Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
The State We're In - 2004

By imrdkl in Op-Ed
Fri Jan 23, 2004 at 03:59:18 AM EST
Tags: Politics (all tags)
Politics

GWB gave his State of the Union speech for 2004 last night. In general, he didn't have much to say that was new, although he did make a couple of new proposals and a few demands from Congress. What was perhaps most interesting about his speech was what was not said.


George opened by praising the hundreds of thousands of military personell who are, "bringing hope to the oppressed, and delivering justice to the violent around the world". He emphasized that we Americans now have a choice - go forward with confidence and resolve, or turn back to the illusion of security and safety.

He then quickly turned the focus to homeland security. In what was clearly the most awkward moment of the speech, he was met with resounding, unexpected applause when he stated that some provisions of the Patriot Act are set to expire next year. Recovering shakily, he pointed out that our law enforcement agencies still need these measures to fight crime and terror, and therefore they should be renewed by Congress.

Next, George highlighted the efforts in Afghanistan, declaring the US to be a friend of the men and women there who are building a nation that is free, proud, and fighting terror, even though elections there have been postponed indefinitely and terror reigns outside of the areas patrolled by the coalition - largely due to lack of resources, and interest. Turning his attention briefly to matters other than fighting terrorism and homeland security, George pointed out that the invasion and subjugation of Iraq has also left the people there liberated and free. Unlike Afghanistan, and given the vast number of military resources there, chaos is being controlled in Iraq for now, albeit at great cost to American lives. Nevertheless, as democracy takes hold in Iraq, we and our allies won't be shaken - and the people of Iraq will live in freedom, George said.

George then made a rather big deal out of Libya's recent concession to give up their WMDs. He tied this directly back to American leadership in Iraq, and asserted that Qadhafi has now decided that no WMDs makes Libya "better off" and more secure. Presumably, he doesn't want to be pulled out of a hole somewhere in the desert after being delivered for 25 million in reward money, either. No one can doubt the word of America, said George, or it's reward payments.

George then proceeded to chastise those within the chamber and without who did not support the invasion of Iraq, and those who don't consider the war on terror to be a war at all. He noted the Plans for the Programs for the Weapons of Mass Destruction and the equipment which have been found in Iraq. Had we failed to act, Iraq would still be a country full of these plans (and equipment) - albeit with legal nuclear storage canisters safely out of reach of the public looting and drinking water supply. In any case, Iraq probably would not be a better place (like Afghanistan), and there would certainly be no card decks depicting 55 "undesirables" which the American taxpayer has now payed more than 50 million dollars in reward money to apprehend.

George pointed to the more than two dozen countries which have independently supported the war there, praising our international partners in the action, and dismissing the objections of a few old world countries. We don't need a permission slip to defend our security" (against the plans and equipment), George said, and we'll be expecting a "higher standard" from our friends in the future. Furthermore, to combat propoganda, the US will be expanding our Voice of America broadcasts and multilingual, reliable news throughout the middle east.

Above all, the US will finish the work in Afghanistan and Iraq, said George. Never mind that democracy, gender equality, free markets, fair courts, and most of the other original goals have been largely abandoned for a shorter-term exit strategy in both countries.

America is a nation with a mission, George went on to say, and at home that mission is being carried out by the people who are spending their tax cuts to drive the economy forward. Low inflation, increased exports, and more jobs are the proof that Americans have used their tax cuts better than the government would have. George re-emphasized the various proposals and tax cuts which have been made and enacted during the last 4 years, encouraging congress to renew and make permanent many of them, for the continued benefit of the American people, and to further the aggressive, pro-growth economic agenda. In keeping with these reductions, the budget which will be submitted by the Bush administration in two weeks will limit the growth of discretionary spending to 4 percent, while simultaneously funding the war, protecting the homeland, and meet important domestic needs - and begin the process of halving the deficit during the next five years.

No mention was made of the trillion dollar deficit which is expected by the end of this year.

Education is the key to success in the new and growing economy, and the programs implemented by his administration and this Congress are helping every child to make progress, and helping adults to learn new skills to find new jobs, according to George. To that end, he outlined his first concrete proposal of the night, Jobs for the 21st Century. This program will promote and encourage advanced placement courses in High School, by awarding bigger Pell Grants to those who choose to strive to the AP level. Increased support for community colleges was also mentioned, although not defined.

Next up was the immigration proposal, the so-called "temporary worker program", which George claims will protect the homeland while simultaneously providing for citizenship opportunities for hard-working, law-abiding immigrants. George reaffirmed his opposition to amnesty, because it unfairly rewards those who break the law. Amnesty actually pardons all persons who've violated the immigration laws, so it's unclear why he believes it is unfair, but the formal definition probably isn't so very important to George.

