All Hank, all the time.

[Oliver_Wendell_Ramone]

Originally posted by Spanky
Isn't it always in U.S. interest to have less genocidal dictators, that are also ruining the domestic econony, running foreign countries?

Don't you have to weigh that against costs in dollars, costs in lives, impact (positive or negative) on other international relations, etc.? In the abstract, sure, it's in our interest to have less genocidal dictatorts (my new favorite word) ruining their own countries. But there's a cost, and you gotta consider whether or not the goal is worth it, don't you?

[Cletus Miller]

Originally posted by Spanky
We might prefer a dictator if it would mean a better economy, but not a genocidal dictator. A genocidal dictator is never the right option. However, in this case not only did you have a genocidal dictator but one that also was destroying the economy.

You had juxtaposed the domestic economy with foreign dictators, implying you were pointing to damage to the US economy. She was asking if deposing foreign dictators was in the US interest if it were ruinous to the US economy.

Yes, Saddam was bad for the Iraqi economy, but was deposing Saddam good for the US economy?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Oliver_Wendell_Ramone
Don't you have to weigh that against costs in dollars, costs in lives, impact (positive or negative) on other international relations, etc.? In the abstract, sure, it's in our interest to have less genocidal dictatorts (my new favorite word) ruining their own countries. But there's a cost, and you gotta consider whether or not the goal is worth it, don't you?

FEWER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Oliver_Wendell_Ramone
Don't you have to weigh that against costs in dollars, costs in lives, impact (positive or negative) on other international relations, etc.? In the abstract, sure, it's in our interest to have less genocidal dictatorts (my new favorite word) ruining their own countries. But there's a cost, and you gotta consider whether or not the goal is worth it, don't you?

This war has been incredibly cheap in lives and in money. Of course it doesn't seem to cheap to the families of men and women that have died, but we lose ten times the number of people every year in car accidents on American roads than have died in Iraq. In dollar terms the war has been very cheap. Our budget is over two trillion every years. The war hasn't even cost one tenth of one years outlay.

Considering the amount of money and lives it has taken to unseat other genocidal dictators, this war was very cheap.

As far as the effect of the US economy, does anyone really know if the war was a negative or a positive? If you think you know the answer to that, you know more than any economist in the United States today.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Not Bob's Id
Well, how YOU doin'?

edited by Not Bob's Ego: Great. This always seems to happen when Not Bob's Super-Ego is on vacation. Guess I'll have to deal with it alone, as usual.

What James Garner film is your Avatar from?

BTW: my father just got the complete Rockford files on DVD for father's day.

Originally posted by Spanky
This war has been incredibly cheap in lives and in money. Of course it doesn't seem to cheap to the families of men and women that have died, but we lose ten times the number of people every year in car accidents on American roads than have died in Iraq. In dollar terms the war has been very cheap. Our budget is over two trillion every years. The war hasn't even cost one tenth of one years outlay.

Considering the amount of money and lives it has taken to unseat other genocidal dictators, this war was very cheap.

.

How many lives were lost in the pursuit of combatting the pernicious affects of the Clintons in the 90s? By comparison this Iraq thing is de minimis.

[Not Bob's Id]

Originally posted by Spanky
What James Garner film is your Avatar from?

BTW: my father just got the complete Rockford files on DVD for father's day.

Cool. If I am channel surfing, I will *always* stop on an episode of the Rockford Files -- irregardless (ha!) of whether it has 5 minutes or 55 minutes left.

The short answer to your question -- I don't know. From a PM conversation Not Bob had with an Very Hot Imaginary Internet Chick Friend last year:

Not Bob: I dunno what movie it came from -- the file name of the JPEG had "The Great Escape" in it, but I don't think that that is correct (though the time is probably pretty close). I just loved the look on his face.

Her: Hmm, a google search provided this link http://www.angelfire.com/oh2/writer/jamesgarner.html It looks like he made 2 movies with Doris Day the same year (1963) as "The Great Escape." Checking on imdb, it seems the movie I meant was "Move Over Darling" although I think I've also seen the other one too.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Spanky
Isn't it always in U.S. interest to have less genocidal dictators, that are also ruining the domestic econony, running foreign countries?

Not according to, oh, pretty much every administration this country has ever had.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Spanky
Isn't it always in U.S. interest to have less genocidal dictators, that are also ruining the domestic econony, running foreign countries?

I take it you are now in favor of invading Russia, North Korea, Syria, Burma, Egypt and half of the countries in Africa, right?

[Oliver_Wendell_Ramone]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
FEWER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No; I was just thinking that Less would make a great genocidal dictatort.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Oliver_Wendell_Ramone
No; I was just thinking that Less would make a great genocidal dictatort.

I think that would have to be DICKatort.

In fact, I would be willing to bet the Less has already committed some torts with that particular appendage.

[sgtclub]

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/0....r0o3j49z.html

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sgtclub
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/0....r0o3j49z.html

Um, it was land-based? Well, sea-based. ETA surface-based. Surface-to-air. That's the phrase I was looking for.

But I don't really know from weaponry.

ETA For N. Korean Missile, U.S. Defense Is Hit or Miss

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Um, it was land-based? Well, sea-based. ETA surface-based. Surface-to-air. That's the phrase I was looking for.

But I don't really know from weaponry.

ETA For N. Korean Missile, U.S. Defense Is Hit or Miss

Point isn't whether we'd get it for sure, that would be the point V. a country with hundreds of missiles. point w/ Korea is to create the impression that we might get it. Deterent to them striking.

Originally posted by Spanky
The point is our military took out a ruthless dictator that was engaged in genocide and destroying the entire ecosystem of Iraq (something you would think liberals would care about). Saddam drained the entire swamp system in Iraq in the Southern Tigris and Euphrates valley to kill off the Shiite insurgents. Wetlands that had existed for thousands of years, and the most important wetlands for bird migrations in the entire Middle East.

When Colin Powell took out those little toy birds and made those little dying-bird calls ("peep! peep!") in front of the UN General Assembly to demonstrate how Saddam was destroying the Iraqi wetlands, I thought to myself, "we have never embarked, as a nation, upon a nobler or more justified enterprise." I am not ashamed to say there was a tear in my eye.