You should feel lucky ....... PBGC sent my est. to me.
35 years of service
Retire at age 55
Age 55-62 $600.00 per month.
Starting at age 62 drops to $400.00
I will be eating cat and dog food by age 67. :angry:
Thank you US Air!
No pension increase for you!
- Thread starter luvthe9
- Start date
You should feel lucky ....... PBGC sent my est. to me.
35 years of service
Retire at age 55
Age 55-62 $600.00 per month.
Starting at age 62 drops to $400.00
I will be eating cat and dog food by age 67. :angry:
Thank you US Air!
hp_fa
Veteran
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2004
- Messages
- 3,290
- Reaction score
- 178
You should feel lucky ....... PBGC sent my est. to me.
35 years of service
Retire at age 55
Age 55-62 $600.00 per month.
Starting at age 62 drops to $400.00
I will be eating cat and dog food by age 67. :angry:
Thank you US Air!
GSO:
Do you mind sharing what the numbers would have been before all this pension dumping nonsense started?
The folks thinking option 'A' read the paper and keep up with the news.
1. We see airlines waltz into and out of BK, CEO's pockets full of $$$, employees with busted pensions.The airline continues to operate, and never has to make good the obligations shed in BK.
2. At the same time, Congress and the Prez just made it harder for individuals to avail themselves of the same BK option. For the individual, they will have to make good on part or all of their obligations post BK.
3. Exxon freely admits their employee pension, though legally funded, is actuarially underfunded.
4. The actual underfunding of pension has been known for decades. Nothing has been done about it.
5. And best of all, the PBGC will not withstand the avalanche of coming claims, given the BK virus has spread throughout aviation and is now headed to the auto industry.
I am convinced a major reason the government propped up US was to give US time to spread the virus.
700, we don't see eye to eye on the union issues, however these FOX news watchers are insane. For this posting above "YOU ARE THE MAN!!!!!!"
Dude, put your tail between your legs, turn on your FOX propaganda machine and consider yourself the loser.
😱
PITbull
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2002
- Messages
- 7,784
- Reaction score
- 456
Let's set the record straight...US National Security reports and US Intelligence now say they have not found ANY weapons of mass destruction in IRAQ.
The US invasion of IRAQ is now justified by both houses and the Adminstration by talking up the importance of liberating a people who never asked to be liberated for the sake of installing a US democratic system. Ths is all about oil control, US dependency, and US interests. IRAQ citizens who are now busy fighting a civil war between the Shiites and the Sunni factions finding it more important to stay alive from all the shelling then worry about "democracy".
As long as US keeps financially supporting the puppet regime, they will continue to be dependent on the US on all fronts.
Our presence in IRAQ continues to foster chaos in the entire region. US should be spending the hundreds of billions protecting the US borders rather than sending hundreds of thousands of our military to a region that wants us OUT or dead. Our presence is creating a worse insurgencies and is a disaster, a huge mistake in foreign policy.
I never believed in the biblical Armageddon. I mostly thought it was a fable, an dream exaggerated, like many books in the bible. but, I realy need to rethink my christian beliefs. United States is IMO fostering world WAR III rather than diplomacy as a first response, and clearly creating a profound "hatred" around the world for Americans that will take many world generations and many years of new world leaders to dissipate.
The current party majority , who can't fix the major issues that have a profound effect like affordable National Health Care,energy alternatives to make us much less dependent and free from foreign oil, border patrol, Pension dumping, outsourcing, global warming, disaster response and possible bio terrorism, after 12 years of the right majority controled congress, we need to wipe them out....total wipe out! This so called robust economy ISN'T WORKING, and has NOT been realized for the average american whose "real wage" has not gone up relative to corporate profits and Corporate Execs!
At present, the war in IRAQ is "coloring" everything and the Republicans by majority who got us in the this war will lose many seats. This administration has promised tens of thousands more troops to go into Bagdad. Many, many more troops will perish before a new administration is elected, and pull out will be inevitable. This issue now from the White House is that "we just can't pull out now and leave the weak IRAQ military to be defeated. Defeated from what? goverment instability from a civil war? It is very evident that many of the Republicans who are running are keeping their distance from the White House, and the war. You have to be sensible and rational about this war invasion and forget your alligence to a party rather than the issue of our presence.
Out of all the Presidents the United States ever had, this one will go down in history as the most incompetent the world has ever seen.
Hopefully, the citizens will take the time and "remember in November".
