plan for iraq

by **GrizWhiz** on Fri Feb 17, 2006 7:16 pm

alpha-"we own Iraq and are in charge there"- how many places in Iraq (or even Bagdad) are Americans even slightly safe? Also, that probably is not an attitude that is going to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. If you think American troops need to stay in Iraq until we run out of radical Islamic fundamentalists to kill, we are in for a long wait. Please remember that they are killing and maiming our people too. Also, if you think they are going to run out of volunteers, you are not being realistic. Ask Israel about that. The polls that indicate eroding support for this war also come from conservative sources such as Fox and the Wall Street Journal. The American people see no end to this mess and are increasingly dubious of the reasons given for going to war. backer-you are confusing Bin Laden with Iraq again. Iraq had nothing to with 911!

by **GrizWhiz** on Fri Feb 17, 2006 7:30 pm

Re/MaxGriz wrote:Billboard material?

There's some undeniable similarities;

- The lack of a visual "us and them" I remember reading a book by Colonel Hacksworth talking about how tough it was to fight the NVA because at many times you wouldn't know who was friend or enemy.

- A region that has a stong insurgency against western culture

- A foreign battlefield that gives the enemy an advantage of "fighting in their home."

- We're fighting a political/religious belief. Communism then, extreme Islam and facism now.

- A nation split over if we should be fighting there or not.

- A president who has made some misleading statements or done questionable things that led us to war.

GrizWiz, help me out, am I missing more?

Remax-we were as much fighting Nationalism as Communism in Viet Nam. They simply did not want any foreign country running them and had been fighting foreigners for hundreds of years ( the Chinese, the Japanese, the French and us.) The similarities you cite are legit. The hopelessness of the situations is also similar. LBJ (and his crew) knew fairly early into the war that the only way to prevent the VC and NVA from winning was to keep a strong American military presence and keep getting our guys killed. We knew that once we pulled out, the government in Saigon would fall. Read Robert McNamara's book. It's a crime that this war went on for so long just for the purpose of saving (LBJ's and later Nixon's) face. I think the situation in Iraq is the similar in terms of what happens after we leave and Bush and friends know it. They are just looking for a time to start to pull out that will be most advantageous politically. I'll bet some announcement is made before the upcoming November elections. It makes me sick to see our brave soldiers once again being used this way.

by **Grizbacker1** on Fri Feb 17, 2006 8:03 pm

GrizWhiz wrote:alpha-"we own Iraq and are in charge there"- how many places in Iraq (or even Bagdad) are Americans even slightly safe? Also, that probably is not an attitude that is going to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. If you think American troops need to stay in Iraq until we run out of radical Islamic fundamentalists to kill, we are in for a long wait. Please remember that they are killing and maiming our people too. Also, if you think they are going to run out of volunteers, you are not being realistic. Ask Israel about that. The polls that indicate eroding support for this war also come from conservative sources such as Fox and the Wall Street Journal. The American people see no end to this mess and are increasingly dubious of the reasons given for going to war. backer-you are confusing Bin Laden with Iraq again. Iraq had nothing to with 911!

GeeWhiz,

I am confusing them again? Where you got that is beyond me. I didn't realize I had even mentioned them before. My point wasn't to link them on 911, it was poor articulation on my part perhaps. I was simply trying to get Re/Max to think for himself instead of simply doing a Google search for something else to cut and paste. I think most of us know what the left and right are going to say, it is the same crap over and over. I don't side with either party on everything like some on here seem to. I have never voted a straight party line in my life. I doubt many on here could say the same, maybe I am wrong, and that would be welcome.

by **Re/MaxGriz** on Fri Feb 17, 2006 9:18 pm

OK I'm back!

Thanks Grizwhiz, and to answer the two questions;

Ponezone, yes I said both and I stand by both. You know what we shoud do? (gasp) Raise taxes, or in a more diplomatic term, repeal the current tax cuts. That will help fund things. Stop giving the top 2% the very best tax cuts, and acutally have some sort of tax on oil companies and "big business."

