No, that's not what the report said. The "1.7 trillion" is basically an attempt at generating more fear and outrage by combining every conceivable way that the war may have impacted the economy, such as increase in oil cost, disability payouts, future maintenance costs, "loss" of income by national guardsmen, etc, etc. I'm sure they probably threw the cost of global warming increase in there somewhere too, along with the cost for counselling hippies who have been traumatized by excessive exposure to the evil Bushitler.
Add to that the fact that no one's bothered subtracting from that the positive results of the war (increased level of preparedness for the military, basic operating costs which would have been spent anyway, not having to continue imposing sanctions on Iraq, etc, etc) and you invariably come to the conclusion that the figures put forward are utterly meaningless, and meant only to appeal to the simple-minded and those who already oppose the war.
And, of course, the true value of a war cannot be measured in monetary figures anyway.
Since when is the number of lives lost the sole measure of a military defeat?
This would be a valid point...IF you could show that the US military failed in some other way. Unfortunately, you only follow it up with this:
But with specific regards to Iraq, this is going to be one of the most expensive wars we ever fought in, certainly in treasure if not in lives. It has ruined our international standing, alienated allies, inflamed arab anger against us, and even more importantly, it's made our military look incompetent.
Half of which is flat out wrong, and all of which is irrelevant when it comes to whether or not the US has gotten "a serious ass kicking" in Iraq.
Now, I especially took exception to that last bit about the war making the US military look inept. I was even going to take the time to explain to you that your flawed perceptions are not what military analysts, intelligence officers, and political leaders see when they look at the Iraq war. But then you followed it up with the following:
The IDF was one of the most feared fighting forces on the planet and yet they got their asses handed to them by Hezbollah.
Which tells me that you're truly living in a world of your own. You've invented some deranged reality where western nations are always the losers regardless of how few casualties they take, how many enemy they kill, or how many objectives they accomplish, and nothing that I or anyone else says to you will change your mind. Which is fine. You're certainly not in a position to make policy, nor are you employed in any sort of intelligence-related field, so your views on the war are quite irrelevant, and are certainly not worth wasting my time debating.
If you want some historical perspective, go read up on the Soviet invasion and occupation of Afghanistan.
No, Michael, "times" have not "moved on". Only your own personal perceptions have changed, and this is due to two reasons:
1) You find it politically convenient to be able to state that the US is getting it's ass kicked. Those opposed to a certain group or action will always find a way to criticize it, and will see it's defeat in every minor stumble.
2) The US has gotten so goddamn GOOD at kicking ass that nobody is able to do much damage to them any more. It's as if a martial arts pro had gotten so good at kicking the shit out of his opponents that he now gets criticized every time he's a little too slow with a block or a punch.
It has nothing to do with "the times", Michael, and everything to do with the wilful ignorance of individuals who want to see the failure of US foreign policy.
It's going to take a serious kicking of our collective asses to force the Pentagon to reevaluate our military and put together something that's realistic and sane. But I'm not sure how big of an ass-kicking it'll take. We're getting a good one in Iraq and the lessons don't seem to be sinking in.
That's a joke, right? The entire death toll in Iraq is less than the number of allied lives lost on any one day of major offencive ops in WW2. You lost 3 times as many soldier in one year of operations in Vietnam as you did in 4 years of ops in Iraq. Even Korea cost you 30,000+. I'm not sure where you get the idea that Iraq has given you "a good ass kicking", but you couldn't be more silly if you tried.
Was there a point to that rant? Other than to explain that in 1987 a brand new defencive system didn't quite function up to spec?
You were in the navy, so you know what it's like. I can appreciate that soldiers and sailors alike spend most of their free time bitching about the food, the equipment, their superiors, and the system, but anyone who's made it past basic training should realize that this is the nature of any large organization, and ESPECIALLY one that's constantly changing and adapting to meet new threats.
