<p>‘Betrayus’? Please tell me you are not being serious.
Have you served your country, as Gen. Petraeus has?
I doubt you would say that to his son, who is attending MIT, yet has decided to follow in his fathers footsteps and serve his country.</p>
<p>We won’t be voting on Bush no matter how much you wish we were. The poll includes all that into the equation. M still has at worst an even start. Wait until they actually start taking some serious shots at helium man.</p>
<p>1) A war that is bankrupting our country, killing our soldiers, for little gain in terms of security for the US.</p>
<p>The War isn’t bankrupting our country. </p>
<p>In fact, what we’re spending in Iraq is pocket change compared to the gaping black hole of debt that’s been created by Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, and foreign aid.</p>
<p>Right now, we don’t need to expand anything. Hell, we can barely keep going on like this. Pretty soon, the US deficit’s going to be so large that all we can do is pay off interest. </p>
<p>What the country needs now is a complete restructuring of the budget that works on eliminating financial burdens and frivolous expenses, managing the deficit, and stabilizing the USD and its value on the world market. </p>
<p>Universal healthcare, while a pretty and idealistic concept, cannot be anything more than an ideal, at this time. Until we get our economy together, I don’t think the U.S. can afford social progress.</p>
<p>
Technically speaking, the war is part of a fungible set of expenditures that is indebting our country. Not bankrupt yet, but getting eerily down that road.</p>
<p>What, in your opinion, do you think the Iraq War has achieved, though, towards our security? </p>
<p>Estimates show that the net present value expenditure of the war will be approaching $2 Trillion. What in your mind precisely do we have to show for this investment?</p>
<p>$59.1 trillion. </p>
<p>That’s the estimated national debt when we take unfunded Social Security/Medicaid, etc. promises into account. </p>
<p>Assuming a population of 300 million, that’s $197,000 for every man, woman, and child in the U.S. </p>
<p>I find that alarming. </p>
<p>Far more so than the $2 trillion spent in Iraq.</p>
<p>The Iraq war hasn’t achieved very much. However, as things are right now, we cannot afford to pull out immediately: to do so would cause a vaccuum that would be filled by anti-American organizations. Evidently, this wouldn’t be good for us: after all, we can’t get oil from them and properly manipulate them if they hate our guts (more so than they already do). Not to mention the risk of increased threats to our national security. If nothing else, we need to first insure that a U.S.-friendly and relatively stable government is in place in Iraq before we pull out. </p>
<p>As for Iraq, my position is that we do have to pull out soon. After all, it’s one of those extra little expenses that are making a dire economic situation even worse. However, this can’t be a sudden move: I’d suggest a 2-3 year slow removal of troops, until the goals specified above are achieved.</p>
<p>However, I actually don’t care too much about Iraq at the moment. I feel that too much attention is paid to it while issues like our collapsing economy are being ignored. Just yesterday, during the Obama-Clinton debate, all of 5 minutes were spent on healthcare while close to 30 minutes were spent playing the Iraq blame-game.</p>
<p>I just want the focus to shift inwards, towards fixing the United States. At the moment, we need to stop worrying about the rest of the world, and figure out how to set the economy back on track, reduce the deficit, fix up the Social Security system, get rid of Medicaid and put something more competent in its place, reform the education system, etc. </p>
<p>The Iraq debacle really ought to be the furthest thing from our mind. </p>
<p>$59.1 trillion. </p>
<p>$59,100,000,000,000.</p>
<p>That’s what’s really urgent.</p>
<p>Ketty</p>
<p>Outstanding. Who are you?</p>
<p>I just ordered some O’Bama pins to hand out for St Patrick’s Day</p>
<p>:)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ya, that really mattered in 88 when the dems turned out 2x as many people in the primaries. In case you haven’t noticed the election isn’t decided on a popular vote so it doesn’t matter if dems register xxx number of voters. I’m pretty sure Kerry was all giddy about registering so many new voters as well. A registered vote isn’t a vote. And the whole Iraq thing…it was going even worse in 2004 and the country re-elected Bush. People may want out of Iraq but they want out in a responsible, victorious way. Not a cut and run like Kerry/Obama/Clinton advocate(d). When McCain wins in November just remember that though you think this war is a great injustice the majority of the people in the country think McCain, not Obama, is better suited to handle it…</p>
