Bold New World

[sobo]

Bold New

 

Again, Matt, no I would not.

...You made it clear in your first post on this topic that you'd rather send that dollar elsewhere besides welfare. I get that. But are you SO against welfare that you actually support Iraq war spending more than social programs?

Yes, as sad as that may be for you to hear, I do. We went in to Iraq on bad intel and a lust for oil, and now we are stuck there in another Vietnam quagmire. But I would rather spend that dollar getting our asses the fuck out of Iraq, on a footing/premise that we'll never have to go back there again, than on any new social programs. That answer your question for ya?

[mattp]

That is what I was asking. And I'd agree with you if I thought that there was any chance that we can actually get out of there "on a footing/premise that we'll never have to go back in again."

 

By that I assume you mean that you would hope we can impose some kind of stability and a government at least half-way friendly toward our interests in the region though I realize you are critical of our having gone in out of "lust for oil."

 

My own sense of it is that the war is a waste. Dollar for dollar, I'd rather see money wasted on infrastructure or social programs here at home than spending it on infrastructure and the big social program of trying to impose "democracy" and "stability" in Iraq.

[billcoe]

Many social programs, like welefare, are one way to toss your money down the toilet. (Not all, some, like early childhood education are great investments) On occasion it does do good and eases the conscious as well. In the old days you could choose who you thought was worthy. Now the government tells you who they think that is, then they demand your money and toss it over there for you. I think that the politicians thought tossing the money into Iraq was an investment. One I opposed when they first did it, but now think we need to work out and stay until we can get out with at least one asscheek. I've been swimming upsteam on that one the entire time as public opinion % shifted from overwhelmingly positive wholehearted public support to derision and anger.

 

BTW, not necessarily an investment that worked out good - but they perceived it as an investment when they went in.

 

So fucking stupid and wasteful.

[mkporwit]

Dollar for dollar, I'd rather see money wasted on infrastructure or social programs here at home than spending it on infrastructure and the big social program of trying to impose "democracy" and "stability" in Iraq.

 

Why must those be our only two choices? That's like being given a choice of being kicked in the left ass cheek or the right one. Waste is waste, at home or abroad, and we're in a situation where we can ill afford to keep doing just that...

[sobo]

...By that I assume you mean that you would hope we can impose some kind of stability and a government at least half-way friendly toward our interests in the region though I realize you are critical of our having gone in out of "lust for oil."

I think perhaps "impose" is too strong of a word. I would like for the Iraqis to work that one out on their own. They were almost there in mid-2004, when that fucktard Muqtada al-Sadr raised his head (and his militia).

 

My own sense of it is that the war is a waste. Dollar for dollar, I'd rather see money wasted on infrastructure or social programs here at home than spending it on infrastructure and the big social program of trying to impose "democracy" and "stability" in Iraq.

I'm with mkporwit on this one, Matt. Waste is waste wherever it occurs, here or there. But again, we cannot impose anything upon the Iraqis (or anyone else, for that matter) that they do not wish to have imposed upon them. I think we've already seen the outcome of those attempts. They need to decide to do this one for themselves. With all of their ethnic/religious bickering, that hope most likely remains a pipe dream...

[mattp]

I wasn't implying that there would only be two choices. I was trying to flush out Bill's point a bit:

 

I suspect the dems will exchange military spending for domestic social program spending and we will continue to sink as a country from the burden of big government.

 

-----

 

I don't think "impose" is too strong of a word. As I understand it, most Iraqi's want us to leave. The Iraqi government wants us to set a date when we will leave, though they don't want us out of there today.

 

If we really wanted them to work it out "on their own," we'd leave.

 

Neither present candidate is talking about it much but the military people have said that we in fact cannot maintain the level of deployment that we have at present. We WILL be witdrawing troops - at least to some extent. I suspect that you, I, MK Porwit, and Billcoe would largely agree about the considerations as to when and how fast that should take place (Tvash maybe not) but I bet we disagree more about the prognosis.

 

[sobo]

I don't think "impose" is too strong of a word. As I understand it, most Iraqi's want us to leave. The Iraqi government wants us to set a date when we will leave, though they don't want us out of there today.

 

If we really wanted them to work it out "on their own," we'd leave.

I was speaking for myself when I said "impose is too strong of a word." Clearly, my government does not think that way. As I said above, I would like for (and not have it imposed upon them) the Iraqis to take the lead on this one (setting up their own functional government so we can leave), but they do not seem inclined to take this step forward. There can be only one of two reasons for this: either they are unable to do so, or they are unwilling to do so. They want us to leave, but not today. But they want us to tell them when we will leave. But any date that isn't tomorrow is too late. No answer we give will appease them. It's a Catch-22.