1) It's friggin COLD! 2) You think your taxes are high? Don't ask about ours! 3) Traffic in Toronto is worse than New York. 4) Our military is so small, we have to pick fights with Denmark. 5) You can't go to a concert without getting high from second-hand smoke. 6) Yanks debate about pulling out of Iraq, we debate about pulling out of Afghanistan. 7) Anyone who's seen our last prime minister know that the parent post was lying about the intelligence of our leaders. 8) The same prime minister managed to hold office for 12 years. No term limits is NOT a good thing! 9) After a while it gets REALLY annoying to have every American you meet ask you "y'all got electricity up there?"
That seems to be a common misconception. Even assuming the US was interested in using economic pressure to get us to maintain our current laws (something that there's no actual evidence of, only idle speculation), how much could they really do to us? They need to import our natural resources just as much, if not more, than we need to sell them. Right now they get the majority of their oil from us, never mind the lumber, natural gas, etc. So they want to hike import fees on lumber? Fine, we'll hike export taxes on oil. There's really not much they could do economically that we couldn't counter at this point.
See, our pot-smoking hippies can't fathom the idea that maybe our own government may have reasons for keeping weed illegal, so they bitch and whine about the yanks. That's how these silly ours get started.
It's more or less the same in Canada - you're unlikely to get a ticket for anything less than 15-20 km/h over the limit. And if by some miracle you get a ticket for anything less than 16 over, they don't even take any points off your licence, it's only a fine. I think what people are complaining is that limits are set too low to begin with - if your highway limit is 150, and you get pulled over for doing 10 over, that's still better than having a limit of 100 but getting away with doing 20 over.
Thanks for the well thought out response, it's a rarity around here.
I'll answer your questions quickly:
The bit about tinfoil-hatters and ts supporting Ron Paul? Take a look at any message board where 9/11 "truthers" gather, or have a listen to one of the Alex Jones "shows". You seem to be unaware of it, but amongst the mentally unbalanced, Ron Paul is practically a rock star.
The part about Roe vs Wade was adequately answered by another commenter. I believe he said it "shouldn't be a based on where you were born", which is exactly right. I'm sure you wouldn't be a fan of making , , or child abuse legal in certain states either. I'm not even sure where I personally stand on the issue of abortion, but I do know that whether you make it legal or illegal is not a decision to be made by individual states. It's a human rights issue, and as such should be universal, or at least federal:)
And as for the bit about having my own "like minded state", that's the last thing I want. Diversity breeds challenge and adversity. They in turn make life interesting and lead to new discoveries and developments. Diversity encourages constant change, and it is without a doubt a huge advantage that western nations have over more isolationist countries. It's also perhaps the best reason I can think of for NOT allowing states to become miniature nations - such a system would encourage further isolation and alienation amongst political, ural, and even religious lines. You think Texans New Yorkers now, just wait until they've been practically autonomous for a few decades. Do you really want to Balcanize the US?
Don't get me wrong, I deffinitely believe in limited government, and I think many other western nations (UK and Canada for instance) have gone too far in the opposite direction. But it's a very fine line.
Ah, yes, you're going to improve things by voting for a lunatic who wants to repeal Roe vs Wade, and move US currency back to the gold standard. Right.
There's a reason why all the conspiracy theorists and ultra-right fascist support him, and it aint because of his cute smile. You'd get better results by voting for Denis "CIA-mind-control-satellites" Kucinich.
And let's not pretend that Paul has any chance in hell of winning. He's polling at what, 4% now? Hell, even Bush could raise more support than that!
In summation: you're nuts. Although, on the bright side, I'd rather have you throwing away your vote on Ron Paul than actually affecting the US political system.
China, Russia, North Korea, Iran....who knows where the next conflict will arise? And who cares. If the crime rate in my city goes down, we don't respond to it by firing half the police force, or by turning them into meter-maids. If you want peace, prepare for war.