<p>There’s many more of us who have not given money. I’ve donated time and effort though! </p>
<p>For those of you not registered here, register to vote! Even if you have the money to donate, the best thing you can give is your vote! After all, it IS an election campaign.</p>
<p>People may want out of Iraq but they want out in a responsible, victorious way</p>
<p>Oh like Vietnam?</p>
<p>I think people just want O.U.T.</p>
<p>Bush’s Iraqi adventure will cost America - just America - a conservatively estimated $3 trillion</p>
<p>[So says Joe Stiglitz](<a href=“http://www2.gsb.columbia.edu/faculty/jstiglitz/bio.cfm”>http://www2.gsb.columbia.edu/faculty/jstiglitz/bio.cfm</a>)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If people wanted OUT don’t you think Obama would lead McCain when it came to who could better handle Iraq? Just because you want OUT doens’t mean the collective majority does.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think people do want OUT. But, they also want to leave Iraq stable. That’s where McCain is doing well. People don’t want to live Iraq in a mess though they disapprove of the war itself.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s exactly what I’m saying…</p>
<p>And how long is this ‘stability’ (incredibly vague term) going to take? Even if this was the ‘honorable’ thing to do, we simply don’t have the funds to afford it…maybe if we suck harder on the Chinese economic nipple…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This country CERTAINLY has the funds to afford it. The sky is falling rhetoric needs to stop. The US will never, NEVER, go bankrupt. We’re not going to have a depression caused by the Iraq war. If you think that we’re going to be rampant inflation and be crippled by a war you are borderline insane. This country has been in debt for the majority of its existence and I think that the presidents economic advisors know more then we do. We can afford this war and then some…anybody doubting that, well, I’ll leave that blank up to you.</p>
<p>I’ll also add that all of Obamas “promises” will cost more then the Iraq war.</p>
<p>EDIT: Also, dem congressman McGovern says Iraq war currently costing us 450 billion (as of october 07) No way we went up 2.5 trillion in a few months. Lets try not to take the first figures that pop up on a google search as truth, how about we look at the official costs? [The</a> Iraq money pit - The Boston Globe](<a href=“http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/10/04/the_iraq_money_pit/]The”>http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/10/04/the_iraq_money_pit/)</p>
<p>“So far we have spent $450 billion fighting the war. The president is expected to ask for an additional $150 billion soon. It is reasonable to assume that the cost will approach $800 billion by the time Bush leaves office.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, Ketty, though I vehemently disagree with some of your basic viewpoints about what is urgent now, I do want to applaud you for being honest and having a position that you present sensibly.</p>
<p>WHAT WE’VE GOTTEN FROM INVADING IRAQ</p>
<p>I do think that taking out Saddam Hussein and entering into Iraq has achieved mostly unforeseen outcomes, and when I say unforeseen I don’t mean unforeseen by intelligent people who warned this Administration against very real risks (and some of whom were ridiculed for it); I mean unforeseen by the Administration. </p>
<p>When looked at against the goals that were laid out by the Administration – establishing a pro-Western land of democratic capitalism in the heart of the Arab Middle East, forestalling the Iraqis development of weapons of mass destruction, and thwarting Islamic terrorism in that part of the world – the Iraq War has been nothing short of a wasteful calamity. We are far from seeing an independent, democratic land that will survive on its own well; the risk of development of WMD was far oversold (to put it in its best light; it was in fact an out-and-out lie we now know); and the Iraq cause actually is seen by many to have breathed new life into the Al Qaeda cause. Obama actually said it well over the airwaves today in response to McCain’s saying that Al Qaeda is in Iraq: there wasn’t an Al Qaeda in secular Iraq prior to our invasion. And just as the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan became a cause celebre and rallying to muhajideen (sp?) in Afghanistan, Iraq has served the same purpose in Iraq.</p>
<p>Other accomplishments of our war in Iraq, not all necessarily bad, depending on your view:</p>
<p>1) A country, formerly unified, that has real fault lines, or possibilities of fracture or falling apart along the lines of Kurds, Shia, and Sunnis. In fact, some have argued that civil war has already been proceeding for years there. (Some would argue it’s good to have a weakened Iraq in that part of the world).