The prescription act for the elderly was up next, and George spent a disproportionate amount of time reflecting on the bill, which has already been passed. Kissing up to the AARP seemed to be a significant priority in this speech, and George accomplished the task with vigor. Indebting generations of young taxpayers to support the new measure was not mentioned.

Finally, the focus turned to family, religion, faith, and race. Helping Americans make the Right Choices (tm) was the theme, and various programs including sexual abstinence, zero-tolerance, drug testing in the schools, restoration and codification of the Defense of Marriage act to forbid same-sex marriage, government supported faith-based charities, and even a call to professional athletes to cut down on anabolic steroids were the solutions.

Ex-convicts were also mentioned as a big problem in the US, with 600,000 of them being released this year. They need help too, according to George, and they'll get it from his second big proposal of the night, a 300 million dollar Prisoner Re-Entry Initiative to expand job training and placement services, provide transitional housing, and to help newly released convicts get mentoring, naturally including guidance from the faith-based groups mentioned previously.

In closing, George made mention of a letter he received from a young girl who wrote that she would like to help "save our country". His response to the girl, that she should, "Study hard in school, listen to your mom and dad, help someone in need, and when you and your friends see a man or woman in uniform, say "thank you", seemed to me to be a missed opportunity. After all the time he spent trumpeting the prescription act and kissing the AARP's ass, he should have told the girl to remember to respect her elders. Ah well, I guess Karl Rove can't think of everything.

And that was it. A couple of new proposals, lots of horn tooting, and plenty of allegory regarding the next 4 years. Our cause is the cause of all mankind, George concluded. And yet, we must trust in the higher power Who guides the unfolding of the years, knowing that His purposes are just and true.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Poll
Actual State of the Union?
o Great! 2%
o Darn good. 1%
o Fair to middlin' 4%
o Not too shabby 2%
o Could be worse 16%
o Piss poor 29%
o Teh Suck 43%

Votes: 175
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o Also by imrdkl


Display: Sort:
The State We're In - 2004 | 306 comments (286 topical, 20 editorial, 5 hidden)
The Patriot Act expiration applause (2.95 / 23) (#2)
by waxmop on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 04:12:56 PM EST

There was a great moment where GWB said how the PATRIOT act was such a wonderful tool, but it was about to expire, and then he was interrupted by clapping. He got a strained look on his face when he realized that people were clapping because the PATRIOT act was expiring.

The rest of the speech was a wankfest. If current trends continue, in ten years, the State of the Union speech is going to be at most 200 words long, interrupted by applause after every syllable, and the thing will take six hours to get through. And the content will be nothing more than shout-outs to people in the audience.
--
We are a monoculture of horsecock. Liar

strained looks (2.70 / 10) (#4)
by Tyler Durden on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 04:19:27 PM EST

He got a strained look on his face ...

Doesn't he always have a strained look on his face?

Jesus Christ, EVERYONE is a troll here at k5, even the editors, even rusty! -- LilDebbie
[ Parent ]

yea, it's the same look my one year old son gets (2.60 / 5) (#65)
by lukme on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 10:30:31 PM EST

when he is pooping in his diaper. It causes me to wonder if he is wearing his "depends".


-----------------------------------
It's awfully hard to fly with eagles when you're a turkey.
[ Parent ]
cheney (none / 1) (#157)
by anmo on Fri Jan 23, 2004 at 12:36:59 AM EST

blow up the window... cheney was laughing during that applause

[ Parent ]
See also: the Heisman Award Show (none / 3) (#8)
by killmepleez on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 04:52:01 PM EST

Holy Moly there was like a Pre-Award Show Show and then the Show itself and the discussion of the Award. It felt like it was just as vaingloriously distended as the Oscars, and then you suddenly slapped yourself awake and remembered the fuss was all about ONE little trophy!

TV news coverage sucks rocks. At least with online media, I get to be part of the wankfest, rather than just sitting there letting Brokaw bust his nads all over me for 6 million a year or whatever it is they pay him.

__
"I instantly realized that everything in my life that I thought was unfixable was totally fixable - except for having just jumped."
--from "J
[ Parent ]
For the curious (none / 2) (#21)
by polish surprise on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 06:21:47 PM EST

You can grab the video off of C-SPAN's site. The PATRIOT Act bit starts about 13:00 into the video.