Gotcha. You're right, I'm not very tactful. I blame that on the 9 years I spent working for the military as a..... professional in the field of applied ballistics and crisis management. Not much call for tact there. However, I'm working on becoming more touchy-feely and politically correct, so bear with me:)
I understand your point too, and you're right in that self-destructive behaviour may be of some limited, temporary use, however I've seen it end badly much too often. To re-use my earlier analogy - morphine, if used properly, can help to relieve a patients pain and suffering, and even help speed healing to an extent. However, too much of it will lead the same person to become an addict, creating a whole host of new problems for him to deal with.
Under my rules you'd be locked up? Well, ok, maybe for being criminally stupid and attempting to libel me, sure. Definitely not for being a freak, though. As far as I'm concerned, you're more than welcome to abuse yourself as much as you want. Just don't surb-stomp any puppies, and we're golden.
It's a very easy thing to say when you've never been through that type of thing.
Why is it that every fucking emo kid answers the same way? Listen, just because I don't believe in acting like a depressed nimrod 24/7 doesn't mean I haven't had my share of bad experiences. Until you've seen an 18 year old kid screaming his head off with his intestines lying on the ground beside him, and then had to try and keep him alive, you aint seen "traumatizing", brother.
Your "inject some heroin" metaphor sucks, by the way. You think people express self-destructive emotions because it makes them feel good?
Absolutely.
Why do some freaks cut themselves? Burn themselves? Because they enjoy the pain. They enjoy the endorphin rush. Why do some people get hundreds of piercings? Why do many people engage in meaningless, unsafe, random sex? Why do some men pay dominatrices hundreds of dollars to abuse them?
All of those are examples of behaviours which satisfy a temporary need, and provide temporary pleasure, but are self-destructive and often harmful in the long run. If you don't realize that, that's too bad. The first step to fixing your problems is learning to acknowledge them.
Ah yes. But wait, you forgot to tie your theory to the Illuminati, and the Bohemian Grove!
I don't really care what side of the political spectrum you place yourself on. Left, center, up or down, it doesn't matter. What REALLY annoys me is extremist idiots on any one of those sides. It's amusing that the only thing that both the far right and the far left agree on is that the Government is out to enslave the American people, and destroy the nation. When they start raving about that topic, the only way to tell them apart is by their hair styles, and whether they're wearing a Christian pendant or a Che Guevera t-shirt.
Maybe I wind up a better person after writing it, maybe not -- all I can say is I never do a cost benefit analysis before choosing to write something.
Maybe you should? Or better yet, maybe you should try figuring out what drives you to do it in the first place. As long as you're only harming yourself, I don't really care what you do, but I'd still prefer to have you NOT harming yourself.
And it's a little condescending to tell someone not to "brood" on their experiences or "descend into a fantasy world" just because they admit to writing things you might not find comfortable to read.
I suppose it's also a bit condescending to say to a guy standing on a ledge "don't do it, you have plenty to live for". What would you say instead, in order to avoid sounding condescending? "jump you stupid bastard"?
You should read some of the other comments in response to the parent post. In short, just because something feels good, doesn't mean it's going to have a positive effect on your life, or that it's in any way beneficial. If I have a headache, I can inject some heroin and it'll go away and I'll feel real nice, but the that temporary relief isn't worth the long-term results. And while I certainly wish you hadn't had to go through such a horrible experience, I can say for a fact that life is FULL of traumatizing and life-altering experiences, and that brooding on them and letting yourself descend into a fantasy world of "dark and violent stuff" isn't going to help your situation any.
I know you were being sarcastic (the giant SARCASM tags were a dead giveaway), but that's actually a valid argument. If the democrats believe even half of the accusations they're constantly bandying about, they absolutely SHOULD refuse to compromise. Certainly if I believed that the Prime Minister of my country had gotten us into a war with the sole purpose of enriching himself and his "oil buddies", and that we had no way in hell of ever seeing a positive result from that war, I would INSIST that my representatives do everything in their power to immediately end that war and bring those responsible to justice, up to and including refusing to discuss all other issues until that one is resolved.
The problem seems to be that even the Democrats don't really believe all of the things which they've accused the Bush administration of. Either that or they really ARE "spineless".