Alpha, yes combine them all. The recent report that congress put together talked about lack of communication between FEMA & Homeland security. And previous reports said that the FBI and Homeland Sec. were having a hard time getting on the same page and sharing information. So combine them, revamp them, and put a qualified guy in charge, not a guy who judged quarter horses or whatever.

by **citygriz** on Fri Feb 17, 2006 10:55 pm

iraq was a military blunder of historic dimension. we have put the best-equipped, best-trained, most technologically sophisticated fighting force in the history of mankind in a geurilla war halfway around the world in searing heat against a bitter enemy that can pick off our kids off with roadside bombs hidden in dead dogs. it's a war whose every justification has been proved false, against a country whose infrastructure we'd bombed into smithereens for a decade prior, and one with no link to 9/11. it's a war the elder bush was smart enought to avoid after desert storm, but junior wasn't, the war the american people have already turned against, the war that has destroyed dubya's legacy will wreck the republican party if it continues.

i understand that it takes six months to enlist the rawest, greenest american military recruit and make him battle-ready, yet three years later, even with our training and expertise, the iraquis themselves cannot muster a fighting force adequate to defend themselves, to fight for their own country, to stand for the ideals america professes. if the majority was oppressed by sadam, we took him down and brought him to trial. if we thought there were weapons of mass destruction there, we were wrong. if their oil was to pay for this war, it didn't work out that way.

iraq is the most fiercely nationalistic country in the mideast, and it will fight both the terrorists and the iranians as ferociously as they're now fighting us. if they choose not to get along with each other, that is their business, not ours.

it's time we applied the first rule of business: cut your loss. it's time to pack it in. vamoose!

adios, iraq!!

by **grizonbob** on Sat Feb 18, 2006 12:51 am

Re/MaxGriz wrote:OK I'm back!

Thanks Grizwhiz, and to answer the two questions;

Ponezone, yes I said both and I stand by both. You know what we shoud do? (gasp) Raise taxes, or in a more diplomatic term, repeal the current tax cuts. That will help fund things. Stop giving the top 2% the very best tax cuts, and acutally have some sort of tax on oil companies and "big business."

Alpha, yes combine them all. The recent report that congress put together talked about lack of communication between FEMA & Homeland security. And previous reports said that the FBI and Homeland Sec. were having a hard time getting on the same page and sharing information. So combine them, revamp them, and put a qualified guy in charge, not a guy who judged quarter horses or whatever.

How bout a tax on real-estate transactions? Real estate is hot in most parts of MT; this could generate a lot of money for teacher salaries, etc. This idea been proposed in the past in Montana, if I recall correctly, but has been killed by lobbying from the real-estate industry. Could be a graduated tax with 0 percent on any transaction under, say $100,000--just to get rid of the regressivity. Then the graduated tax could kick in on anything above that. The folks buying places at Big Sky or the Stock Farm or Big Mtn. certainly have the extra coin to afford it.

by **Re/MaxGriz** on Sat Feb 18, 2006 1:35 am

Definatley a thought to consider. The tax that would work better would be a sales tax in Montana.

One thing to keep in mind with a Real Estate transfer tax would be that it will boost the prices of the houses. If a house is worth $200,000 and the tax is $5,000 then many sellers are going to put that on top of the purchase price. For cities like Bozeman, Missoula, Whitefish that will already strain the affordable housing market. Other major towns in Montana would feel the pinch as well.

But it's certainly an option. I think a 2% or 3% sales tax statewide would really boost the state economy, and allow it to better fund education and especially transportation.

by **ALPHAGRIZ1** on Sat Feb 18, 2006 3:06 am

Re/MaxGriz wrote:Definatley a thought to consider. The tax that would work better would be a sales tax in Montana.

One thing to keep in mind with a Real Estate transfer tax would be that it will boost the prices of the houses. If a house is worth $200,000 and the tax is $5,000 then many sellers are going to put that on top of the purchase price. For cities like Bozeman, Missoula, Whitefish that will already strain the affordable housing market. Other major towns in Montana would feel the pinch as well.