--
Controversy is my middle name.
[ Parent ]

CSPAN has declined (3.00 / 5) (#27)
by imrdkl on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 07:06:24 PM EST

They've completely sold out to Real. Mplayer will stream this link if you've got the winmedia stuff installed.

[ Parent ]
Different Time (none / 2) (#35)
by Agent1 on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 07:51:51 PM EST

With the WMV stream, the bit about the PATRIOT Act starts at about 6:00.


-Agent1
"Thats the whole point of the internet, to slander people anonymously." - Anonymous
[ Parent ]
Thanks for the link [n/t] (none / 1) (#67)
by anticlimax on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 10:58:39 PM EST



[ Parent ]
Direct download MPEG-2 (none / 0) (#162)
by ffrinch on Fri Jan 23, 2004 at 02:59:11 AM EST

Cory Doctorow put up a 24-second grab of it here. Don't know how long the link will last though.

-◊-
"I learned the hard way that rock music ... is a powerful demonic force controlled by Satan." — Jack Chick
[ Parent ]
I mirrored it (none / 1) (#183)
by Wah on Fri Jan 23, 2004 at 11:09:05 AM EST

it'll be there for years.

part of this rant about the same speech, with more links, double the snark, and less refinement.
--
"Beware the Jabberwock, my son! The jaws that bite, the claws that catch! Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun The frumious Bandersnatch!"
..or simply
[ Parent ]

I can understand that (none / 1) (#230)
by onemorechip on Fri Jan 23, 2004 at 09:17:04 PM EST

I can understand why they would applaud the expiration of key provisions of the PAT RIOT act.

What I can't understand is why they would give a standing ovation to the statement, made immediately afterwards, that the terrorist threat would continue.

Have we elected a bunch of Al Qaeda supporters to Congress?
--------------------------------------------------

In a democracy, the government has no rights, only permission. A government that has rights is a dictator
[ Parent ]

standing ovation for "terrorist threat"! (none / 1) (#251)
by shinshin on Sat Jan 24, 2004 at 02:40:38 PM EST

The really eerie think about the applause was:
Key provisions of the PATRIOT Act are set to expire next year.
[scattered applause from some Democrats]

The terrorist thret will not expire on that schedule.
[standing ovation from all the Republicans]
What the hell? Are they happy that there will be an ongoing threat of terrorism? Was the standing ovation just a pavlovian response to any meaningful pause in the speech? Or was it more of a "we're popular because people are confused and afraid" in-your-face-liberals response?

____
We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons --Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, March 16, 2003
[ Parent ]
About as fun as... (none / 0) (#261)
by ckaminski on Sat Jan 24, 2004 at 11:20:15 PM EST

Watching the golden globes, although there a lot less hot half-naked chicks at the State of the Union.... :-/

Thanks, I'll just read the transcripts.

http://www.c-span.org/executive/transcript.asp?cat=current_event&code=bush_a dmin&year=2004


[ Parent ]

To quote my girlfriend: (2.66 / 12) (#3)
by debacle on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 04:13:31 PM EST

"Why do they all give him a standing ovation whenever he says terrorist?"

It tastes sweet.
Because they like tourism (2.00 / 5) (#6)
by Milo Minderbender on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 04:26:44 PM EST

It's good for the economy.

--------------------
This comment is for the good of the syndicate.
[ Parent ]
It's a three sylable word (2.93 / 15) (#39)
by curunir on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 08:45:41 PM EST

He has problems with them sometimes. It's kinda like how you clap when the last-place finisher crosses the finish line at the special olympics.

[ Parent ]
Amnesty (2.80 / 5) (#11)
by NaCh0 on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 05:37:38 PM EST

Amnesty actually pardons all persons who've violated the immigration laws, so it's unclear why he believes it is unfair, but the formal definition probably isn't so very important to George.

Amnesty is unfair to all of the people who are obeying the laws and going thru the long citizenship process.

--
K5: Your daily dose of socialism.

As I understand (none / 2) (#13)
by imrdkl on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 05:46:40 PM EST

the amnesty which George rejects applies only to the act of illegal entrance. Permits will be granted on a case by case basis, instead of en masse. Citizenship must still be applied for, and earned.

[ Parent ]
Amnesty... (none / 1) (#262)
by ckaminski on Sat Jan 24, 2004 at 11:24:04 PM EST

makes a mockery of every person who goes through the legal process and obtains a visa, either work or citizenship.  

This is pandering, shameless pandering.  :-/

[ Parent ]

Our cause is the cause of all mankind! (1.14 / 21) (#16)
by sellison on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 05:56:34 PM EST

indeed, and we are the last best hope of humanity!