2) A country that is giving rise to its own Shi’ite majority, and that will therefore take away a foil to Iran which is a Shi’ite nation. Providing a strong Shi’ite ally to Iran in place of a country that helped thwart Iran’s influence is one of the unsung strategic disasters of this war. We will pay for this mistake for a long, long time.
3) A haven for Turkish Kurdish separatists that want to split off from our ally Turkey. Now whether or not one believes a separate Kurdish nation or confederate state would be a good thing, the fact is our war has made life much more difficult for an ally of ours, one of our most important allies in the Muslim world. We have sponsored the creation of a base of terrorist attack against Turkey. Today, this very day, our Defense Secretary is pleading with Turkey to limit its invasion into Northern Iraq. (Hmm, I wonder what kind of credibility we have in this call for restraint, given the fact that we didn’t heed Turkey’s own reluctance to support our war there.)
4) If Iraq splits apart with us there or not, we are likely to leave that part of the world in disarray. While on balance this would seem a bad thing – perhaps offering purchase for elements that would destabilize surrounding countries and possibly as a launchpad for further 9/11 attacks or worse – some would argue that Arab states in disarray make for a more secure Israel.</p>
<p>WHAT INVADING IRAQ COST US</p>
<p>Now, according to current good estimates based on Congressional Budget Office data, the Iraq War will have cost us close to $500 billion to-date:</p>
<p>[National</a> Priorities Project | Bringing the Federal Budget Home](<a href=“Cost of National Security: Counting How Much the U.S. Spends Per Hour”>Cost of National Security: Counting How Much the U.S. Spends Per Hour)</p>
<p>NOTE: I don’t even go into the question of lives lost. I also don’t go into the debt burden, which would put the cost of Iraq upwards of $3 trillion.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I appreciate that you are honest enough to call the Iraq War a debacle. But I wonder if, when you said this, you thought about the number of American soldiers that continue to die in Iraq. Hey, I know “only” nearly 4,000 of our soldiers have died. But do you really think, given this fact, that the war should be the farthest from our minds. Don’t you think “supporting our troops” and their families and honoring them deserves more consideration than this? </p>
<p>HOW WE WILL GET OUT OF IRAQ</p>
<p>Now you say two very important, and to me contradictory, things. On the one hand, you say we need to leave soon. On the other hand, you say it can’t be too soon or we’ll leave behind an anarchy that will be similar to that that occurred in Afghanistan that gave rise to the Taliban and provided sanctuary for Bin Laden and his schemes.</p>
<p>Too soon means we leave behind disorder. But 2-3 years from now following an orderly withdrawal, you sound certain, could leave Iraq in a good enough way that we wouldn’t have to worry about what followed. </p>
<p>I simply think there is no way to have this optimism about what will follow in Iraq whether we leave a year from now or ten years from now. We will have weakened a country ready to split in three because of its own internal dynamics and in the midst of countries that for each of their own reasons see benefits in the country falling apart - the Turks don’t want a strong Kurdish section in Iraq which they’ll see as likely to support a base against Turkey, the Iranians will see benefit in an Iraq run by the Shia against the Sunnis, and Saudi Arabia will seek to protect the Sunni minority. And Al Qaeda itself will stir things up being on the one hand against the Shia and on the other hand attacking any residual bases we live in Iraq.</p>
<p>If it were as simple as let’s get out in 2-3 years and everything will be pretty much okay, that would be fantastic. There is very little that suggests that would actually happen.</p>
<p>The old adage still pertains: it is much easier to start a war than to end one. The easiest thing to do, in a way, would be to just keep a high level of troops in Iraq as McCain seems to want to do. It would be exceedingly expensive, but since we are using our national credit card to pay for it, the cost isn’t biting us now.</p>
