What do you mean by you like? Didn't you hear? We're all supposed to conserve energy for The Earth. It's not about what anyone likes, it's about sacrificing our comfort, our prosperity, and our way of life to benefit The Earth. The Earth demands sacrifice!
Now, start listening to your Leaders. They know what choices you should make. They say you should conserve energy. For The Earth. Any choice that uses more energy is Bad. Any choice that uses less is Good. There are no exceptions for productivity and no consideration for humanity. Just use less. Obey.
(The Leaders are exempt and may use all the energy they wish.)
It's not like the government is essentially a very large organization that would benefit from someone overseeing how technology is implemented and deployed within it.
Intelligent and mature people recognise the benefits of investment into public services and infrastructure.
They should pay for it themselves if they think there's a benefit. It doesn't take intelligence to steal $10 and recognize you have $10 more after you've stolen it. Then you benefit when you spend the stolen $10. No intelligence is required, just the willingness to steal.
I'm not sure how libertarians are more productive than anyone else.
No one said they were. I don't see how it matters either way. Socialism steals from the productive people. I can't imagine why it would matter whether productive people are libertarians or not. So there's no way to guess what your point is.
Yep. Those groupings are similar. On one side you have productive people and on the other you have the folks who want to steal from, enslave, and otherwise control the productive people for various reasons -- mostly greed.
It's interesting that you seem to be against "crime and gangs" but you're happy to have the voting majority use the government to gang up on productive people in order to steal (the fruits of) their labor. I don't understand why stealing is OK in this particular case or why you don't just cut out the middle man and go rob a liquor store or burglarize your neighbors' houses when they're out at work.
...which would alienate huge sections of the population.
Huge sections including:
1. People who get government benefits paid for by money taken from taxpayers against their will 2. Would-be dictators who want to make your personal choices for you 3. The power-hungry 4. People who don't receive government benefits but want the result or the personal credit for giving them out (without the personal expense of actually paying for them). 5. Religious folks who think that freedom is bad: this includes some Obama worshipers, environmentalists, utopians, animal-rights believers and some more traditional religious folks. (Not all of these people, just some.) 6. General misanthropes and haters
In other words, libertarianism might win in a population where the people have a better character. But not in the US. We get the government we collectively deserve -- which is sad for many individuals who deserve better.
It's a better story if the ads are censored. So they are. The fact that all the ads still appear in the same places with the same content is just a distraction.
Giveaways to people are not "ongoing projects". Subsidized housing is a good example. If that were cut, some people who don't pay their bills would need to find a roommate to share rent. I don't see the problem. Ditto for a lot of other giveaways. Finding a roommate more or less indirectly solves many of those too. Or -- a much more shocking solution -- women actually getting married to the father of their children and living with him in a home.
The exact death toll from Saddam's reign is unknown but estimates are between 1 and 2 million. If you divide 1.2 million by 24 years, you get 50,000 per year. It's a good thing he's gone.
But even by your count, the number saved stands a good chance of going positive soon. The US didn't kill 100,000 people either. Most were killed by the terrorists and insurgents.
The US did kill a lot of terrorists (the press calls these "civilians" because they don't wear a uniform). I've seen estimates in the 10,000 range. These dead terrorists won't be able to mine a playground or blow a market square or a mosque. The people not blown up count too.
And freedom and democracy and peace and security also have value. And repaired utilities and clean water and satellite TV and a rebuilt oil infrastructure and schools and hospitals too.
Second, last I heard, it was $800+ Billion. Or about 6.7% of the budget over the 5 years of the war. If that's money "we didn't have" then what about the 14 other 6.7% slices of the budget? Why not cut one of those?
As for the 100K lives, how many people did Saddam kill per year on average? If you subtract those, the net death toll should be going negative (as in "positive lives saved by the war") any day now. Maybe it already has. And 100K is a number that's been rounded up and undoubtedly includes dead terrorists. Dead terrorists are a benefit, not a cost.