A speech fit for a legendary leader of a legendary land!

George Bush should be elected President for Life!

The 2004 election promises to be a silly excercise in dem self destruction anyway.

Lets just dispense with the torture and lying rich socialist funded moveon hitler ads and give Fighting George Bush all the time he wants to finish the job!


"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God."- George H.W. Bush

A Wise Liberal (2.20 / 5) (#18)
by imrdkl on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 06:08:31 PM EST

Will mod parent up until after this autoposts. After that, nuke the bootlicker.

[ Parent ]
Why? (none / 2) (#23)
by ShadowNode on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 06:50:50 PM EST

Comment ratings don't effect autopost anymore.

[ Parent ]
can't resist (none / 2) (#29)
by martingale on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 07:35:21 PM EST

George Bush should be elected President for Life!
Yeah, then he can wear the padded jacket with "PrezL" written on the back.

[ Parent ]
dude (1.66 / 6) (#153)
by circletimessquare on Thu Jan 22, 2004 at 10:41:32 PM EST

you're a fascist sycophant

you are good enough to lick his boots, but little more

your mind seems to have dimmed


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Heh (none / 2) (#163)
by flimflam on Fri Jan 23, 2004 at 04:19:14 AM EST

Judging by the replies and ratings on this comment, not many people around here are very good at recognizing sarcasm.


-- I am always optimistic, but frankly there is no hope. --Hosni Mubarek
[ Parent ]
My question: (2.16 / 6) (#17)
by Happy Monkey on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 06:06:56 PM EST

Is one of his brothers taking steroids? 'Cause last year his bugaboo was foreign sex workers...
___
Length 17, Width 3
A telling slip of the tongue (2.73 / 19) (#24)
by schwong on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 07:00:36 PM EST

I was watching the State of the Union address yesterday while talking to my cousin. We were laughing along in good humor as Bush muddled his way through the teleprompter-text. Then, toward the end of the speech, we were shocked out of our tittering by a truly frightening stumble he made:

"Last month a girl in Lincoln, Rhode Island, sent me a letter. It began, 'Dear George W. Bush. If there's anything you know, I, Ashley Pearson, age 2 -- AGE 10 -- can do to help anyone, please send me a letter and tell me what I can do to save our country.'"

That's right, BUSH READS IN BINARY! He truly is a mechanical man!

I for one welcome our new robot overlords.

:-) - plus read a bit earlier (none / 1) (#238)
by meaningless pseudonym on Sat Jan 24, 2004 at 08:21:42 AM EST

Dear George W. Bush. If there's anything you know,

[ Parent ]
Bush doesn't want to let fags get married either (1.50 / 6) (#25)
by Talez on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 07:00:49 PM EST

I know he just wants to keep what Clinton made but isn't this a violation of that 14th Amendment thingy?

You know... that part that guarentees "equal protection".

Si in Googlis non est, ergo non est

not really (2.50 / 8) (#28)
by minerboy on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 07:31:54 PM EST

First, from the governments perspective, who you have sex with has nothing to do with marriage. Marriage is a contract, like any other contract. The government has the right to restrict the types of contracts that are made - for example there are certain requiremenents for the contracts you sign with your health care providers, and only certain types of institutions can provide these contracts. The government can also support certain contracts - for example regulating employment contracts by setting certain labor standards, or providing incentives to banks to give Low cost loans to certain groups of people. You don't have a right to enter into any contract that you want. A gay man has every right to marry a woman - there is no equal protection issue



[ Parent ]
What if only homosexual marriages were allowed? (none / 2) (#103)
by BlowCat on Thu Jan 22, 2004 at 09:34:18 AM EST

What if only homosexual marriages were allowed? Would you still insist there no equal protection issue?

[ Parent ]
Well yes (none / 2) (#105)
by minerboy on Thu Jan 22, 2004 at 11:00:16 AM EST

But why would a government provide special support for a contract that serves only the two individuals in that contract ?

The issue is, to what extent government should support those involved in a "marriage" contract, compared to someone involved in a Civil Union. The Government recognizes civil unions, and enforces those contracts through the court system. Marriage Contracts have additional privleges, for example, social security benefits, and less expensive access to healthcare systems. The purpose of the extra support is to encourage family based procreation. Family based procreation benefits the community, thus the government decides that it should support it.

Now its true that some marriages these days do not have that purpose, and maybe the government should examine how they are supported. But there is no doubt that Gay marriages are not about procreation and child rearing - despite the rare 2 mom families. - Frankly, beyond milking the government for free benefits, I can't see any advantage of gay marriage over Civil unions.