<p>The hard thing will be to actually pull us out when in all likelihood Iraq will unravel. If Obama’s the next president, there will be clear pressure to get us out of Iraq from the vast majority of US citizens who think the war was a bad idea. But as you point out a precipitous pullout could really let slip the dogs of chaos. </p>
<p>But we’ve waited long enough as a country for a better outcome. And the only thing that will force Iraq possibly in the direction of standing a government up on its own two feet is if we actually pull out. It could get ugly. As it will be written in the history books: the fault of this should always lie, IMO, with the idiot who took us there in the first place, not in the people who responded to the vox populi and moved to pull us out. If Obama becomes president, stay tuned for the Republicans who will pull out the stops in suggesting everything had been going great in Iraq until it became Obama’s responsibility. This will happen certainly. I sure LAXAttack and FF would be two on CC leading the charge. :)</p>
<p>In short, you have blithely dismissed, IMO, the real challenge we face as a nation to disentangle ourselves from Iraq. It’s costing us too much to stay and not achieving much of anything.</p>
<p>In the coming 2-3 years (your timeframe for withdrawal), we will get our base cost for the war up to $7-9 hundred billion or $3 trillion or so when debt burden is added in.</p>
<p>Yet, even with the deaths and debt, you think this is unimportant.</p>
<p>THE FACT OF YOUR SO-CALLED CRUSHING URGENT SS, MEDICARE, FOREIGN AID EXPENDITURES</p>
<p>You throw out a figure of $59+ trillion dollar is our financial burden for these entitlements. But you don’t give a timeframe for this burden, and THE TIMEFRAME IS KEY.</p>
<p>Take for instance social security:</p>
<p>According to the non-partisan FactCheck.org, look at the facts of the social security burden for the coming decades:</p>
<p>[FactCheck.org:</a> Does Social Security Really Face an $11 Trillion Deficit?](<a href=“http://www.factcheck.org/article302.html]FactCheck.org:”>http://www.factcheck.org/article302.html)</p>
<p>The fact is that social security will be in shortfall over $10 trillion. This is what the Administration has claimed. But that shortfall will occur <strong><em>OVER 75 YEARS</em></strong>. During this time, we will collect upwards of $275 Trillion in taxes.</p>
<p>Read the whole report.</p>
<p>The same fact pattern pertains in the other cases.</p>
<p>WHAT’S REALLY URGENT</p>
<p>The people who want to end social security, medicare, etc. as we know it are creating a climate of panic about a problem which, although it should in fact be dealt with, is not so pressing a problem.</p>
<p>We don’t owe $59+ Trillion right now.</p>
<p>What we do owe is for ourselves and for the families of our soldiers deployed to pull out of Iraq asap in order to cut our already substantial losses. It won’t be easy. When we’ve solved that issue then we can turn towards trying to put in place a health care system in this country that is higher quality and less costly than the disastrous system (relatively) that we have in place right now.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But as a self-described conservative, surely you believe you should weigh the cost of something against what we get out of it. Since we’ve gotten nothing of real value out of invading Iraq and the return on investment of Obama’s promises would deliver handily, the cost-benefit picture is weighted very heavily in Obama’s favor.</p>
<p>I know, though, that you’re probably disposed to write blank checks for losing causes that were the initiative of your “team” vs. actually expending money that could better the lives of people outside your own, self-described, tiny little world.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>1) as a conservative I do look at cost-benefit. Cost benefit for myself, not for everybody else in this country. I don’t wanna pay for illegals to have healthcare, or countless other people. </p>
<p>2) I think we have acheived things in Iraq. Stating them would be a dead end task, either you think we have or you think we haven’t. </p>
<p>3) I think it’s cool that you can see into the future and tell that the cost-benefit of Obamas plans would “deliver handily.” I wish I had that power.</p>
<p>RealityCheck2, you get an A+ for passion :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yet you are all too willing to point to the $2 trillion Iraq war. That # also includes future and indirect costs. If you’re going to use an argument don’t do it only when it suits the point you’re trying to prove.</p>