CaptBud330
Senior
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2002
- Messages
- 255
- Reaction score
- 2
AMERICA NEEDS TO WAKE UP!
That's what we think we heard on the 11th of September 2001 (When more
than 3,000 Americans were killed) and maybe it was, but I think it
should have been "Get Out of Bed!" In fact, I think the alarm clock has
been buzzing since 1979 and we have continued to hit the snooze button
and roll over for a few more minutes of peaceful sleep since then.
It was a cool fall day in November 1979 in a country going through a
religious and political upheaval when a group of Iranian students
attacked and seized the American Embassy in Tehran. This seizure was an
outright attack on American soil; it was an attack that held the world's
most powerful country hostage and paralyzed a Presidency.
America was still reeling from the aftermath of the Vietnam experience
and had a serious threat from the Soviet Union when then, President
Carter, had to do something. He chose to conduct a clandestine raid in
the desert. The ill-fated mission ended in ruin, but stood as a symbol
of America's inability to deal with terrorism.
America's military had been decimated and down sized/right sized since
the end of the Vietnam War. A poorly trained, poorly equipped and poorly
organized military was called on to execute a complex mission that was
doomed from the start.
Shortly after the Tehran experience, Americans began to be kidnapped and
killed throughout the Middle East. America could do little to protect
her citizens living and working abroad.
In April of 1983 a large vehicle packed with high explosives was driven
into the US Embassy compound in Beirut. When it explodes, it kills 63
people. The alarm went off again and America hit the Snooze Button once
more.
Then just six short months later in 1983 a large truck heavily laden
with over 2500 pounds of TNT smashed through the main gate of the US
Marine Corps headquarters in Beirut and 241 US servicemen are killed.
America mourns her dead and hit the Snooze Button once more.
Two months later in December 1983, another truck loaded with explosives
is driven into the US Embassy in Kuwait , and America continues her
slumber.
The following year, in September 1984, another van was driven into the
gate of the US Embassy in Beirut and America slept.
Soon the terrorism spreads to Europe. In April 1985 a bomb explodes in a
restaurant frequented by US soldiers in Madrid.
Then in August 1985 a Volkswagen loaded with explosives is driven into
the main gate of the US Air Force Base at Rhein-Main, Germany.
Twenty-two are killed and the snooze alarm is buzzing louder and louder
as US interests are continually attacked.
Fifty-nine days later in 1985 a cruise ship, the Achille Lauro is
hijacked and we watched as an American in a wheelchair is singled out of
the passenger list and executed.
The terrorists then shift their tactics to bombing civilian airliners
when they bomb TWA Flight 840 in April of 1986 that killed 4 and the
most tragic bombing, Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in1988,
killing 259.
Clinton treated these terrorist acts as crimes; in fact we are still
trying to bring these people to trial. These are acts of war.
The wake up alarm is getting louder and louder.
The terrorists decide to bring the fight to America In January 1993, two
CIA agents are shot and killed as they enter CIA headquarters in
Langley, Virginia.
The following month, February 1993 , a group of terrorists are arrested
after a rented van packed with explosives is driven into the underground
parking garage of the World Trade Center in New York City. Six people
are killed and over 1000 are injured. Still this is a crime and not an
act of war? The Snooze alarm is depressed again.
Then in November 1995 a car bomb explodes at a US military complex in
Riyadh, Saudi Arabia killing seven service men and women.
A few months later in June of 1996, another truck bomb explodes only 35
yards from the US military compound in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. It
destroys the Khobar Towers, a US Air Force barracks, killi ng 19 and
injuring over 500. The terrorists are getting braver and smarter as they
see that America does not respond decisively.
They move to coordinate their attacks in a simultaneous attack on two US
embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.. These attacks were planned with
precision. They kill 224. America responds with cruise missile attacks
and goes back to sleep.
The USS Cole was docked in the port of Aden, Yemen for refueling on 12
October 2000 , when a small craft pulled along side the ship and
exploded killing 17 US Navy Sailors. Attacking a US War Ship is an act
of war, but we sent the FBI to investigate the crime and went back to
sleep.
And of course you know the events of 11 September 2001. Most Americans
think this was the first attack against US soil or in America How wrong
they are. America has been under a constant attack since 1979 and we
chose to hit the snooze alarm and roll over and go back to sleep.
In the news lately we have seen lots of finger pointing from every high
officials in government over what they knew and what they didn't know.
But if you've read the papers and paid a little attention I think you
can see exactly what they knew. You don't have to be in the FBI or CIA
or on the National Security Council to see the pattern that has been
developing since 1979.
