<p>“And I do understand margin of error and prefer to be on the plus side of it than the negative.”</p>
<p>Not to pick on you Barron, but if the reported difference is within the margin of error, there is no statistical difference.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>We’ll collect a helluva lot more of Obama is elected :rolleyes:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, if you read what I wrote, you’ll see I called out the to-date expenditure figure. Furthermore, there’s a vast difference between a projected shortfall in the future vs. debt on the books today. Clearly, as a conservative you must understand the difference. A debt must be paid off; it’s money owned. A projected shortfall can be avoided through action taken to foreclose it.</p>
<p>I see, though, since you didn’t mention anything about the nearly 4,000 Americans that have been killed in this war that you are sticking with your self-described principle of only caring about yourself and those close to you. Congratulations on seeing the big picture.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Did you read your own article? Billions of dollars are added to the total for costs such oil prices. We don’t know how much oil would or wouldn’t have gone up because of the war. Hell I could say the Iraq war saved us trillions because it prevented a nuclear attack that would have launched us into another world war! Hey, it COULD have happened! </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Apparently you forgot the 3,000 that were killed on one day when we sat back and let terrorists do what they wanted. You also seem to have no problem with throwing 4,000 lives away and gaining nothing rather then making sure the job is done right and making those losses mean something. Congratulations on seeing the big picture.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What are you saying here? We also don’t know whether aliens might have attacked the planet had we not invaded Iraq. Knowledgeable observers suggest consistently that invading Iraq has made oil more, not less, expensive. I think you’re dreaming about some putative future that hasn’t come to exist yet. It might come around the time the aliens invade.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s the best you can do – to suggest that being against the Iraq War is tantamount to adopting a passive approach to terrorism? Go back and read the section on what invading Iraq did for Al Qaeda. Better yet research the issue offline.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh c’mon, Mr. I am Prudential Conservative: you know the principle of not throwing good money after bad. This principle can apply to lives too. So because so far throwing away the lives of 4,000 people hasn’t gotten us to where we were told in advance by the war planners and executors we would be, we should move forward and throw away 4,000 more? Don’t you know the principle of sunk costs? Or two wrongs don’t make a right?</p>
<p>If someone told you to invest $10 to get back $15 after a year and they returned $0, as a prudent conservative, wouldn’t you doubt them if they came back for more money the next year?</p>
<p>And what if someone told you to invest $500 billion and 4,000 lives in obtaining a) a democratic capitalist stable Iraq b) forestalling the possibility of WMD development and c) foreclosing on expansion of terrorism – and they returned little or none of this? You’re going to blithely toss in another 4,000 of the lives of your countrymen? Oh wait, that’s right, you don’t care about anybody but yourself and a few people close to you. Sorry, I forgot; that’s what you call conservatism. Funny: as someone who has great respect for some strains of conservatism, I thought it offered more than this.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Many argue that Saddam was a threat to the US in the future. He deff hated the US and taking him out may have been the right thing. Hell who knows what he would have done in 10 years. I’m saying we should look at the facts: 500B spent in iraq, not 2 trillion. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Subsitute Afghanistan for Iraq and you would have the argument used by libs had we invaded afghanistan in 1998. </p>
<p>Sunk costs? Had we given up after DDay it would have been sunk costs as well. Had someone told me we could drop 500b and 4k lives for a democratic and stable iraq I would say yes in a second. That’s a small price to pay for a stable, safe government in a region where we desperately need it. It’s not there yet, but we’re deff on the right track after the surge. </p>
<p>What strikes me as ironic is that democrats need Iraq to go bad for them to fare well this election. How does that sit with you, knowing that as things go better in Iraq things become bleaker for the democratic party. Whereas as things go BETTER in Iraq it helps the republicans. No wonder the democratic party is often seen as less patriotic then that of the republican</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh, now you’re getting really insulting.</p>
<p>What I see in the Republican Party is a blithe willingness to throw away the lives of plain folk (soldiers) in pursuit of maintaining an image and fiction that a manifest failure of a war is actually achieving something useful. </p>
