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.

"because the federal government doesn't hire construction crews."

Well that makes sense. You would think that if the responsibility for hiring construction crews, of which were uh, working on the bridge on signs, at the time of the collapse, wasn't happening, that the Fed's would do something.

I guess if they are responsible for miles of highway they should be doing the hiring for the construction.

"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."

Yup, and it's a great idea if we are fighting two wars, but we are occupying two countries both of which we have land bases already in. So the need for operating all 12 carriers is not there. I'm not saying we should scrap them. I'm saying we could do with reducing the operating costs, mothballing a few. Do you see two wars being fought and by two wars, I mean major operational conflicts against conventional forces. No of course not, because we are fighting an insurgency in Iraq, and another in Afghanistan.

As somebody stated, AQ is not a government fighting force, nor do they have heavy conventional forces. They employ light infantry and suicide bombers. Not something that is effectively attacked or defeated by 12 nuclear carriers. One could conceive the necessity of having one carrier always on station, able to execute attacks on terror targets of opportunity of course, one carrier in the shop at home, and one out at sea en route to the forward station and on training. Rotating the three of them to provide the attack force capable of shutting down an enemy threat. What do you do with the other 9? Look big and scary to potential threats at a huge financial cost.

It didn't deter AQ in 1993, or 2001, and it wont in 2007...08 etc.

"North Korea is not messing with us they are playing games. Iran is just flexing some muscle but keeping their distance."

Iran is slipping IED's, into Iraq killing American troops, funneling foreign fighters as well, and threatening to develop nuclear weapons and nuke Israel. They also held captive British troops who were supposedly in their waters. Creating a world wide fiasco. You clearly have no frame of reference regarding Iran and what they are trying to accomplish. Should they develop a nuclear weapon, they may use it.

Meanwhile we were in Iraq chasing down WMD that wasn't there! What did the fucking North Koreans build and detonate? That's right a nuclear weapon. So the games they are playing, involve nuclear weapons. Last time they wanted our help to build power plants and we helped with the assurance that they would not build a nuke. Well they built it, and set it off to prove they can and did it. With all their neighbors pissed at them, they now have agreed to not build more, and allow inspectors, and disarm, but that's a lay low tactic, and in the future it's possible they may try to reunify SK and NK in a war that will involve us. So where will the troops come to stop that from happening? Iraq?

There clearly are other areas we need to be able to respond to but we cannot do that if we remain in Iraq, sapping our manpower, recruiting, and financial resources trying to setup a country that will thrive of fail of it's free will and choosing.

"But 2 wrongs don't make a right and we started this dilemma and we need to finish it."

I agree, we need to finish it by getting out of the way of the Iraqis and letting them fix their country without our meddling.

"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."


You are telling us, that by leaving we would disrespect ourselves, or dishonor ourselves, or lead the world to distrust us? How about when we decided to go in alone against the combined will of the world, to chase after a threat which the intelligence was not firm about, and non-existent WMD capability? How about after establishing that fact, we did't set up the Iraqi's with a government and then, leave?

We dishonored ourselves by mistreating detainees in the Iraq prisons, by allowing our soldiers to make revenge killings on civilians in their country. We also gave the world a huge lack of respect when we decided to do this on our own. It's not like in Gulf war I when we had two UN resolutions supported by the world calling for a specific mission of removing Iraq's military from Kuwait. It's not like when we had a million man coalition army able to deal with any contingency. We did this expecting to be greeted as liberators, and crossing our fingers that Iraqis would just love us and trust us like France did in WW2. Well that didn't happen and we didn't have a plan B. We didn't have any back up plans as evidenced by the gouging of the government by Haliburton, and we certainly don't have a fucking eject plan either. LOL Can't you see any of that or are you blinded by it all?

"But then what do you expect from a mostly Liberal leaning Media?"

Oh stop that, progress does not mean that the car bombs blowing up killing hundreds is not happening and that the country is not ready politically to compromise. The media is numb to the situation because we unfortunately we comfortable and safe civilians largely all are.

"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."

You are unbelievable ignorant if you think they want AQ running the show, the guys blowing up the cars over there. Duh! They are sophisticated people in Iraq. The lack of motivation is with the political leaders, you don't see people on the street, civilians not hauling ass to help their friends and strangers when a bomb goes off. If we leave, things may get worse, that will force the compromises and alliances in the government that need to happen for this to be a war of Iraqis against chaos and AQ rather than Iraqis taking a back seat to occupation forces cleaning up after the carnage.

"You're saying that the majority of Muslims think we did 9/11 to ourselves?"

A majority at one time did, I'm not sure what the consensus is now with AQ admitting to it. As for 9/11 being cowardly, of course it was. So is sending Juniors to their death, while UBL and all these guys at the top live. That's hypocrisy but it is what it is. If they had the ability to engage us with a nuke in a city they would have. This was the best they could do, and it worked, they exploited our free society to attack us and kill people, destroy economic infrastructure, attack a military center, tarnish the symbol of strength of America, the plan was also to attack our leadership at the capitol or white house. At one time it was for as many as 10 planes. AQ likes a big news attack when they do strike and thats what they got.
There is no bigger news story than a nuclear bomb going off in a city because of a terror attack.

Thats what they would do if given the opportunity. The reason is not Islamic it's insanity.

Iran wants Iraq to fail they are scared that if Iraq succeeds. they will lose control of their population.

"Iran wants Iraq to fail they are scared that if Iraq succeeds. they will lose control of their population."

Its a very real fear as well, they have a serious drug and economy problem that they should be focused on. Iraq on the other hand, has a serious security problem. Iraq isn't going to succeed or fail just because we will it too though.

true but they have a chance if we stay.

"true but they have a chance if we stay."

They also have a chance if we leave. I fail to understand why everyone seems to think that if we leave, the world ends. If we aren't in Iraq making sure there are a few less violent acts, the world ends. It just isn't fact or rational though it's propaganda.

Sure it would be better for Iraq if they were fully capable to defending themselves or if we had another million troops to help garrison the country.

The facts are that they are off to a pretty good start building an army and police force, in areas where AQ has been active, the local population have had enough of their shit.

The primary problem on the ground is slow political progress, because groups who aren't getting a fair representation keep boycotting cooperation with the government and nothing can get done without everybody there to make a democracy work.

Our own civil war didn't allow for much nation unity of much progress, until after it was decided to unite or divide. Once the war was settled, and reconstruction was underway, reconstruction in large part drove an accelerating effort to make our nation strong.

If we leave, Iraq could collapse into chaos, or it could be forced to arm wrestle the problems. Nobody in either government wants the chaos option, and effective as AQ is in Iraq it is not likely even without us there they could effect a chaotic collapse. Iran maybe, but Iran could try more heavy handed efforts like an invasion, but not if we leave a carrier in the gulf which we will probably be doing anyway. Still we could dramatically down shift our role from occupier to assistant manager, or a role where we have maybe 10,000 troops in country working on aid and other roles than security.

There is no clear solution, but pouring in all the troops of free nations in the world won't solve this until the Iraqis figure out how to make it work for Iraq.

What isn't helping is Hillary Clinton or anybody else, calling for a removal of Iraqi PM Malaki. He is Iraq's democratically elected president and trying to take a heavy handed role meddling in Iraqi politics is only going to reinforce the idea that we are occupying rather than assisting Iraqis. It also is going to strengthen enemies by giving them more support against us in other areas of the world.