I think we have been in a war for the past 25 years and it will continue
until we as a people decide enough is enough. America needs to "Get out
of Bed" and act decisively now. America has been changed forever.. We
have to be ready to pay the price and make the sacrifice to ensure our
way of life continues. We cannot afford to keep hitting the snooze
button again and aga in and roll over and go back to sleep.
After the attack on Pearl Harbor, Admiral Yamamoto said "... it seems
all we have done is awakened a sleeping giant." This is the message we
need to disseminate to terrorists around the world.
This is not a political thing to be hashed over in an election year this
is an AMERICAN thing. This is about our Freedom and the Freedom of our
children in years to come.
If you believe in this please forward it to as many people as you can
especially to the young people and all those who dozed off in history
class and who seem so quick to protest such a necessary military action.
If you don't believe it, just delete it -- and go back to Sleep !
PITbull
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2002
- Messages
- 7,784
- Reaction score
- 456
Our freedom? Freedom for our children? You jest!
Where is OUR freedom in these third world countries being infringed? Did their governments invade us? I missed it.
Everyone in the world knows that the middle east is very unstable and their politics, way of life, is dictated by THIER religion which does not speak of "democracy" and liberation. If any US citizen decides to live or work in the middle east makes the conscious decision to take these risks.
For those who make the decision to INVADE these countries for other reasons then control of their OIL which propells the US economic infrastructure, MUST first attempt to convince the people to SEPARATE their state from religion.
Until such time that these people evolve socially and intellectually, WE, the U.S., will not be able to bring any stability to that region by INVASION and occupation.
If you believe that the US is invading countries for altruistic reasons like many who are proponents of this invasion then WHY aren't we in Darfur, Somolia, Ethiopia where there is currently a genocide being conducted by their own governments! North Korea, a closed society and one of the last in the world with a regime that impoverishes its people and shuts them off from the world?
Let me help you answer....NO US interest and nothing to gain for big business.
Get it yet?
Where is OUR freedom in these third world countries being infringed? Did their governments invade us? I missed it.
Everyone in the world knows that the middle east is very unstable and their politics, way of life, is dictated by THIER religion which does not speak of "democracy" and liberation. If any US citizen decides to live or work in the middle east makes the conscious decision to take these risks.
For those who make the decision to INVADE these countries for other reasons then control of their OIL which propells the US economic infrastructure, MUST first attempt to convince the people to SEPARATE their state from religion.
Until such time that these people evolve socially and intellectually, WE, the U.S., will not be able to bring any stability to that region by INVASION and occupation.
If you believe that the US is invading countries for altruistic reasons like many who are proponents of this invasion then WHY aren't we in Darfur, Somolia, Ethiopia where there is currently a genocide being conducted by their own governments! North Korea, a closed society and one of the last in the world with a regime that impoverishes its people and shuts them off from the world?
Let me help you answer....NO US interest and nothing to gain for big business.
Get it yet?
Well, due to your FOX news mentality may I suggest we start with you and your six digit income???? How about you go ahead and voluntarily donate an extra 10G this year to help our cause in Iraq.
I am not a believer in spending billions and billions (that we know about) and as you are aware we don't know a lot of this secret administration in this cluster f--- in Iraq. You see I would have been happy to send the 100,000 soldiers to Afghanistan and find the wacko Osama. But I am not understanding the whole Iraq thing. I don't know how FOX news is twisting it this week so please spare me the lecture and let me know when you sent that 10G.
I am not a believer in spending billions and billions (that we know about) and as you are aware we don't know a lot of this secret administration in this cluster f--- in Iraq. You see I would have been happy to send the 100,000 soldiers to Afghanistan and find the wacko Osama. But I am not understanding the whole Iraq thing. I don't know how FOX news is twisting it this week so please spare me the lecture and let me know when you sent that 10G.
PitBull, please refute the stories with more than just a blanket statement "you are dead wrong".
It seems to me that a report from the House Intelligence Comittee that was created by the National Ground Intelligence Center (a DOD Intelligence unit) stating that "coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent.", it would indicate to me that WMD's did exist and, furthermore, there's no reason to believe more aren't out there. You can go back to my prior posts and read the links that I provided.
What more do you people need to acknowledge this other than one landing in your backyard with a return addres stamp from Baghdad?!