They tried, but it turns out that "because EaglemanBSA is angry" isn't a good enough legal reason to impeach someone.
The problem is, even though it's a Democrat congress, and even though they got voted in largely due to the efforts of lunatics like the KOS kids, the people in Congress aren't actually crazy enough to pursue an action which has no basis in reality.
Slashdot Mirror
Can you substantiate that? Last I checked, the bill in question only applied to non-citizens. I'd be interested in knowing whether that's changed.
No, that's not what the report said. The "1.7 trillion" is basically an attempt at generating more fear and outrage by combining every conceivable way that the war may have impacted the economy, such as increase in oil cost, disability payouts, future maintenance costs, "loss" of income by national guardsmen, etc, etc. I'm sure they probably threw the cost of global warming increase in there somewhere too, along with the cost for counselling hippies who have been traumatized by excessive exposure to the evil Bushitler.
Add to that the fact that no one's bothered subtracting from that the positive results of the war (increased level of preparedness for the military, basic operating costs which would have been spent anyway, not having to continue imposing sanctions on Iraq, etc, etc) and you invariably come to the conclusion that the figures put forward are utterly meaningless, and meant only to appeal to the simple-minded and those who already oppose the war.
And, of course, the true value of a war cannot be measured in monetary figures anyway.
But other than that....good post!
But with specific regards to Iraq, this is going to be one of the most expensive wars we ever fought in, certainly in treasure if not in lives. It has ruined our international standing, alienated allies, inflamed arab anger against us, and even more importantly, it's made our military look incompetent.
Half of which is flat out wrong, and all of which is irrelevant when it comes to whether or not the US has gotten "a serious ass kicking" in Iraq.
Now, I especially took exception to that last bit about the war making the US military look inept. I was even going to take the time to explain to you that your flawed perceptions are not what military analysts, intelligence officers, and political leaders see when they look at the Iraq war. But then you followed it up with the following:
The IDF was one of the most feared fighting forces on the planet and yet they got their asses handed to them by Hezbollah.
Which tells me that you're truly living in a world of your own. You've invented some deranged reality where western nations are always the losers regardless of how few casualties they take, how many enemy they kill, or how many objectives they accomplish, and nothing that I or anyone else says to you will change your mind. Which is fine. You're certainly not in a position to make policy, nor are you employed in any sort of intelligence-related field, so your views on the war are quite irrelevant, and are certainly not worth wasting my time debating.
If you want some historical perspective, go read up on the Soviet invasion and occupation of Afghanistan.
Don't worry, I understood the distinction even before you explained it :)
Why wouldn't you be allowed to disagree with the government, though? you're obviously being sarcastic, but I don't understand why....
No, Michael, "times" have not "moved on". Only your own personal perceptions have changed, and this is due to two reasons:
1) You find it politically convenient to be able to state that the US is getting it's ass kicked. Those opposed to a certain group or action will always find a way to criticize it, and will see it's defeat in every minor stumble.
2) The US has gotten so goddamn GOOD at kicking ass that nobody is able to do much damage to them any more. It's as if a martial arts pro had gotten so good at kicking the shit out of his opponents that he now gets criticized every time he's a little too slow with a block or a punch.
It has nothing to do with "the times", Michael, and everything to do with the wilful ignorance of individuals who want to see the failure of US foreign policy.
Was there a point to that rant? Other than to explain that in 1987 a brand new defencive system didn't quite function up to spec?
You were in the navy, so you know what it's like. I can appreciate that soldiers and sailors alike spend most of their free time bitching about the food, the equipment, their superiors, and the system, but anyone who's made it past basic training should realize that this is the nature of any large organization, and ESPECIALLY one that's constantly changing and adapting to meet new threats.
Reasons NOT to move to canada:
1) It's friggin COLD!
2) You think your taxes are high? Don't ask about ours!
3) Traffic in Toronto is worse than New York.
4) Our military is so small, we have to pick fights with Denmark.
