Politics: A new beginning

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
Well, as I've said before, I think the admin sold the hell out of this plan. I don't think that's out of bounds. You seem to be saying that selling is not an option for somethign like war because of the lives involved, and I can respect that, while still noting that a bill involving highway safety, which would be okay to sell, could conceivably impact many more lives than this mini-war has.

Yep. That's why I stuck that part in about "directly and immedaitely" threaten lives.

Also -- I KNEW you (or someone) was going to come back at Gattigap on the "imminent nucular destruction" thing -- but don't ignore the rest of the post. Lots of meaningful substance there.

S_A_M

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
It was my understanding that there would be no math in this debate.

My point was not to argue over the numbers, but rather to display one example of why Iraqis are really pissed off right now.

The unemployment, of course, is just one inevitable element of regime change. You can't support the war without accepting it as a necessary evil. An unemployed army, of course, is a problem that can't be ignored and must be dealt with -- who cares what the rate is, if you don't do something with these people we'll have problems. Of course, many "civil servants" also lost their jobs, and there will be any number of employers whose operations were curtailed during the war (no electricity or water, less work gets done, and there should be no surprise about that).

By maintaing control over the country, the job of rebuilding the economy and getting those people productively employed has been assumed by the US, and if the Bush administration can't get that job done, and if that unemployment rate doesn't start declining quickly, we will simply be buying ourselves more long-term instability in the country.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
You can't support the war without accepting it as a necessary evil.

I didn't support the war.

But that bridge has been crossed and burned.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
I didn't support the war.

But that bridge has been crossed and burned.

That was meant to be addressed to the board at large, including those like Slave who seem to be arguing - so the damned army is unemployed! Screw em! (note to all: unemployed people with nothing to lose and weapons training likely are going to screw someone else before their day is done).

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
(note to all: unemployed people with nothing to lose and weapons training likely are going to screw someone else before their day is done).

In our country, they settled the west. Should we expect less noble pursuits simply because they're Iraqis? Wouldn't that be racist?

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by Gattigap
My issue with their approach is not that I think Bush lied by making up things from whole cloth, but that instead of taking the harder route of selling the war as a war of choice, but by the easier route of - as you put it -- "choosing the horse" of nucular destruction to scare the shit out of Americans into supporting him because the threat was unacceptable, and the threat was here TODAY.

I find much to agree with in this, although I'm not quite sure how the subsequent posts got back on the well-trodden "Bush lied" playing field. To me it has always come down to the war of choice vs. war of necessity dynamic, and conclusory statements like "one thing I do know is that SH is no longer a threat" don't do much to change that.

What I don't get is, if our leadership was willing to spend this kind of money, deploy this many troops, and alienate a portion of our allies in order to pursue the Iraq invasion, why didn't we pull out all the stops to get after OBL when we had him pinned in Tora Bora? I'd feel a lot safer if he and the rest of the al Qaeda leadership were in custody than I do now that we've got SH.

Am I thinking too simplistically here? Please note that a response of "you always think too simplistically" will earn only partial credit.

[SlaveNoMore]

bilmore
In our country, they settled the west. Should we expect less noble pursuits simply because they're Iraqis? Wouldn't that be racist?

No, they taught the Samurai how to fight. Don't you pay attention?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
What I don't get is, if our leadership was willing to spend this kind of money, deploy this many troops, and alienate a portion of our allies in order to pursue the Iraq invasion, why didn't we pull out all the stops to get after OBL when we had him pinned in Tora Bora?

In a hindsight sort of way, I agree with this.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by bilmore
In our country, they settled the west. Should we expect less noble pursuits simply because they're Iraqis? Wouldn't that be racist?

This is my point. They need something to do. At present, our focus seems to be on Halliburtonesque infrastructure projects.

So is your proposal 40 acres and a mule or, in other words, land reform?

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by bilmore
In our country, they settled the west. Should we expect less noble pursuits simply because they're Iraqis? Wouldn't that be racist?

Uh, unless movies and tv have lied to me, there was an awful lot of wanton killing during the noble settlement of the old west. Gunfights and all. I think Clint Eastwood made a career out of acting in movies which included "unemployed people with nothing to lose and weapons training [who] likely are going to screw someone else before their day is done." It's not racist to think the Iraqis will do the same.

But those weren't documentaries, so maybe maybe you can link us to a blog that says everything was pretty noble.

[Shape Shifter]

Fuck all of this. When do I start getting free oil?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Fuck all of this. When do I start getting free oil?

You have to wait for Syria, next month.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
I'm sure the 3 million newly jobless* see it differently than you.

*in a population of 22 million.

I know everyone there voted for Sadamm, but I didn't know everyone wanted to work. the unemployment rate is way more complicated then you suggest. PM Tyrone.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Quite a major difference between the General Assembly and the Security Council. Besides, I'm only stating the case against these UN suck-ups like Kerry. The UN spoke repeatedly - so we acted.

For years, I've felt we should pull out of this anti-US useless organization known as the UN, kick all these non-taxed scofflaw scumbag diplomats out of NY and send them to some asswipe place like the Hague where they can all jerk each other off and knock on Israel while establishing Syria as the head of the Human Rights Commission, and raze the eyesore to the ground and put up riverside condominiums.

plus, most of those Arab countries have invaded Israel at one time or another, w/o UN backing. They didn't wait for a permission slip.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
It was my understanding that there would be no math in this debate.

Math is very scary to lawyers.