PITbull
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2002
- Messages
- 7,784
- Reaction score
- 456
PHL,
There are NO reports that have been made public to the citizens of this US that states that IRAQ had weapons of mass destruction. You must ask yourself, why the U.S. would declare war, send hundreds of thousands of troops, spend hundreds of billions of $$, create civil unrest with over 30,000 IRAQI people dead, over 2,500 U.S. military killed, and 14,000 injured soldiers who many suffer from post tramtic syndrome over finding what these war advocates delare...may mount to be a gas mask?
What has been said repeatedly is that the US invastion was to bring democracy to IRAQ people and liberate them from tyranny. Did you miss that?
No where does it state that the hundreds of thousands of our military are in IRAQ to disarm IRAQ and take out their weapons of mass destruction. That concept evaporated a couple years ago when there were no weapons of mass destruction found.
What propaganda are you reading?
Get with the program...we were looking inititally for Osama, and got side tracked with Saddam and fullfilling George senior's initial amibition...its about United States sending troops to IRAQ to liberate them from something. I asked a military lieutenant that was home for 3 months what they are doing there and what they hope to accomplish...he said to institute democracy and liberate the people.
ah, o-kay.
So, what about Osama?
BTW, there are weapons of mass destruction in your back yard...its stamped United States, and the only nation in history to use and toss a nuclear bomb in a nation's back yard called Hiroshima.
There are NO reports that have been made public to the citizens of this US that states that IRAQ had weapons of mass destruction. You must ask yourself, why the U.S. would declare war, send hundreds of thousands of troops, spend hundreds of billions of $$, create civil unrest with over 30,000 IRAQI people dead, over 2,500 U.S. military killed, and 14,000 injured soldiers who many suffer from post tramtic syndrome over finding what these war advocates delare...may mount to be a gas mask?
What has been said repeatedly is that the US invastion was to bring democracy to IRAQ people and liberate them from tyranny. Did you miss that?
No where does it state that the hundreds of thousands of our military are in IRAQ to disarm IRAQ and take out their weapons of mass destruction. That concept evaporated a couple years ago when there were no weapons of mass destruction found.
What propaganda are you reading?
Get with the program...we were looking inititally for Osama, and got side tracked with Saddam and fullfilling George senior's initial amibition...its about United States sending troops to IRAQ to liberate them from something. I asked a military lieutenant that was home for 3 months what they are doing there and what they hope to accomplish...he said to institute democracy and liberate the people.
ah, o-kay.
So, what about Osama?
BTW, there are weapons of mass destruction in your back yard...its stamped United States, and the only nation in history to use and toss a nuclear bomb in a nation's back yard called Hiroshima.
PITbull
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2002
- Messages
- 7,784
- Reaction score
- 456
I asked someone who is a die-hard Bush lover, right conservative why we invaded IRAQ...his response, "that's where the terrorists are who attacked the US on 9/11." He said its a "war on terrorism", and Saddam supported terrorism.
Really?
This is the best analogy I could respond when I think of the Right rational for invading IRAQ...as somehow they think the invasion is linked to 9/11.
its like some Greek crazed looney coming in the night killing your family, blowing up your house in Cleveland, and you deciding to go to Greek town in Chicago blowing up the entire state of illinois in hope to kill every single Greek in the state to obtain some sort of resolve.
That's what I really think the Adminstration did. A shoot from the hip response for the act of terrorism on 9/11 Looking to blame someone, something; not finding Osma and looking for war to show the world the U.S. responded. IRAQ and Saddam was someone to kick while we were there to show our "war might". Bush thought it would be swift with the capture of Saddam. We all know that Saddam is on trial for atrocities and murder against his own people. But, terrorism, he is not being tried for...weapons of mass destruction...nope. Is our occupation in IRAQ over? Nope. Terrorism is still alive and well all over the world.
I find it puzzling and disheartening that no one of influence brings these issues out. I know its not really being discussed in this context. But, I am sure, its being highly discussed by people in other countries all over the world why U.S invaded IRAQ and what will be accomplished from this occupation.
Really?
This is the best analogy I could respond when I think of the Right rational for invading IRAQ...as somehow they think the invasion is linked to 9/11.
its like some Greek crazed looney coming in the night killing your family, blowing up your house in Cleveland, and you deciding to go to Greek town in Chicago blowing up the entire state of illinois in hope to kill every single Greek in the state to obtain some sort of resolve.
