war math!

[DaiShan]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Better them be in bondage under Saddam then us be in bondage for another 100 Billion debt under Dubya.
If they didn't like being in bondage, they should have overthrown Saddam. No good things in life are free.

So you'd be one of those that pass by the injured guy on the path. Hmm, it's all starting to make sense to me now

CkG

Your gneralizations and lack of insight astounds me. Please compare apples to apples when engaging in intelligent discussion.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Got that popcorn handy Insane3D? It's getting toasty in here

DaiShan - I had a big long explanation typed up but you will just dismiss anything I say as "generalizations" and "uninsightful" anyway - so I won't waste our time.

CkG

 

[Format C:]

Better them be in bondage under Saddam then us be in bondage for another 100 Billion

Carp all you like and fool yourself with your supposed brilliant platitudes but there's only one way to interpret that statement. Allow me to translate for you brain dead types... I'm all for caring about my fellow man and all that but if its gunna cost me anything screw 'em.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Format C:

Better them be in bondage under Saddam then us be in bondage for another 100 Billion

Carp all you like and fool yourself with your supposed brilliant platitudes but there's only one way to interpret that statement. Allow me to translate for you brain dead types... I'm all for caring about my fellow man and all that but if its gunna cost me anything screw 'em.

Sorry, yet another bogus straw man argument. This war was never about liberating the Iraqi people; people who believe otherwise are selectively forgetting all of the earlier Bush/Powell speeches. That feel-good excuse didn't pop up until the terrorism and weapons-of-mass-distraction bogeymen started unraveling.

Re. this newfound caring-for-my-fellowman BS, I am amused and sickened by the naked hypocrisy of so many of the people who try to use this ruse. These are the same people who oppose every dime spent to help people in this country (except the wealthy, of course - they deserve every bag of gold they can suck from the public coffers). These same people consistently oppose providing humanitarian aid to oppressed and dying people in other countries (e.g., so many nations in Africa) unless we can package this aid in a torrent of missiles and smart bombs and other tools of death and destruction. They'll grudgingly help others as long as they get to kill some of them in the process.

This leads to my final point - it is deceitful to pretend that the only cost of this war is financial. This ignores the thousands of lives lost, the collateral damage to our economy, the increased risk of domestic terrorism, and the devastating effect on our position in the world community. We'll be paying for this war for decades.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Format C:

Better them be in bondage under Saddam then us be in bondage for another 100 Billion

Carp all you like and fool yourself with your supposed brilliant platitudes but there's only one way to interpret that statement. Allow me to translate for you brain dead types... I'm all for caring about my fellow man and all that but if its gunna cost me anything screw 'em.

Sorry, yet another bogus straw man argument. This war was never about liberating the Iraqi people; people who believe otherwise are selectively forgetting all of the earlier Bush/Powell speeches. That feel-good excuse didn't pop up until the terrorism and weapons-of-mass-distraction bogeymen started unraveling.

Re. this newfound caring-for-my-fellowman BS, I am amused and sickened by the naked hypocrisy of so many of the people who try to use this ruse. These are the same people who oppose every dime spent to help people in this country (except the wealthy, of course - they deserve every bag of gold they can suck from the public coffers). These same people consistently oppose providing humanitarian aid to oppressed and dying people in other countries (e.g., so many nations in Africa) unless we can package this aid in a torrent of missiles and smart bombs and other tools of death and destruction. They'll grudgingly help others as long as they get to kill some of them in the process.

This leads to my final point - it is deceitful to pretend that the only cost of this war is financial. This ignores the thousands of lives lost, the collateral damage to our economy, the increased risk of domestic terrorism, and the devastating effect on our position in the world community. We'll be paying for this war for decades.

Hmm...

Nah. There's nothing to respond to in his last few posts, just name calling, random digs, blatant sterotyping, and absurd straw-man propositions. I'm interested in discussions, not flame wars.

Stereotypes, random digs.... Hmmmm

CkG

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Stereotypes, random digs.... Hmmmm

LOL. You're welcome. I know you been dying for a chance to use that against me.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Stereotypes, random digs.... Hmmmm

LOL. You're welcome. I know you been dying for a chance to use that against me.