[ Parent ]
Let's put it differently (none / 1) (#154)
by BlowCat on Thu Jan 22, 2004 at 11:31:51 PM EST

Some people cannot marry their loved ones because of the bigots who write the laws. That's unfair. As long as both partners are adults, the state should have no right to tell them to marry someone else instead.

[ Parent ]
There is more to it (none / 1) (#248)
by jameth on Sat Jan 24, 2004 at 11:59:50 AM EST

Because that also opens up the option for more than two partners.

Why can I not have three wives?

[ Parent ]

Indeed.... (none / 0) (#263)
by ckaminski on Sat Jan 24, 2004 at 11:28:20 PM EST

Why can you not have 3 wives?  Nothing is preventing you from having 3 wives, only for claiming legal, tax and health care benefits for all of them.

:-)

[ Parent ]

Family = one committed relationship (none / 0) (#272)
by BlowCat on Mon Jan 26, 2004 at 03:20:52 AM EST

Many laws assume that there are only two partners. They are not suited to protect interests of partners in situations when there are more than two of them. One family is one committed relationship. With 3 partners we get 3 relationships. What if one of them goes sour? It gets too complicated to be regulated by laws written for families with two partners.

[ Parent ]
i voted for gore (1.47 / 17) (#26)
by circletimessquare on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 07:05:57 PM EST

when scalia stole the election for that stupid monkey gwbush i cried.

and with the economy improving, i fear gwbush will be reelected, no problem.

but who do i blame? liberals, not conservatives.

liberals have their head stuck up their ass over iraq... just as we can say with gay marriage conservatives "just don't get it", when it comes to iraq, liberals "just don't get it".

i consider myself a liberal hawk: i am for abortion rights, homosexual marriage, marijuana legalization, euthanasia, gun control, etc.

i despise fundamentalism, i despise fox, i despise bush, i always have, i have voted democrat my entire life.

two of my greatest ideological heroes are from france in fact: jacques ellul ("propaganda: the formation of men's attitudes"), and jean-francois revel ("without marx or jesus").

i live in america, but i don't consider myself american. i consider myself a citizen of the world. i think globally, not locally. liberals who oppose the war in iraq are guilty of thinking locally, and missing the great leap leftward the war in iraq represents globally. until more people think like me: globally, not locally... who consider them citizens of the world, and not citizens of whatever stupid tribal geopolitcal enclave you were born into, then we are doomed.

just because i have a hawkish attitude about my love for democracy (why i supported the invasion of iraq, and why i think we should invade north korea immediately), does not mean i am a social or religious conservative.

such people actually exist in the world.

i consider nationalism to be horrible tribal religion. i hate relgious fundamentalism, whether jewish, christian or muslim. to me pat robertson is as evil as al qaeda, and should be treated the same way. religious fundamentalism is the greatest threat to the world, not muslim fundamentalism. kill the zionist settlers, kill the muslim terrorists, kill the intolerant christian fundies.

i am a liberal hawk, and i am cosmopolitan and global in my connvictions, and i look forward to the day of pandemocracy, perhaps with the same revolutionary zeal as the early communists, but for democracy and capitalism instead over the entire world.

death to nationalism, that disgusting artificial divider of men, as evil and contrived as racism and bigotry.

globalization is not a dirty word, despite some knowing it as "americanization"... globalization has more to do with the spread of liberal ideas than anything else, and very little to do with nike shoe factories in indonesia. about that liberal clueless local-tinking children DO NOT GET IT.

learn the way of the liberal hawk, it has nothing to do with social conservatives, and nothing to do with do nothing liberal idiots.

we own the future of this world, the liberal hawks

death to social conservatives.

and death to do nothing liberals.

we will take the world over, we are the future.

to me, one stupid but well-meaning monkey like gwbush in the white house is less of a problem than an obstructionist local-thinking navel-gazing recriminating guilt ridden liberal idiot in the white house who just DOES NOT GET IT about the real aim, purport, goal, and real-world effects of the iraq war.

the iraq war ADVANCES THE LIBERAL AGENDA by placing democracy as mollifying bulwark against religious fundamentalism in the middle east.

if only those who call themselves "liberal" will stop sinking the ship over lost issues like the war in iraq, than democrats have a chance to win back the white house. until liberals in america fess up, tighten their belt, and admit their utter ideological loss over the issue of the war in iraq, the democratic party is doomed.