But it's certainly an option. I think a 2% or 3% sales tax statewide would really boost the state economy, and allow it to better fund education and especially transportation.

Naw, a sales tax is unfair to the poor.

by **grizonbob** on Sat Feb 18, 2006 11:05 am

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:
Re/MaxGriz wrote:Definatley a thought to consider. The tax that would work better would be a sales tax in Montana.

One thing to keep in mind with a Real Estate transfer tax would be that it will boost the prices of the houses. If a house is worth $200,000 and the tax is $5,000 then many sellers are going to put that on top of the purchase price. For cities like Bozeman, Missoula, Whitefish that will already strain the affordable housing market. Other major towns in Montana would feel the pinch as well.

But it's certainly an option. I think a 2% or 3% sales tax statewide would really boost the state economy, and allow it to better fund education and especially transportation.

Naw, a sales tax is unfair to the poor.

It can be unfair to the poor--but it doesn't have to be. You can take steps to take the regressivity out of it. such as exempting food and medicine. also giving folks an income tax rebate or some such thing to offset some amount of sales tax paid. There's a lot to be said for keeping your tax structure similiar to those of states around you, as that is who you are competing with for business enterprises. On the other hand, with the internet, it is easier than ever for folks to avoid sales tax by shopping around online....

by **Re/MaxGriz** on Sat Feb 18, 2006 11:16 am

I believe thats why Vanns online sales are through the roof, and how the RV dealers in the state do massive business.

Just saying, "We need a sales tax," is a general statement. Grzonbob thats a good solution, vouchers and exemption for certian items. Even a small sales tax would help bring in more money for the state to upkeep its roads and put more money into its education system which I believe is something like 46th or 47th in the nation in regards to funding.

by **ponezone** on Sat Feb 18, 2006 11:40 am

Re/MaxGriz wrote:I believe thats why Vanns online sales are through the roof, and how the RV dealers in the state do massive business.

... so then by your own admission... wouldn't a sales tax drive away business and have Montana consumers looking for alternatives elsewhere? Yes... there is a reason why Montana has a HUGE number of sales of RV's in this country. What's also especially interesting is that they just have to register as a sub-s corp and register their RV here... that's why you can be anywhere and see these large motorhomes with Montana plates... and the people don't live in Montana. Why some of our best friends did exactly that... and they live out-of-state.

A few years back in the early Clinton administration.. do you remember the "luxury tax" that was placed on yachts sold in the northeast? While all of those people could afford it.. they just purchased their yachts elsewhere... which several yacht making/selling businesses along the east coast went belly-up... putting lots of "middle-income" workers out of business. Sometimes people just don't completely understand taxes.. and many "simpletons" utter things like "Just tax it" or "just have a sales tax" and they think all things will be solved. Yeah... right. :naughty:

by **Re/MaxGriz** on Sat Feb 18, 2006 11:50 am

The sales tax is an imperfect solution to solving some of Montana's financial crunches. I don't think it's the absolute solution, but it's an option. Maybe exclude real estate, motor vehicles and RVs/Campers. I don't know...

Any alternate solutions jump out to you PZ? Raise property taxes or income taxes?

by **Bay Area Cat** on Sat Feb 18, 2006 12:36 pm

Of course, in a couple years, after the states have come to a final agreement on the steamlined sales tax initiative, thus allowing Congress the political leverage to legislate over Quill v. North Dakota, the sales tax benefits that MT currently enjoys will essentially vanish as the concept of nexus as it currently stands will cease to exist, most likely.

And in terms of online sales, even if MT had a sales tax right now, they could still sell into other states in which the MT company does not have a physical presence tax free. That's what Amazon does right now (only charges sales tax in WA -- all other states are tax free), and although it is really cool tax planning, it really isn't fair to local businesses, and probably does need to be fixed on a national level.

The motor home example is a good example of clever tax planning (and does benefit MT in more property taxes). It's a similar scenario to why all of the cruise ships are registered in Liberia and Panama as opposed to the U.S. -- they don't pay taxes to the U.S. that way.