You better believe it I've been watching this thread like a "hawk" :Q

CkG

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Format C:

Better them be in bondage under Saddam then us be in bondage for another 100 Billion

Carp all you like and fool yourself with your supposed brilliant platitudes but there's only one way to interpret that statement. Allow me to translate for you brain dead types... I'm all for caring about my fellow man and all that but if its gunna cost me anything screw 'em.

Let me translate your position for you:
I am all for caring for my fellow man as long as it's with debts that the future generations will have to repay.
If you cannot even make ends meet at home and are 300 billion in the hole, don't go around acting charitable and getting this country further into debt. Unless you support tax hikes to pay for this war, you are just being kind with someone else's money.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Let me translate your position for you:
I am all for caring for my fellow man as long as it's with debts that the future generations will have to repay.
If you cannot even make ends meet at home and are 300 billion in the hole, don't go around acting charitable and getting this country further into debt. Unless you support tax hikes to pay for this war, you are just being kind with someone else's money.

Well said.

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Format C:

Better them be in bondage under Saddam then us be in bondage for another 100 Billion

Carp all you like and fool yourself with your supposed brilliant platitudes but there's only one way to interpret that statement. Allow me to translate for you brain dead types... I'm all for caring about my fellow man and all that but if its gunna cost me anything screw 'em.

Sorry, yet another bogus straw man argument. This war was never about liberating the Iraqi people; people who believe otherwise are selectively forgetting all of the earlier Bush/Powell speeches. That feel-good excuse didn't pop up until the terrorism and weapons-of-mass-distraction bogeymen started unraveling.

Re. this newfound caring-for-my-fellowman BS, I am amused and sickened by the naked hypocrisy of so many of the people who try to use this ruse. These are the same people who oppose every dime spent to help people in this country (except the wealthy, of course - they deserve every bag of gold they can suck from the public coffers). These same people consistently oppose providing humanitarian aid to oppressed and dying people in other countries (e.g., so many nations in Africa) unless we can package this aid in a torrent of missiles and smart bombs and other tools of death and destruction. They'll grudgingly help others as long as they get to kill some of them in the process.

The terrorism/WMD arguments never unraveled, and their validity is becoming more and more apparent with each day. So far, we've captured Abu Abbas and a member of the Abu Nidal organization, which was formerly one of the most feared terrorist organizations on the planet, or are you too young to remember that? Further, we attacked and destroyed a major terrorist training facility in northern Iraq, but I guess you missed those press reports. We have also discovered thousands and thousands of documents referencing Iraq's WMD programs and have found tantalizing clues regarding Iraq's chemical and biological weapons. It is only a matter of time before we find actual weapons as there existence is hardly in doubt except in the minds of the naive.

On the topic of the cost of war: There can be no rational argument when the Left fails to understand that conservatives see the government's role in society completely differently. While the Left wants the government to hand hold every single person and dole out money to anyone who asks, the conservative position is that each individual has responsibility for his/her own prosperity. The welfare society is gone and will hopefully never return, notwithstanding the efforts of the Left. Ergo, it is perfectly reasonable to spend $100 billion to further the security of the United States while not spending that money on the homeless (or, more rightly put, adding that money to what is ALREADY spent on the homeless).

We tried the whole humanitarian thing in Somalia (it's in Africa, FYI), remember? Guess how willing we are to repeat that? One only needs to look at the mess in the DROC to understand the immense pitfalls of any activity in Africa.

This leads to my final point - it is deceitful to pretend that the only cost of this war is financial. This ignores the thousands of lives lost, the collateral damage to our economy, the increased risk of domestic terrorism, and the devastating effect on our position in the world community. We'll be paying for this war for decades.

You mean the increased risk of domestic terrorism before 9/11? The risk of doing nothing far outweights the risk of action. Have you made the same arguments about Afghanistan?

Our position in the world community is fine. The naysayers to the contrary were hoping for a lengthly contested war after which the Iraqis would be ungrateful and see us as occupiers instead of liberators. Even the French press is questioning their administration's outlook on the war. The United States has the solid support of dozens and dozens of nations, including Arab ones, and now that we have finished with Iraq, is it any wonder that North Korea has now agreed to multi-lateral talks with us? That's probably just a coincidence in your world, huh?