<p>I wouldn’t say that the true patriots are the ones who want to let the brunts bear the cost of their self-serving propaganda.</p>
<p>I can really see how Republicans are viewed as selfish, uncaring chickenhawks who couldn’t give a s*** about the average American.</p>
<p>The surge has achieved an ephemeral security. The fact is if we wanted to get closer to success – which I think was always going to be elusive for such a stupidly conceived war – we should have sent the extra troops in at the beginning not several years into the war.</p>
<p>Again, I go back to the original planners and executors of this war: they said it would go much better than it has. They are Republicans. And now that we are calling them on it and telling them they should stop wasting lives, we are the anti-patriots. Wow, and black is white.</p>
<p>You do realize you’re making the same argument that would have been made if we invaded Afghanistan in the mid 90’s dont you? People would have said hey, it poses no threat. Why are we throwing away lives for nothing. Well, truth be told, it very well may have prevented 9/11. Everyone, on both sides of the aisle, agrees that Saddam Hussein had an extreme hatred for the United States. Furthermore he had proven, on numerous occasions, his willingness and intent to harm America and American interests. Yet somehow getting rid of him was a bad thing. </p>
<p>You’re right, the administration did say this war would be much better than it has been. And they were wrong. The democrats also didn’t want a surge, said it would be a disaster, and they are wrong. We can’t erase the past, only shape the future. So far the surge has been working and I’d prefer we see this thing through to the end rather then cutting and running and elminating all the progress we have made since the surge.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, I am not making the same argument. My argument is directed to the situation at hand. Nothing more. Sorry: you are really reaching here. I painted you into a corner, apparently, and this is your effort to distract by imputing to me some ill-fitting analogy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Progress toward what? We’ve – or rather the Administration – has already given up on the objectives they stated for the war. Long ago. Now all the surge is doing is holding up a fig leaf over this fact of massive failure to reach these objectives. Iraq isn’t close to what the war planners promised for it. The concept of not throwing good lives after bad is based on the reality that the future that we shape is shaped within the limitations of the possibilities allowed by past moves and current realities. Please don’t tell me it’s all about dreams – and believing in the same planners and decision makers (and liars) that got us into this mess to begin with. That’s just daffy and crazy and flaky. That’s from a different planet.</p>
<p>I’m done here. I think I won. (And I am sure you think something else). At this point, it’s too late for me to care.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Way to dodge the question. That’s the exact same argument that you’d be making. Pre-emptive war! Oh no! What good could possibly come from this!?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, lowered casualties, less attacks on civilians, Iraqi’s returning to major cities, political opponents coming together, al-q on the run, and the iraqi government taking over more tasks successfuly is no progress at all! Not if you’re a democrat…that might mean the surge is working! Woudln’t want that! Would mean the republicans did somethign right (on no!)!</p>
<p>so lax- let me guess, not a history major?</p>
<p>[PBS</a> Discussions :: View topic - NEOCON, THY NAME IS TRAITOR!](<a href=“http://discussions.pbs.org/viewtopic.pbs?t=28382]PBS”>http://discussions.pbs.org/viewtopic.pbs?t=28382)
[DIVERSITY</a> WATCH - Ryerson University School of Journalism](<a href=“http://www.diversitywatch.ryerson.ca/backgrounds/afghanistan.htm]DIVERSITY”>http://www.diversitywatch.ryerson.ca/backgrounds/afghanistan.htm)</p>
<p>Ummm…care to explain your point or can we simply post links and assume people can read our minds?</p>
<p>Or maybe you expected me to take the quote from Chomsky seriously? Yes, lets quote Chomsky…that makes you sound <em>real</em> smart. While we’re at it maybe we can quote Jane Fonda? How about I respond back with Bill O’Reilly and Bill Kristol?</p>