5) You can't go to a concert without getting high from second-hand smoke.
6) Yanks debate about pulling out of Iraq, we debate about pulling out of Afghanistan.
7) Anyone who's seen our last prime minister know that the parent post was lying about the intelligence of our leaders.
8) The same prime minister managed to hold office for 12 years. No term limits is NOT a good thing!
9) After a while it gets REALLY annoying to have every American you meet ask you "y'all got electricity up there?"
That seems to be a common misconception. Even assuming the US was interested in using economic pressure to get us to maintain our current laws (something that there's no actual evidence of, only idle speculation), how much could they really do to us? They need to import our natural resources just as much, if not more, than we need to sell them. Right now they get the majority of their oil from us, never mind the lumber, natural gas, etc. So they want to hike import fees on lumber? Fine, we'll hike export taxes on oil. There's really not much they could do economically that we couldn't counter at this point.
See, our pot-smoking hippies can't fathom the idea that maybe our own government may have reasons for keeping weed illegal, so they bitch and whine about the yanks. That's how these silly ours get started.
That wasn't a thought, that was a brainfart. Unless you were trying to be funny...
It's more or less the same in Canada - you're unlikely to get a ticket for anything less than 15-20 km/h over the limit. And if by some miracle you get a ticket for anything less than 16 over, they don't even take any points off your licence, it's only a fine. I think what people are complaining is that limits are set too low to begin with - if your highway limit is 150, and you get pulled over for doing 10 over, that's still better than having a limit of 100 but getting away with doing 20 over.
Jaywalking? That's probably the most often broken law on the books, and it leads to dozens of s every year.
What about seat-belt laws? When they came into effect, EVERYONE broke them all the time. By your logic, they should immediately have been repealed.
I agree with many of your points, but there's more to law than just popularity.
Strangely enough, I'm a fan of Ayn Rand :) I still think Paul's a wanker, though.
Thanks for the well thought out response, it's a rarity around here.
:)
I'll answer your questions quickly:
The bit about tinfoil-hatters and ts supporting Ron Paul? Take a look at any message board where 9/11 "truthers" gather, or have a listen to one of the Alex Jones "shows". You seem to be unaware of it, but amongst the mentally unbalanced, Ron Paul is practically a rock star.
The part about Roe vs Wade was adequately answered by another commenter. I believe he said it "shouldn't be a based on where you were born", which is exactly right. I'm sure you wouldn't be a fan of making , , or child abuse legal in certain states either. I'm not even sure where I personally stand on the issue of abortion, but I do know that whether you make it legal or illegal is not a decision to be made by individual states. It's a human rights issue, and as such should be universal, or at least federal
And as for the bit about having my own "like minded state", that's the last thing I want. Diversity breeds challenge and adversity. They in turn make life interesting and lead to new discoveries and developments. Diversity encourages constant change, and it is without a doubt a huge advantage that western nations have over more isolationist countries. It's also perhaps the best reason I can think of for NOT allowing states to become miniature nations - such a system would encourage further isolation and alienation amongst political, ural, and even religious lines. You think Texans New Yorkers now, just wait until they've been practically autonomous for a few decades. Do you really want to Balcanize the US?
Don't get me wrong, I deffinitely believe in limited government, and I think many other western nations (UK and Canada for instance) have gone too far in the opposite direction. But it's a very fine line.
That's rather like giving Jeffry Dahmer the keys to your house because you think he'd be an interesting interior decorator.
I mean, your assessment is absolutely correct...and the fact that hundreds of thousands of people actually think that way is damn scary!
Ah, yes, you're going to improve things by voting for a lunatic who wants to repeal Roe vs Wade, and move US currency back to the gold standard. Right.
There's a reason why all the conspiracy theorists and ultra-right fascist support him, and it aint because of his cute smile. You'd get better results by voting for Denis "CIA-mind-control-satellites" Kucinich.
And let's not pretend that Paul has any chance in hell of winning. He's polling at what, 4% now? Hell, even Bush could raise more support than that!