I don't see how anything in 1953 in a different country with a different situation bears on Saudi Arabia now. Party because you haven't pointed it out. History is long and there were many events. Anyone can draw rough parallels between two of them. It's especially easy when you ignore facts selectively and don't specifically say what you think might happen. Or why. Or what the motives of the players are and how their actions are supposed to advance anyone's goal.
You've basically said: "something" will change "somehow" in Saudi Arabia. It involves oil "somehow". That will lead the US to change our policy toward Saudi Arabia to "some policy". You know this because "something" happened in another country 60 years ago.
Then there's a bunch of off-topic stuff about individuals' lives in Saudi Arabia. How does that pertain to their oil business? How does it pertain to the discussion at all?
If you actually have a point, you should explain it. I don't think you do.
Do you honestly think that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia would be treated the same if they overthrew their monarchy and nationalized their oil industry?
What does that even mean? Why is an oil company owned by a monarchy form of government different than an oil company owned by some other form of government? What's the point?
Saudi Arabia is treated well by the US and the West because they have a policy of friendship and cooperation with us and they don't threaten their neighbors. The Saudi government doesn't support terrorism. They support trade. They have money and resources and their friendship and cooperation are valuable. And they value our friendship and cooperation in return, especially during the first Gulf War.
A different government in Saudi Arabia would be treated well if they had the same policies. If they declared the US an enemy, like Hugo Chavez has, they'd presumably be treated worse. If the government started sponsoring terrorism, they'd be treated worse.
This all seems pretty clear. But the stuff you wrote makes no sense at all.
Your post is a great example of "ideological history". Lots of half-truths, outright falsehoods, misunderstandings of history, and a warped perspective on any events that actually happened. It might make a good propaganda paper.
I never understood why you guys with the fringe belief systems can't even get facts right. Anyone can have a philosophy, but there's only one history.
Nothing is ever worth it if you exaggerate the costs and pretend that you know all the benefits will disappear in the near future. Hindsight about the past coupled with extreme pessimism about the future is not a rational basis for making or evaluating policy.
The American government created the Saddam Hussein regime, gave him the money, gave him those chemical weapons.
What is this an argument for? Or is it just a random opportunistic complaint about America?
(It's something we hear a lot from people who get all shocked and indignant when you suggest they're anti-American or unpatriotic. They actually like America a lot -- that's why they complain about America whenever they find an opening. Everyone complains loudly, consistently, opportunistically, and unfairly -- or at least without balance -- about what they like the most. Don't they?)
Yes Mr. Patriot, Saddam Hussein was an enemy of the US. Also, the sun rises in the East.
You expect people to believe you know the future? Please refer the rest of us to something you wrote two or three years ago where you predicted the specific conditions we see today.
Or stop using "I know the future" as an argument. Because you don't. And it makes the rest of what you say completely baseless.
I'm genuinely interested in what you think the certain outcome is?
The complete defeat of AQI and effective Iraqi government control of the entire country with relative peace. "Relative peace", in this case means a per capita death toll somewhere around the murder rate of Chicago (or maybe a little higher). That's the near-term outcome if the current policy is continued. Long term outcomes are always less certain.
I predicted no future outcomes. There are no certain futures. You, on the other hand, predicted a specific future outcome. You seemed pretty sure of it.
Maybe you should tell me the lottery numbers. Or just stop arguing both sides of "we know the future".
There are many possible futures. Before the war started, there were fewer and all of them were bad. Now only some of them are bad. That's what it's like to have a chance.
That all sounds fair enough except for one thing... what did we actually "win"?
We won a chance at a better future with a democratic Iraq leading the Persian Gulf area away from tyranny and dictatorship. Just a chance.
We also won the end of Saddam Hussein and his family. They were US enemies and enemies of our allies in the area. They sponsored terrorism and harbored terrorists like Abu Nidal. They violated the cease-fire agreement in the last Gulf War. They were evil. And they had nuclear and chemical weapons programs and a history of using the later (even if their actual inventory of completed, operational weapons was low).