That's what I really think the Adminstration did. A shoot from the hip response for the act of terrorism on 9/11 Looking to blame someone, something; not finding Osma and looking for war to show the world the U.S. responded. IRAQ and Saddam was someone to kick while we were there to show our "war might". Bush thought it would be swift with the capture of Saddam. We all know that Saddam is on trial for atrocities and murder against his own people. But, terrorism, he is not being tried for...weapons of mass destruction...nope. Is our occupation in IRAQ over? Nope. Terrorism is still alive and well all over the world.
I find it puzzling and disheartening that no one of influence brings these issues out. I know its not really being discussed in this context. But, I am sure, its being highly discussed by people in other countries all over the world why U.S invaded IRAQ and what will be accomplished from this occupation.
Why We Invaded Iraq
By John Hawkins (04/14/2004)
Given that we're more than a year out from the start of the war in Iraq, fighting has flared up recently, and opponents of the war have been trying rewrite history to take advantage of the fact that our intelligence estimates about WMD in Iraq have proven to be inaccurate, it's important to remind people why we went to Iraq.
To begin with, it's important to put the war in context. We must remember that we have been trying to remove Saddam Hussein from power since the Gulf War. Here's David Frum on that subject,
"In the 2000 election, both candidates spoke openly about the need to deal with Saddam Hussein. Al Gore was actually more emphatic on the topic than George Bush was. In 1998, Congress passed and President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act. Just to show how conspiratorial they were, they put it in the Congressional record. In 1995, the CIA tried to organize a coup against Saddam Hussein and it failed. The coup was secret, but it has been written about in 5 or 6 books that I know of. In 1991, representatives of President George H. W. Bush went on the radio and urged the Iraqi people to rise up against Saddam Hussein. So America's policy on Saddam has been consistent. What we have been arguing about for years are the methods. First, we tried to encourage a rebellion in Iraq, that didn't work. Then we tried coups; that didn't work. Then in 1998, we tried funding Iraqi opposition. That might have worked, but the money never actually got appropriated. Then, ultimately we tried direct military power. The idea that Saddam should go has been the policy of the United States since 1991."
So the idea that we should go after Saddam Hussein was nothing new. But after 9/11, removing Saddam Hussein suddenly became an essential part of the global strategy in the war on terrorism. Why so?
Well, after September 11th, it became apparent that simply going after Al-Qaeda was not going to be enough to prevent future attacks. First off, if you simply target Al-Qaeda, what happens if the core of group simply changes its name or groups with other anti-American terrorists? Furthermore, how can you effectively target terrorists protected by the power of a rogue state? The answer is, "you can't". In addition, the training, resources, & protection provided by those rogue states is the very thing that enables a group like Al-Qaeda to become capable of pulling off the sort of attack we saw on 9/11. So in order to prevent future 9/11s, you have to go after not just Al-Qaeda, but all terrorist groups with global reach and the rogue states that support them.
George Bush made that clear in his Sept 20, 2001 speech to the nation when he said,
"Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated....
And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."
Without question, Iraq was a nation that provided "safe haven" for terrorists with "global reach". Among them were terrormaster Abu Nidal, Abdul Rahman Yasin, one of the conspirators in the 1993 WTC bombing, "Khala Khadr al-Salahat, the man who reputedly made the bomb for the Libyans that brought down Pan Am Flight 103 over...Scotland,"Abu Abbas, mastermind of the October 1985 Achille Lauro hijacking and murder of Leon Klinghoffer," & "Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, formerly the director of an al Qaeda training base in Afghanistan" who is now believed to be leading Al-Qaeda's forces in Iraq. Quite frankly, any war on terrorism that didn't tackle that nest of vipers would have been a war in name only.
Moreover, as devastating as 9/11 was, a terrorist attack featuring weapons of mass destruction could be infinitely worse. Much has been made of the fact that we have not found the stockpiles of WMD that we expected in Iraq. But, there are three points worth making about that.
First of all, there simply was no significant difference between the position the Bush administration had on Iraq's WMD and the position held by prominent Democrats like Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Joe Lieberman, or John Kerry. In short, the overwhelming majority of Democrats & Republicans in Washington believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.
Secondly, given the size of Iraq and the fact that Saddam Hussein's totalitarian regime was not cooperating with the UN inspectors, there was no way, even had they been there for a hundred years, that Hans Blix and the rest of the UN inspectors could have confirmed to anyone's satisfaction that Iraq was not producing WMD. Even a year after the war, when our inspectors have had the run of the country, access to "secret documents", and have been able to interview Iraqi scientists without Saddam's"minders" being present, our WMD teams have still not been able to definitively say there are no remaining stockpiles of weapons in Iraq although we certainly suspect that to be the case.