 

Neither present candidate is talking about it much but the military people have said that we in fact cannot maintain the level of deployment that we have at present. We WILL be witdrawing troops - at least to some extent. I suspect that you, I, MK Porwit, and Billcoe would largely agree about the considerations as to when and how fast that should take place (Tvash maybe not) but I bet we disagree more about the prognosis.

I agree that we cannot sustain the present troop levels and still maintain our interests in other parts of the globe. Drawdown is inevitable. But I am curious as to what you think the prognosis might be, depending upon whatever drawdown scenario is enacted...

[mattp]

I am guessing that we are likely to see some kind of civil war there whether we leave now or gradually withdraw. I think we may yet be able to avoid that, however, and that is why I'm not quite as adamant as I think Tvash is that we should leave today.

[sobo]

I am not as optimistic as you, Matt, as I think civil war in Iraq is inevitable. Hell, there are those that say they're fighting one right now, but I dispute that. But I think it will be evident to all when it does eventually break out in full force. I never wanted to see that, and we never should have even been there to begin with.

[mattp]

If you think it is inevitable, what are we accomplishing by remaining there?

 

The contractors are making a butt-load of money and if you are into corporate welfare that is a good thing, and maybe our oil companies will secure some deals that will survive a civil war. What else? Are you hoping we can help strenghten the "good guys" in Iraq so maybe they will be more likely to win the inevitable civil war?

[sobo]

If you think it is inevitable, what are we accomplishing by remaining there?

Hoping like hell to stave it off, on the hunch that I might be wrong in my fatalism. But please remember, it is not I who makes the decisions in this war. What I think apparently makes no difference to the military nor the CIC.

 

The contractors are making a butt-load of money and if you are into corporate welfare that is a good thing, and maybe our oil companies will secure some deals that will survive a civil war. What else? Are you hoping we can help strenghten the "good guys" in Iraq so maybe they will be more likely to win the inevitable civil war?

I am not into corporate welfare, especially the ill-gotten variety, with its attendant corruption, deal-steering, and money laundering schemes. I think that the perpetrators should all join Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling in the slammer. Well, maybe just join Skilling... Naaaaaah, let 'em join Lay, six feet under. That would be better.

 

And of course I harbor the (forlorn) hope that we can help the "good guys" (whoever they might be) avoid or perhaps even win a civil war, if that's the way things go, but I'm not holding my breath on that one. I'm just not very optimistic about the outcome of the whole affair, given our recent history.

 

Matt, you've been around at least as long as I have. One look at the Koreas, Cuba (Bay of Pigs), Vietnam, Central America (Sandanistas-Contras), Somalia (Aidid), Bosnia-Herzegovina, the first Gulf War, etc. will serve to demonstrate that whenever we've stuck our nose into someone else's business over the past 60 years, we've gotten it bloodied for no real purpose and in the final analysis failed to increase security for our interests. Well, maybe Vietnam turned out all right in the end, 30 years after. We have trade agreements with them, Americans (ex-pats as well as tourons) are welcome there, and at least the entire country isn't plotting to anhililate all of us.

[tvashtarkatena]

Why don't one of you idiots pull up a pie chart of where the federal budget goes so you can speak intelligently on this topic? Welfare is a non-issue. It's all about guns.

[sobo]

Welcome to the discussion, Pat. What took you so long?

[AlpineK]

Here's the quick version

[img:center]http://www.warresisters.org/pages/images/pieFY09.gif[/img]

source

 

 

 

A different view

[img:center]http://www.yorkgrassroots.org/0images/2008pie_budget.gif[/img]

 

source

 

 

two different sources for military defense spending (off by 5%) make up the US budget. In rough terms that's 60% of tax revenue.

 

I'd say that's a much larger chunk of the pie than welfare expense.

 

I know these may not be conservative approved sources, but they are similar.

 

I need to find a version approved by Fox Media to make some people happy

 

 

[AlpineK]

[video:youtube]8y06NSBBRtY

 

Old speach by a republican president and former general.

 

I also admire his choice of last names with the E before the I.

[Crux]

1) government is inherently bad for you;

 

I have often wondered about this philosophy. If a republican candidate believes government is bad for you, then why is he running for a position in government?

 

To reduce it to a size that can be drowned in the bath tub.

[mattp]

In GW's case, it was to appoint agency heads who would do nothing to reduce the size of the agencies, but render them ineffective. I guess the end game is that we'll get so fed up with them that we'll be calling for closure of the EPA or FEMA etc. etc.

[prole]

1) government is inherently bad for you;

 

I have often wondered about this philosophy. If a republican candidate believes government is bad for you, then why is he running for a position in government?

 

To reduce it to a size that can be drowned in the bath tub.

 

...and to implement policies that benefit the companies they'll be working for once they leave office.