Also, there were economic sanctions against Iraq that would not be lifted until Saddam was gone. They were bad for the Iraqi people, but they were OK for Saddam because he cheated on them and used the cash to corrupt government officials in Europe to be his agents.
We have forward bases on either side of Iran now. Iran is the world's #1 terrorist state and they're militarily contained until they finish their nuclear missles.
Also, our resolve showed the Libyan regime that they couldn't get away with having a nuclear weapons programs. Libya took some steps forward when they gave up on terrorism and their nuclear program.
The US is not leaving to prove that Iraq isn't another Vietnam.
No. The US didn't leave because the war would have been lost if we had left. If we had left, there was no chance of any favorable outcome. But there was a high probability of a fierce civil war with perhaps millions dead and a widening conflict that brought Iran and Turkey into it.
The people who wanted to leave didn't care about that though: millions more dead, a wider war, no chance of an ongoing democracy, a loss for America, and a future where US allies could be certain that the US would abandon them as soon as anything went wrong. And any regime around the world could feel confident about invading a neighboring country, knowing that the US would stay out of it or run away after a few casualties and some bad PR.
It can be argued that things are only 99% (or 90% or 80% or some other large percentage) done and it's too early to say we have won. But under the current policy, it's only a question of time. We either won now, or a month ago, or a year ago or 2 months in the future. The outcome is not really in doubt.
We won because we stayed and fought instead of leaving in the middle of the conflict.
Towns and cities are located and populated naturally. Towns are near a river or a port or an important crossroads. Or they grew up from nothing over the course of many decades. The people that live there settled there for natural reasons, usually related to jobs and opportunity.
Towns can be created artificially. Almost every attempt to do it is a failure though. Success usually takes HUGE amounts of money and some other factor to draw people to the location. This one claims to have the money, but they probably don't have enough. And it seems to lack any other incentive to draw folks there.
Slashdot Mirror
What do you mean by you like? Didn't you hear? We're all supposed to conserve energy for The Earth. It's not about what anyone likes, it's about sacrificing our comfort, our prosperity, and our way of life to benefit The Earth. The Earth demands sacrifice!
Now, start listening to your Leaders. They know what choices you should make. They say you should conserve energy. For The Earth. Any choice that uses more energy is Bad. Any choice that uses less is Good. There are no exceptions for productivity and no consideration for humanity. Just use less. Obey.
(The Leaders are exempt and may use all the energy they wish.)
It's not like the government is essentially a very large organization that would benefit from someone overseeing how technology is implemented and deployed within it.
Shrink it then.
We don't need a national CTO. We can make our own technology decisions without the government telling us what to do.
Intelligent and mature people recognise the benefits of investment into public services and infrastructure.
They should pay for it themselves if they think there's a benefit. It doesn't take intelligence to steal $10 and recognize you have $10 more after you've stolen it. Then you benefit when you spend the stolen $10. No intelligence is required, just the willingness to steal.
I'm not sure how libertarians are more productive than anyone else.
No one said they were. I don't see how it matters either way. Socialism steals from the productive people. I can't imagine why it would matter whether productive people are libertarians or not. So there's no way to guess what your point is.
Yep. Those groupings are similar. On one side you have productive people and on the other you have the folks who want to steal from, enslave, and otherwise control the productive people for various reasons -- mostly greed.
It's interesting that you seem to be against "crime and gangs" but you're happy to have the voting majority use the government to gang up on productive people in order to steal (the fruits of) their labor. I don't understand why stealing is OK in this particular case or why you don't just cut out the middle man and go rob a liquor store or burglarize your neighbors' houses when they're out at work.
...which would alienate huge sections of the population.
Huge sections including:
1. People who get government benefits paid for by money taken from taxpayers against their will
2. Would-be dictators who want to make your personal choices for you
3. The power-hungry
4. People who don't receive government benefits but want the result or the personal credit for giving them out (without the personal expense of actually paying for them).
5. Religious folks who think that freedom is bad: this includes some Obama worshipers, environmentalists, utopians, animal-rights believers and some more traditional religious folks. (Not all of these people, just some.)