I am curious, though, how many states would respect that "form over substance" type of transaction. If you buy a motor home in MT, register it in an S Corp in MT with you are the sole shareholder, and then take the RV to CA and use it primarily in CA ... I have a feeling that CA would aggressively assert that you owe sales tax (and registration fees) to CA on that transaction. I've never researched it before, though, and I'm sure the people who are doing it have done the proper research in the states they live.

by **Bay Area Cat** on Sat Feb 18, 2006 1:12 pm

A link from a company that sells the MT RV LLC services:

http://www.rvtax.com/FAQs.htm

It looks like it should work as long as you are on the road and outside of your actual state of residency for most of the year.

And editorially, outside of the RV industry that is profiting from the current state laws, MT definitely needs a sales tax. It is killing it from a business perspective right now.

by **Bronco** on Sat Feb 18, 2006 2:10 pm

Wow Dem's hat want a new Tax...I'm shocked.

Most states that started with a 3% tax are now 7% and 8%...You can't let the bastards in your wallet...once there it's easy to say " I know we said it would never go up, but this is an emergency...

by **grizonbob** on Sat Feb 18, 2006 2:58 pm

Bronco wrote:Wow Dem's hat want a new Tax...I'm shocked.

Most states that started with a 3% tax are now 7% and 8%...You can't let the bastards in your wallet...once there it's easy to say " I know we said it would never go up, but this is an emergency...

That's definitely a problem in many states, though MT did pass a constitutional amendment a few years back that limits any future sales tax to 4 percent. Of course, that constitutional limit could always be changed, but it isn't easy.

BTW, BAC, what is Qull v.? some court ruling that dictates tax policy?

by **Paytonlives** on Sat Feb 18, 2006 5:13 pm

Re/MaxGriz wrote:Here's what bugs me about what we're doing in Iraq right now;

80% of its citizens don't want us there
45% of its citizens feel its ok to attack Americans

Of course then there's the other side;

1. We don't pay our troops enough.

2. We don't protect our troops well enough or have enough armor on their vehicles

3. The Bush administration ignored the actual amount of time/money it would take to get Iraq's new army battle ready and now there's only 1 battalion that is capable of independent fighting

4. It appears that some of the prisioners over there were tortured, which in my opnion, doesn't help "win over the people."

Remax please stop saying 80% want us out. Where Are the facts. EVERY report Ive seen, from Iraqies and our soldier there say the WANT US THERE!!!!

Please post a link to a REAL website that shows anything near 80%.

by **ALPHAGRIZ1** on Sat Feb 18, 2006 5:21 pm

ponezone wrote:
Re/MaxGriz wrote:I believe thats why Vanns online sales are through the roof, and how the RV dealers in the state do massive business.

... so then by your own admission... wouldn't a sales tax drive away business and have Montana consumers looking for alternatives elsewhere? Yes... there is a reason why Montana has a HUGE number of sales of RV's in this country. What's also especially interesting is that they just have to register as a sub-s corp and register their RV here... that's why you can be anywhere and see these large motorhomes with Montana plates... and the people don't live in Montana. Why some of our best friends did exactly that... and they live out-of-state.

A few years back in the early Clinton administration.. do you remember the "luxury tax" that was placed on yachts sold in the northeast? While all of those people could afford it.. they just purchased their yachts elsewhere... which several yacht making/selling businesses along the east coast went belly-up... putting lots of "middle-income" workers out of business. Sometimes people just don't completely understand taxes.. and many "simpletons" utter things like "Just tax it" or "just have a sales tax" and they think all things will be solved. Yeah... right.

Great point Pone. I love it when people figure out ways to get around the current unfair tax code. I also like to hear about people being put out of business because of local taxes going up. I like to think that maybe someday the government may piss off enough people and a large group will stand up and say enough is enough.

