resent trouble in Geogia.
All these stuff are very important, what will come out of these conflicts could be very big changes, should we even take the risk of going there in the first place?
'You claim to be right about things when you are clearly wrong.'
Where?
'That One and I are not interested in your vile nonsense.'
Vile nonsense? Heh, so do you speak for 'That One'? Who else do you presume to speak for?
'n regards to McCains judgment in military action ... I feel he was wrong to support the invasion of Iraq. (Afghanistan yes. Iraq no)'
So did Obamas running mate. Indeed, Obama might have as well. We don't know because he was in Chicago stealing from the tax payers at the time.
The Republican effect -
The US government's debts have ballooned so badly the National Debt Clock in New York has run out of digits to record the spiralling figure.
The digital counter marks the national debt level, but when that passed the $10 trillion point last month, the sign could not display the full amount.
The board was erected to highlight the $2.7 trillion level of debt in 1989.
Thank you for your erudite summary which, although undoubedly accurate regarding the current situation, has clearly stretched your vocabulary to its limits. Perhaps future input would be more readily acceptable if you could manage to express yourself without resorting to totally unnecessary scatological references
No need to look in a dictionary Freddie to make out you really absorbed that Kindergarten stuff you went through. What is the point in using words you don`t understand yourself, so why expect the ordinary burger-munching American to.
One thing is certain Freddie-Weddie darling, the ordinary American WILL drop his burger and understand MINE. You obviously do not, well my little Ostrich, when you poke your nut out of the sand bringing your dictionary with you, you`ll find your whole life in utter tatters.
Hope you have`nt got much in the bank or a high mortgage. GOSH ! Freddie,
it`s gonna hurt real bad. OOOWCH !
Bye, bye - have a nice day.
Just goes to show when you put money in a account written on paper. I told of of you years ago to buy gold. Now your paper stocks are just about worthless, while gold is at an all time high.
South American Countries are taking over the privately owned oil companies. A gallon of gas that went for $5.00 a gallon is now $.14 cents a gallon. Just goes to show how the Big OIL is controlling our economy, through the corruption of elected government officials, here in the States.
The talk goes on about a bail-out, yet no one is talking about bailing out all the lost retirement funds, due to greed and corruption. The USA will never recover from it. Take your money out of your bank before the bankers finish taking it all, to give their wives and other million dollar birthday party.........
And so it is.........................
Check out 'McCain The Song Bird of Hanoi on the net' no wonder so many POW's hate him................................
McCain's attack ads are so ridiculous. That's all his campaign ads are about - nothing about what he stands for. If nothing else, it's a real turn off and having the reverse effect. He and Palin are going down with the ship!
'I had learned not to care. I blew a few smoke rings, remembering those years. Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it. Not smack, though. ...' -- Barack Obama
'Junkie. Pothead. That's where I'd been headed: the final, fatal role of the young would-be black man. Except the highs hadn't been about that, me trying to prove what a down brother I was. Not by then, anyway. I got high for just the opposite effect, something that could push questions of who I was out of my mind, something that could flatten out the landscape of my heart, blur the edges of my memory. I had discovered that it didn't make any difference whether you smoked reefer in the white classmate's sparkling new van, or in the dorm room of some brother you'd met down at the gym, or on the beach with a couple of Hawaiian kids who had dropped out of school and now spent most of their time looking for an excuse to brawl. ...You might just be bored, or alone. Everybody was welcome into the club of disaffection.' -- Barack Obama
'...I inhaled frequently. That was the point.' -- Barack Obama
'On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes -- and I see many of them in the audience here today' -- Barack Obama
'Over the last 15 months, we've traveled to every corner of the United States. I've now been in 57 states? I think one left to go.' -- Barack Obama
From the two posts above I see the orchestrated Republican blog committee is at work again - when will they learn that it is obviously part of a 'black spin' campaign which they are waging because they know they have lost the argument. Nobody with any intelligence takes these inane postings seriously
That the Songbird of Hanoi never hurt his shoulder when his plane made a mess of some poor sod of a Vietnamese peasants rice paddy ?
That was only a cover up for defiling America daily in his luxury apartment in the Hanoi Hilton and ensuring he was treated as a hero on his return to good old USA to get adorned with tinfoil medals.
This is no drill. Somebody has blown the gaff on Johnny the chirp - we have a mole.
He actually hurt it falling over his prayer mat whilst doing his morning edition of the Ho Chi Minh Can-Can, singing the Vietnamese national anthem at the top of his voice and diving to save his bowl of rice.
AND you are going to vote this guy in as President ?
Look on the bright side - you`ve always got the Illinois Brown Bomber as an alternative.
Thanks Richard. Try this.
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7660409.stm
This story seems to have been ignored by US media, any reason why?
He finally started pillorying Barny Frank today...he must be working up to the peak..... Palin is drawing ever larger crowds....the Ayers facts are coming out...ACORN is being indicted.....
Consider this: Obama thinks he cannot win a fair fight, so he gets ACORN to facilitate his needs in stuffing the ballot boxes. Is it true Indianapolis has a 105% registration rate?
Yes the debt clock needs more digits. Perhaps they should borrow some from the Dow Jones Index - currently dropping like a stone through the 9000 level - several spare digits there soon !
Of course Palin is drawing crowds. She's something of a novelty - a dumb one at that, but a novelty. I doubt very much that she's drawing crowds other than Republicans. She acts like she's on a high school adventure - so juvenile!
LONG LIVE SOCIALISM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Because US style capitalism is now officially DEAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
More government interventions. More nationalizations across the board. We need voter fraud...AGAIN! What am I saying?!? We need independent monitors in the next US presidential elections. President Hugo Chavez, for example, would be an excellent choice as a monitor. Coming November WATCH OUT FOR VOTER FRAUD IN THE US ON THE PART OF REPUBLICANS again!!!!!!!
Don't bother kids...
people know when it's me.
IF any more punters read this ancient post they would be better off going to the history section of the local library.
GEE ! LOOK AT THE DATE ! the 8TH OCT. !
It is NOW the 11TH OCT. Can`t this M & C site keep up with the news ?
Why the hell is the LEAD article dated 3 days old ?
Did any of you read in the paper yesterday that MAFEKING has been relieved ? Or that Enola Gay under fly-boy Col. Tibbets has just vaporized
Hiroshima together with half the civilian population ?
Well, you may not have seen this in our PAPERS, but good old M&C had these pieces of breaking news as top headlines.
Somebody should dust the cobwebs off this site, get off their fat arses and put UP-TO-DATE news items on these pages fro us to comment on.
Oh, by the way - the Japs have just blasted the shit out of PEARL HARBOR, sunk the ARIZONA and reduced the US navy to a few rowing boats !
page: 1
The retirement nest eggs?Oct 8th, 2008 - 05:09:23
How would you like them done, scrambled or in an omlette?
Report this comment