6. General misanthropes and haters
In other words, libertarianism might win in a population where the people have a better character. But not in the US. We get the government we collectively deserve -- which is sad for many individuals who deserve better.
First they came for the imaginary children, and I didn't speak up because I'm not imaginary...
You don't understand journalism at all do you?
It's a better story if the ads are censored. So they are. The fact that all the ads still appear in the same places with the same content is just a distraction.
Giveaways to people are not "ongoing projects". Subsidized housing is a good example. If that were cut, some people who don't pay their bills would need to find a roommate to share rent. I don't see the problem. Ditto for a lot of other giveaways. Finding a roommate more or less indirectly solves many of those too. Or -- a much more shocking solution -- women actually getting married to the father of their children and living with him in a home.
The exact death toll from Saddam's reign is unknown but estimates are between 1 and 2 million. If you divide 1.2 million by 24 years, you get 50,000 per year. It's a good thing he's gone.
But even by your count, the number saved stands a good chance of going positive soon. The US didn't kill 100,000 people either. Most were killed by the terrorists and insurgents.
The US did kill a lot of terrorists (the press calls these "civilians" because they don't wear a uniform). I've seen estimates in the 10,000 range. These dead terrorists won't be able to mine a playground or blow a market square or a mosque. The people not blown up count too.
And freedom and democracy and peace and security also have value. And repaired utilities and clean water and satellite TV and a rebuilt oil infrastructure and schools and hospitals too.
First of all, I said "if".
Second, last I heard, it was $800+ Billion. Or about 6.7% of the budget over the 5 years of the war. If that's money "we didn't have" then what about the 14 other 6.7% slices of the budget? Why not cut one of those?
As for the 100K lives, how many people did Saddam kill per year on average? If you subtract those, the net death toll should be going negative (as in "positive lives saved by the war") any day now. Maybe it already has. And 100K is a number that's been rounded up and undoubtedly includes dead terrorists. Dead terrorists are a benefit, not a cost.
I don't see how anything in 1953 in a different country with a different situation bears on Saudi Arabia now. Party because you haven't pointed it out. History is long and there were many events. Anyone can draw rough parallels between two of them. It's especially easy when you ignore facts selectively and don't specifically say what you think might happen. Or why. Or what the motives of the players are and how their actions are supposed to advance anyone's goal.
You've basically said: "something" will change "somehow" in Saudi Arabia. It involves oil "somehow". That will lead the US to change our policy toward Saudi Arabia to "some policy". You know this because "something" happened in another country 60 years ago.
Then there's a bunch of off-topic stuff about individuals' lives in Saudi Arabia. How does that pertain to their oil business? How does it pertain to the discussion at all?
If you actually have a point, you should explain it. I don't think you do.
Just to pick one:
Do you honestly think that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia would be treated the same if they overthrew their monarchy and nationalized their oil industry?
What does that even mean? Why is an oil company owned by a monarchy form of government different than an oil company owned by some other form of government? What's the point?
Saudi Arabia is treated well by the US and the West because they have a policy of friendship and cooperation with us and they don't threaten their neighbors. The Saudi government doesn't support terrorism. They support trade. They have money and resources and their friendship and cooperation are valuable. And they value our friendship and cooperation in return, especially during the first Gulf War.
A different government in Saudi Arabia would be treated well if they had the same policies. If they declared the US an enemy, like Hugo Chavez has, they'd presumably be treated worse. If the government started sponsoring terrorism, they'd be treated worse.
This all seems pretty clear. But the stuff you wrote makes no sense at all.
Your post is a great example of "ideological history". Lots of half-truths, outright falsehoods, misunderstandings of history, and a warped perspective on any events that actually happened. It might make a good propaganda paper.
I never understood why you guys with the fringe belief systems can't even get facts right. Anyone can have a philosophy, but there's only one history.
Nothing is ever worth it if you exaggerate the costs and pretend that you know all the benefits will disappear in the near future. Hindsight about the past coupled with extreme pessimism about the future is not a rational basis for making or evaluating policy.