<p>Or maybe you expected me to think 300 cruise missles constituted a war in afghanistan? Too bad Clinton didn’t take Afghanistan seriously and started a pre-emptive war. Would have saved many lives. Unfortunately the outcry from Americans like you against an “unjust war” probably wouldn’t have sustained it too long. Good thing cuz nothing good would have come from a war in Afghanistan in the mid 90’s.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Okay, I bit. One more post: Uh, you were the one who rather lamely changed the subject to something distracting and separate. I am dodging a debate over a distracting change of subject. YOU, not me, are the not-so-artful dodger.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Tape loop. See above posts. I take no joy in the fact of our failure in Iraq, but I suggest you not take false consolation in a surge that isn’t moving us toward any useful objective for this war that was laid out in advance of our invasion. And for those who pay attention to Iraq, they know that the Iraqis are not standing up in large part because through the surge we are not standing down. Hell, we aren’t even accomplishing the goals of the surge – to see political progress among the Iraqis that is afforded by a temporary calm provided by the surge. All we are doing is providing the Iraqis with a crutch and a bunch of deferred deadlines. As a conservative, surely you understand how it equates to the bad incentives afforded by a system of welfare.</p>
<p>C’mon: everything in this situation: failed nation-building and everything else is antithetical to your own principles.</p>
<p>I think you just can’t face the fact that you’ve been wrong all this time.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So the surge isn’t working towards a more stable Iraqi government? Wow, you’re the only person that thinks then. Hell even Obama/Clinton concede the surge is working. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ummm actually we are acheiving political progress. Sunni + Shiite have come together in the govt. The Iraqi legislature just passed it’s budget allocating revenue to numerous agencies. They have also passed laws on provisional powers iwthin the country and laws dealing with detained Iraqi’s…something where Sunni + Shiite came together. Maybe you should get your headlines from sources other than cable news. I think you can’t face the fact that things in Iraq are going much better after the surge because it hurts your party. McCain was right about the surge but you can’t admit it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The crux of the issue. Too bad there’s a healthy contingent of the population that thinks as you do - if we were all a bit more compassionate, this world would be a better place.</p>
<p>Even as a libertarian, I don’t oppose paternalistic government regulation and income distribution on such selfish grounds - I think we do have the responsibility to aid our poor, and ensure that every person gets the respect they deserve. I’m just not convinced that the government is the best actor to achieve this outcome. It saddens me that there are so many people as selfish as you out there.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I should be allowed to be compassionate towards issues I wish. The government shouldn’t decide to do this for me. I’ve spent over 200 hundred hours in habitat for humanity and every year my family has sponsored another family during xmas, providing them with presents. That being said I care about myself and those close to me first…after that I get to decide when/where to help, not some group of people I’ve never met in Washington. Healthcare just happens to be one issue where I don’t want my $$ going to other people. It’s not impossible to get healthcare yourself. Sure, it’s harder for some than others, but it’s deff possible if you want it bad enough.</p>
<p>Everyone, when asked, will say that they give as generously as they are able of time and money to various causes. When examined statistically, using a reasonable threshold of income (and adding a valuation for time volunteered), very, very few actually give anywhere close to what they maybe “should”. Almost none below the extremely wealthy philanthropic class give very much at all, frankly.</p>
<p>Not accusing you in particular of being miserly - it’s an aggregate thing. The simple fact is, if we want a society that has widespread social programs to help the unfortunate, etc., they must be provided by the government because except in niches they can be funded and delivered no other way.</p>
<p>My gripe with redistribution and large government programs isn’t “it’s not their right!” or any such crap. I happen to think there are more efficient ways to do it, but I’m not at all opposed to the government ensuring that there is a certain societally optimal level of contribution from each person to the public welfare.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And though I might not like it I don’t wholly disagree with this. I believe social programs, to some extent, are needed. What I don’t agree with is forking over trillions of dollars for certain social programs that, with effort by the general population, are already available to the large majority.</p>
<p>I’m all in favor of ending government redistribution programs, since most of them flow upwards. That’s what corporate socialism is all about. </p>
<p>Hillary and Obama’s health care plans but several extra TRILLION dollars into the hands of private health insurers and their lobbyists. They are licking their chops.</p>
<p>shame you have made cc about politics. college students, and i am one, are should not even be allowed to vote. i have few friends that even know what the issues are or where the candidates stand. and as for change, what exactly is being changed and how. and the money comes from ?
they all leave me cold and most of us are pretending to be adults and have no clue.</p>