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

The Life History (2.87 / 8) (#30)
by imrdkl on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 07:35:28 PM EST

Was probably unnecessary, but whatever blows your dress up, as they say. I am personally against the invasion of Iraq primarily because it did nothing to win justice for the victims of 9.11, and that's the fight (note, not war) that we should be winning. al Queda has benefitted immensely from our lack of resources and time to fight them, and while we chase cockroaches with sledgehammers in Iraq, they're using a razor to cut away at our allies (Turkey, Indonesia, Australia), rebuild their own networks and support systems, put fear in local and international travelers, encourage further restrictions of liberty, and make themselves harder than ever to find and destroy.

I don't like the fact that we were lied to anymore than anyone else regarding those weapons, which is also the main reason our country went "willingly" to war, but neither am I upset that Hussein has finally been taken out. Nevertheless, Iraq remains a quagmire from which the only exit strategy seems to be via accomplishing something much less than our original intentions.

Make no mistake, lad. Our actions, our justice, our beliefs, and our fairness are being judged in Afghanistan, and not just by men. And in spite of George's big words, there is nothing resembling a "Marshall Plan" being implemented there. The country is decending back into chaos, and the power structures, drug trade, and mercilessness which ruled before the invasion lurks just outside of the areas which are patrolled by the coalition, and indeed, even within it. I submit that with only 20% of the resources being utilized in Iraq, that situation could be changed, and a real "win" might just be acheivable there, but such is not to be.

As I've said before, GWB can indebt our great nation for the next two, or three, or fifty generations, but he can't "print" human resources. And human resources - experienced, intelligent, educated, multilingual human resources, are what is most desparately needed to succeed in Afghanistan, or anywhere else, for that matter. And the truth is that we've simply run dry for that type of resource in our military, at least of whom are available for duty over there. Now we're just about ready to send a fresh batch of construction workers, hair stylists, and salesmen over there to take over for the exhausted and demoralized troops who're being picked off like flies.

And for what? So Iraq can be "better off" with the Mullahs running the show? To keep oil priced in dollars? I don't know. I like the fact that Iraqis don't have to live in as much fear now as much as any American, but the souls of the dead of 9.11 cry out from their graves for justice, and we give them an scared old man with bad teeth.

[ Parent ]

Yeah, what he said. (2.80 / 5) (#34)
by johnny on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 07:50:11 PM EST

And you left off the parts about the cynical enrichment of his cronies, the assault on constitutional liberties, the widening gap between the rich and poor -- which always bodes ill for a polity, and the pall-mall destruction of the natural environment.

yr frn,
jrs
Get your free download of prizewinning novels Acts of the Apostles and Che
[ Parent ]
i admire that you're being candid (1.83 / 6) (#36)
by circletimessquare on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 07:53:23 PM EST

but you fall into the classic useless trap of criticizing every aciton taken, but proposing no action that is superior to the one being taken

i submit to you that flawed, inaccurate, risky action is far better than no action at all

that is something a lot of people just don't get, especially over the iraq war

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

I agree (2.00 / 5) (#43)
by driptray on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 09:09:03 PM EST

i submit to you that flawed, inaccurate, risky action is far better than no action at all

While it might be a flawed, inaccurate and risky response to kill you for saying something so dumb, I'm sure you'll agree that it would be better than doing nothing.
--
We brought the disasters. The alcohol. We committed the murders. - Paul Keating
[ Parent ]

your prerogative (1.50 / 6) (#44)
by circletimessquare on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 09:15:07 PM EST

but it's interesting that you advocate violence so easily, while at the same time what... taking stand against war? LOL

hypocrisy, my friend, is no way to win an argument and not something to base an ideology on

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

War is not Violence (none / 1) (#247)
by jameth on Sat Jan 24, 2004 at 11:49:51 AM EST

Violence is not War.

Wars can be non-violent (trade-war)

Violence can exist outside of war (me kicking your face in)

Look at almost all early societies. They praised battle and deplored war. Why? Wars are detrimental, and are only an option when the alternative is more detrimental. Nobody wins a war, and nobody enjoys a war.

[ Parent ]

Uh huh (2.40 / 5) (#45)
by pyramid termite on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 09:29:04 PM EST

i submit to you that flawed, inaccurate, risky action is far better than no action at all

Is that why you kick anti-abortion protesters on the street?

Do you know what I really mistrust? People on a "mission from God" - fanatics. Osama, Hitler, quite possibly Bush, and most certainly you.