Now you're arguing against your imagination and ridiculing statements made by no one.
The American government created the Saddam Hussein regime, gave him the money, gave him those chemical weapons.
What is this an argument for? Or is it just a random opportunistic complaint about America?
(It's something we hear a lot from people who get all shocked and indignant when you suggest they're anti-American or unpatriotic. They actually like America a lot -- that's why they complain about America whenever they find an opening. Everyone complains loudly, consistently, opportunistically, and unfairly -- or at least without balance -- about what they like the most. Don't they?)
Yes Mr. Patriot, Saddam Hussein was an enemy of the US. Also, the sun rises in the East.
That's going to happen anyway.
You expect people to believe you know the future? Please refer the rest of us to something you wrote two or three years ago where you predicted the specific conditions we see today.
Or stop using "I know the future" as an argument. Because you don't. And it makes the rest of what you say completely baseless.
I'm genuinely interested in what you think the certain outcome is?
The complete defeat of AQI and effective Iraqi government control of the entire country with relative peace. "Relative peace", in this case means a per capita death toll somewhere around the murder rate of Chicago (or maybe a little higher). That's the near-term outcome if the current policy is continued. Long term outcomes are always less certain.
I predicted no future outcomes. There are no certain futures. You, on the other hand, predicted a specific future outcome. You seemed pretty sure of it.
Maybe you should tell me the lottery numbers. Or just stop arguing both sides of "we know the future".
There are many possible futures. Before the war started, there were fewer and all of them were bad. Now only some of them are bad. That's what it's like to have a chance.
That all sounds fair enough except for one thing... what did we actually "win"?
We won a chance at a better future with a democratic Iraq leading the Persian Gulf area away from tyranny and dictatorship. Just a chance.
We also won the end of Saddam Hussein and his family. They were US enemies and enemies of our allies in the area. They sponsored terrorism and harbored terrorists like Abu Nidal. They violated the cease-fire agreement in the last Gulf War. They were evil. And they had nuclear and chemical weapons programs and a history of using the later (even if their actual inventory of completed, operational weapons was low).
Also, there were economic sanctions against Iraq that would not be lifted until Saddam was gone. They were bad for the Iraqi people, but they were OK for Saddam because he cheated on them and used the cash to corrupt government officials in Europe to be his agents.
We have forward bases on either side of Iran now. Iran is the world's #1 terrorist state and they're militarily contained until they finish their nuclear missles.
Also, our resolve showed the Libyan regime that they couldn't get away with having a nuclear weapons programs. Libya took some steps forward when they gave up on terrorism and their nuclear program.
And there's more but I have to go.
The US is not leaving to prove that Iraq isn't another Vietnam.
No. The US didn't leave because the war would have been lost if we had left. If we had left, there was no chance of any favorable outcome. But there was a high probability of a fierce civil war with perhaps millions dead and a widening conflict that brought Iran and Turkey into it.
The people who wanted to leave didn't care about that though: millions more dead, a wider war, no chance of an ongoing democracy, a loss for America, and a future where US allies could be certain that the US would abandon them as soon as anything went wrong. And any regime around the world could feel confident about invading a neighboring country, knowing that the US would stay out of it or run away after a few casualties and some bad PR.
Yes, we won.
It can be argued that things are only 99% (or 90% or 80% or some other large percentage) done and it's too early to say we have won. But under the current policy, it's only a question of time. We either won now, or a month ago, or a year ago or 2 months in the future. The outcome is not really in doubt.
We won because we stayed and fought instead of leaving in the middle of the conflict.
Towns and cities are located and populated naturally. Towns are near a river or a port or an important crossroads. Or they grew up from nothing over the course of many decades. The people that live there settled there for natural reasons, usually related to jobs and opportunity.
Towns can be created artificially. Almost every attempt to do it is a failure though. Success usually takes HUGE amounts of money and some other factor to draw people to the location. This one claims to have the money, but they probably don't have enough. And it seems to lack any other incentive to draw folks there.