I was also kidding about the sales tax is unfair to the poor comment above. Everyone should be taxed at the same rate.

by **Re/MaxGriz** on Sat Feb 18, 2006 5:36 pm

Again,

I was only stating a suggestion, not my idea of what we must do. Ponezone makes a very stong point.

Payton, link coming soon, Murtha said it in his speech to withdraw troops from Iraq. Stay posted.

by **Re/MaxGriz** on Sat Feb 18, 2006 5:45 pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Murtha

Little encyclopedia on John Murtha, here's the snippet I'm quoting.

Resolution on Removing American Armed Forces from Iraq
On November 17, 2005, Murtha submitted the following resolution (H.J. Res. 73) in the House of Representatives:

Whereas Congress and the American People have not been shown clear, measurable progress toward establishment of stable and improving security in Iraq or of a stable and improving economy in Iraq, both of which are essential to "promote the emergence of a democratic government";

Whereas additional stabilization in Iraq by U, S. military forces cannot be achieved without the deployment of hundreds of thousands of additional U S. troops, which in turn cannot be achieved without a military draft;

Whereas more than $277 billion has been appropriated by the United States Congress to prosecute U.S. military action in Iraq and Afghanistan;

Whereas, as of the drafting of this resolution, 2,079 U.S. troops have been killed in Operation Iraqi Freedom;

Whereas U.S. forces have become the target of the insurgency,

Whereas, according to recent polls, over 80% of the Iraqi people want U.S. forces out of Iraq;

Whereas polls also indicate that 45% of the Iraqi people feel that the attacks on U.S. forces are justified;

Whereas, due to the foregoing, Congress finds it evident that continuing U.S. military action in Iraq is not in the best interests of the United States of America, the people of Iraq, or the Persian Gulf Region, which were cited in Public Law 107-243 as justification for undertaking such action;

Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That:

Section 1. The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date.

Section 2. A quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S Marines shall be deployed in the region.

Section 3 The United States of America shall pursue security and stability in Iraq through diplomacy.

by **ALPHAGRIZ1** on Sat Feb 18, 2006 5:49 pm

It's wikipedia, and we all know thats accurate.

I am going to go there and input my own stats to make Murtha look worse than he already does. Come on.

by **Re/MaxGriz** on Sat Feb 18, 2006 5:56 pm

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2004/WORLD/meast/04/28/iraq.poll/iraq.poll.4.28.pdf

Here's a USA Today/Gallup/CNN poll that shows a little more favorable numbers,

57% in this poll want us out immediatley.

by **Re/MaxGriz** on Sat Feb 18, 2006 5:59 pm

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:It's wikipedia, and we all know thats accurate.

I am going to go there and input my own stats to make Murtha look worse than he already does. Come on.

They just posted points of Mutha's speech, no liberal "slant" in that.

by **grizonbob** on Sat Feb 18, 2006 10:38 pm

Paytonlives wrote:
Re/MaxGriz wrote:Here's what bugs me about what we're doing in Iraq right now;

80% of its citizens don't want us there
45% of its citizens feel its ok to attack Americans

Of course then there's the other side;

1. We don't pay our troops enough.

2. We don't protect our troops well enough or have enough armor on their vehicles

3. The Bush administration ignored the actual amount of time/money it would take to get Iraq's new army battle ready and now there's only 1 battalion that is capable of independent fighting

4. It appears that some of the prisioners over there were tortured, which in my opnion, doesn't help "win over the people."

Remax please stop saying 80% want us out. Where Are the facts. EVERY report Ive seen, from Iraqies and our soldier there say the WANT US THERE!!!!

Please post a link to a REAL website that shows anything near 80%.

I would think that 80 percent downplays the number that want Americans out. I'd think it would be closer to 99 percent. The question is when the US gets out. If the pollster just asked people: "Do you want to see the US out of Iraq?", well, that's a dumb and meaningless question, that leads to a dumb and meaningless poll result.

by **ALPHAGRIZ1** on Sun Feb 19, 2006 1:21 am

I would bet only 15-20% really want us out. We are good for business.

plan for iraq

Who is online