On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
[ Parent ]
hey stalker (1.50 / 8) (#49)
by circletimessquare on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 09:42:49 PM EST

you don't have to like me

you can even hate me, and follow me around, and stalk me with my words, that's fine, trolls abound here, you're but a drop in the ocean

it doesn't matter to me, everyone needs a fan club, i'm flattered that you think i'm the issue here, you tweak my ego

but i know, and everyone else knows, that i'm not the issue here

so move aside sycophant, and let people talk about the real issues, as no one, not even me, wants to talk about me

i think lonely stalkers just need love

so smooches stalker ;-)

xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxox


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

You're a hotheaded fanatic ... (none / 3) (#56)
by pyramid termite on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 10:05:30 PM EST

... and have confessed it with your own words. By the way, that click you heard on your phone today? That was me. BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!

On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
[ Parent ]
The first step in problem solving (none / 2) (#47)
by cburke on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 09:30:46 PM EST

is always defining the problem.  It's the most important, really.  You can't solve the real problem if you don't know what it is.

If we could all agree on what the problem is with the current situation, then that'd be useful progress on finding a solution.  

[ Parent ]

that's what we need? (1.60 / 5) (#48)
by circletimessquare on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 09:39:24 PM EST

a bunch of philosophers sitting around attempting to define the problem?

do you have secret late night fantasies of becoming a bureaucrat?

look: everyone can see why action without thought is wrong and evil

i submit to you the inverse is equally wrong and evil: thought without action- thought without action leads to injustice as well and just as much evil as action without thought... a lot of good, well-meaning men sitting around thinking about the wrongs in the world but DOING NOT A DAMN THING is implicit aid to evil- "all that evil needs to triumph in the world is good men to do nothing", etc...

life is never about perfection, action is always messy and innacurate

in a way, i'm simply educating you on reality, while you remain an idealist

realists get things done

idealists sit around perfecting the imperfectable


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Nope (2.66 / 6) (#59)
by pyramid termite on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 10:17:40 PM EST

a bunch of philosophers sitting around attempting to define the problem?

Nope. We need a President, some intelligence agents and some generals to define the problem. They got off to a good start in Afghanistan. They lost the way in Iraq.

What country were the hijackers from? Where's Osama from? What country's ruling class has been bankrolling Al Qaeda? What country has been the birthplace of their radical religious ideology?

Saudi Arabia.

We've been cleaning up the wrong pigsty. And THAT'S the reality.

On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
[ Parent ]
Economics (none / 1) (#109)
by Ogygus on Thu Jan 22, 2004 at 11:55:49 AM EST

We've been cleaning up the wrong pigsty. And THAT'S the reality.

Or perhaps we're coming at them from a different angle?

The mice will see you now.
[ Parent ]
Not philosophers. Engineers. (2.40 / 5) (#89)
by cburke on Thu Jan 22, 2004 at 01:02:12 AM EST

I agree with you that not acting is a bad way to solve a problem.  Since you agree with me that acting foolishly is also bad, we have a consensus.  From here we can hopefully agree to work to achieving the elusive third option:  acting, but not foolishly.

Properly defining the problem as part of solving it is a basic principal of sound engineering.  It's not philosophy, it's experience.  The best engineered solution to the wrong problem won't be any better than the mistakes it was based on.

I didn't say you had to be perfect.  This is an engineering principle.  Obviously, time constraints are an aspect of the problem and your method of solving it, as well.  I don't know why you think discussing the problem would mean never doing anything about it.  So the "i'm simply educating you on reality" and such is really not necessary.  I'm talking about how you make things work in reality, which is what engineering is.

What I'm trying to tell you is that if you do not decide the nature of the problem, you are likely going to fail at developing a solution.  It might be a good argumentative tactic to demand solutions as justification for the existence of a problem, but it makes a very poor engineering one.

If you disagree with the statement of the problem, say as much.  If you agree, say as much, and then you can worry about solutions.

[ Parent ]

makes me want to pray for your soul ... (2.80 / 5) (#84)
by mami on Thu Jan 22, 2004 at 12:12:10 AM EST

because you seem to have lost your mind.

just because i have a hawkish attitude about my love for democracy (why i supported the invasion of iraq, and why i think we should invade north korea immediately), does not mean i am a social or religious conservative.

Well, I ask the next commander in chief to send you in the front lines and drop the nukes. No problem. Koreans and Iraqis will thank you from the bottom of your heart for your love for your democracy and your disrespect of their's.

What did you smoke?

[ Parent ]

Their what? (2.00 / 4) (#99)
by Gully Foyle on Thu Jan 22, 2004 at 06:42:53 AM EST

Democracy? Umm...