Third, it isn't as if our intelligence agencies and the politicians citing them were totally wrong about WMDs and Iraq. As David Kay revealed, Iraqi scientists were working on weaponizing anthrax "right up until the end" and had restarted a rudimentary nuclear weapons program in 2000 & 2001. Furthermore, Kay said,
"Even those senior officials we have interviewed who claim no direct knowledge of any on-going prohibited activities readily acknowledge that Saddam intended to resume these programs whenever the external restrictions were removed. Several of these officials acknowledge receiving inquiries since 2000 from Saddam or his sons about how long it would take to either restart CW production or make available chemical weapons."
Those are not comforting words given that an "Iraqi chemical weapons expert" told "Uday Husayn" that mustard gas could be produced for Saddam's Fedayeen in two months.
After 9/11, anyone who doesn't see the potential danger of allowing terrorists like Abdul Rahman Yasin & Abu Abbas to be sheltered by an America hating regime that was working on weaponizing ricin and that could produce mustard gas in two months has an insufficient understanding of the peril facing in our country in my opinion.
Furthermore, there were certainly many other reasons to go to Iraq. Saddam Hussein was an avowed enemy of America who had started two wars of aggression in the region, was steadfast in his support for Palestinian suicide bombers, and brutally oppressed his own people. That last point is especially salient since we justified sending troops to Bosnia, Kosovo, Haiti, and Somalia almost solely because of "humanitarian reasons". Personally, I believe in using our military to further American interests, but if "humanitarian purposes" floated your boat in Kosovo or Haiti, I see no reason why it shouldn't still work for Iraq.
Similar arguments could be made about the UN. The UN Security Council averaged better than a UN Resolution per year for over a decade, the last of which was approved unanimously, demanding that Saddam fulfill the obligations he agreed to at the end of the Gulf War. While I have an extraordinarily low opinion of the United Nations, there are many people who hold the UN in high esteem and regard it as an essential part of the world order. But, why should anyone take the UN seriously when even a despised dictator can simply thumb his nose at the UN year after year with no response other than impotent new resolutions?
Also, as I mentioned earlier, Iraq is an essential part of the war on terrorism. That's not just because we were able to go after the terrorists mentioned earlier, but because terrorists are coming to Iraq to fight our soldiers. Some people see that as a bad thing, but as Christopher Hitchens recently wrote,
"(I)n my experience, dud theories die only to be replaced by new and even dumber ones. The current reigning favorite is that fighting al-Qaida in Iraq is a distraction from the fight against al-Qaida."
Indeed, we are fighting Al-Qaeda in Iraq. And while none of us are happy that our military is risking their lives fighting against terrorists in a foreign land, it could be worse. Instead of fighting the finest soldiers in the world in Iraq, Al-Qaeda could be murdering unarmed American civilians here in the US, at a time and a place of the terrorists' choosing. Iraq has turned out to be irresistible flypaper for terrorists and quite possibly, we here in the US may have been spared terrorist attacks because of it.
It's also worth noting that after Saddam was gone, we no longer had a need to keep troops in Saudi Arabia, which was something Al-Qaeda had used as a recruiting tool. Furthermore, we were able to lift the sanctions which had given Saddam an opportunity to starve his political enemies to death while shifting the blame for his murderous actions to the United States. Moreover, if as expected, we can actually help the Iraqis achieve Democracy, it has the potential to be the most significant thing to occur in the Middle-East since the Mamelukes effectively ended the Crusades with their victories in 1291.
If a beachhead of democracy can be established in Iraq, there's an excellent chance that we'll see Democratic reforms start to sweep across the region where anti-American tyrants are keeping their populations in control by the skin of their teeth. The influence of a free Iraq could in time help lead to a free Iran, a free Syria, a free Lebanon, a free Saudi Arabia, a free Egypt, etc, etc. We're not just shooting for an Iraqi Democracy, we're hoping to see freedom spread across the entire region.
In summary, what we must remember about Iraq is that it's not simply an optional war like Bosnia or Haiti, it's an essential part of the war on terrorism and the linchpin of our efforts to help bring democracy to the Middle-East. Potentially, what we're doing in Iraq could be as important as the work the "Greatest Generation" did in Japan and Germany after WW2, perhaps more so. The Bush administration's decision to take down Saddam and help the Iraqi people build a better, freer country was not just the right thing to do, it is without question in America's interests.
When I was hired in the 70's the company est. it to be around 2000 per month. Half of it would come from SS after age 62, but 2000 the whole time.