In summation: you're nuts. Although, on the bright side, I'd rather have you throwing away your vote on Ron Paul than actually affecting the US political system.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
China, Russia, North Korea, Iran....who knows where the next conflict will arise? And who cares. If the crime rate in my city goes down, we don't respond to it by firing half the police force, or by turning them into meter-maids. If you want peace, prepare for war.
Gotcha. You're right, I'm not very tactful. I blame that on the 9 years I spent working for the military as a ..... professional in the field of applied ballistics and crisis management. Not much call for tact there. However, I'm working on becoming more touchy-feely and politically correct, so bear with me :)
I understand your point too, and you're right in that self-destructive behaviour may be of some limited, temporary use, however I've seen it end badly much too often. To re-use my earlier analogy - morphine, if used properly, can help to relieve a patients pain and suffering, and even help speed healing to an extent. However, too much of it will lead the same person to become an addict, creating a whole host of new problems for him to deal with.
Under my rules you'd be locked up? Well, ok, maybe for being criminally stupid and attempting to libel me, sure. Definitely not for being a freak, though. As far as I'm concerned, you're more than welcome to abuse yourself as much as you want. Just don't surb-stomp any puppies, and we're golden.
Absolutely.
Why do some freaks cut themselves? Burn themselves? Because they enjoy the pain. They enjoy the endorphin rush. Why do some people get hundreds of piercings? Why do many people engage in meaningless, unsafe, random sex? Why do some men pay dominatrices hundreds of dollars to abuse them?
All of those are examples of behaviours which satisfy a temporary need, and provide temporary pleasure, but are self-destructive and often harmful in the long run. If you don't realize that, that's too bad. The first step to fixing your problems is learning to acknowledge them.
Ah yes. But wait, you forgot to tie your theory to the Illuminati, and the Bohemian Grove!
I don't really care what side of the political spectrum you place yourself on. Left, center, up or down, it doesn't matter. What REALLY annoys me is extremist idiots on any one of those sides. It's amusing that the only thing that both the far right and the far left agree on is that the Government is out to enslave the American people, and destroy the nation. When they start raving about that topic, the only way to tell them apart is by their hair styles, and whether they're wearing a Christian pendant or a Che Guevera t-shirt.
I suppose it's also a bit condescending to say to a guy standing on a ledge "don't do it, you have plenty to live for". What would you say instead, in order to avoid sounding condescending? "jump you stupid bastard"?
You should read some of the other comments in response to the parent post. In short, just because something feels good, doesn't mean it's going to have a positive effect on your life, or that it's in any way beneficial. If I have a headache, I can inject some heroin and it'll go away and I'll feel real nice, but the that temporary relief isn't worth the long-term results. And while I certainly wish you hadn't had to go through such a horrible experience, I can say for a fact that life is FULL of traumatizing and life-altering experiences, and that brooding on them and letting yourself descend into a fantasy world of "dark and violent stuff" isn't going to help your situation any.
I know you were being sarcastic (the giant SARCASM tags were a dead giveaway), but that's actually a valid argument. If the democrats believe even half of the accusations they're constantly bandying about, they absolutely SHOULD refuse to compromise. Certainly if I believed that the Prime Minister of my country had gotten us into a war with the sole purpose of enriching himself and his "oil buddies", and that we had no way in hell of ever seeing a positive result from that war, I would INSIST that my representatives do everything in their power to immediately end that war and bring those responsible to justice, up to and including refusing to discuss all other issues until that one is resolved.
The problem seems to be that even the Democrats don't really believe all of the things which they've accused the Bush administration of. Either that or they really ARE "spineless".
They tried, but it turns out that "because EaglemanBSA is angry" isn't a good enough legal reason to impeach someone.
The problem is, even though it's a Democrat congress, and even though they got voted in largely due to the efforts of lunatics like the KOS kids, the people in Congress aren't actually crazy enough to pursue an action which has no basis in reality.