If you weren't picked on in school you were doing something wrong - kableh
[ Parent ]

their what??? (1.80 / 5) (#124)
by circletimessquare on Thu Jan 22, 2004 at 04:25:27 PM EST

Koreans and Iraqis will thank you from the bottom of your heart for your love for your democracy and your disrespect of their's.

their what???

their democracy???

you are asking what i am smoking???


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

It's not your country, it's their's (2.50 / 4) (#126)
by mami on Thu Jan 22, 2004 at 05:44:14 PM EST

just because you are hawkish on democracy and love it so much, doesn't mean you have the right to invade any country that doesn't meet your standards on democratic issues. (I learned, BTW  from great American libertarians that the US is not a democracy, but a Republic. How can you be so sure about your democracy love  affair, as you can't be that knowledgable about what a democracy is, coming fromt the Republic of the US)  

You don't like the other country's lack of democracy? You think they are not as well behaved democratic countries as you want them to be? As long as they didn't attack you directly and didn't attack another country, with whom you have an agreement that an attack on their country equals an attack on your country (like the NATO has for its members, for example), I wonder why you think you can just go in there and clean up their messy undemocratic system?

Korea is a divided country, I would ask South Koreans, if they want the US just to invade North Korea and drop bombs on them. You know just out of courtesy and respect for the human beings, who happen to live there? Don't you think one could ask that kind of respect?

I didn't smoke anything, you mumble about being a global citizen. There are no global citizens, you are always a local one, as are the policies you support.

If you love democracy so much, why don't you take care of your own democracy first, before you scare the hell out of the people globally with your bomb throwing democracy fury attacks? Just because you need to feel good about your own "democratic hawkishness" doesn't mean you invade other countries on have your "high" on their cost.  


[ Parent ]

i am not an american (1.40 / 5) (#128)
by circletimessquare on Thu Jan 22, 2004 at 05:58:41 PM EST

i am a citizen of the world

according to you, whatever happens outside of your little narrow-minded ethnic enclave is hands off

provincial, narrow-minded nationalistic thinking is an evil in my book just like racism, homophobia, sexism

no matter what vile or evil happens outside your country, it will never effect you... right?

really?

so apparently, the poles had nothing to worry about from germany in the late 1930s, right?

you are a human being

develop some compassion for your fellow human beings who live outside your little tribe

it does effect you, the suffering of those in north korea does effects you

it is your duty as someone who lives in the rich west to care about those who are not as well off as you

covering your eyes and not caring one bit about what happens elsewhere in the world "it's not my problem" simply means you lack empathy, love, compassion for your fellow human being

stop being a spoiled child of the west, who will not lift one finger to defend the principles of democracy which made you as rich as you are today

start caring about those who do not enjoy the fruits of democracy, and sit under the boot of really evil men

you are just a spoiled brat, with no real understanding of where you really fit in the world


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

my narrow-minded ethnic enclave (none / 2) (#129)
by mami on Thu Jan 22, 2004 at 06:06:56 PM EST

is rather diverse ... ok go away trolliman, preach yourself your own morals ...

[ Parent ]
i hope you care about your neighbors (1.20 / 5) (#130)
by circletimessquare on Thu Jan 22, 2004 at 06:08:16 PM EST

i do

you are the one who is arguing for why we should not care for our fellow human beings


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

bravo, good for you, (none / 1) (#131)
by mami on Thu Jan 22, 2004 at 06:09:45 PM EST

so if I were your neighbor, you cared for me or would you rather invade ?

[ Parent ]
i would invade (1.40 / 5) (#132)
by circletimessquare on Thu Jan 22, 2004 at 06:11:39 PM EST

if you were beating your child

caring about your fellow human being is not hugging and kissing him all the time, it is also tough love when your neighbor is abusing other people

would you mind characterizing to me what you think it is like to live in the worker's paradise of north korea?

you will win your argument with me when you are able to prevent human beings from caring about the suffering of others


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

luckily I am not in (none / 1) (#133)
by mami on Thu Jan 22, 2004 at 06:31:20 PM EST

"the winning the argument" kind of mode for all the wrong reasons.

Enjoy your day, I have work to do.

[ Parent ]

for all the wrong reasons? (1.40 / 5) (#134)
by circletimessquare on Thu Jan 22, 2004 at 06:34:51 PM EST

you mean caring about other people?

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Alright (none / 3) (#135)
by pyramid termite on Thu Jan 22, 2004 at 06:56:42 PM EST

Just how many troops do you think we're going to need to make the world follow this democracy thing?

On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
[ Parent ]
you need to fight sometimes in life (1.40 / 5) (#136)
by circletimessquare on Thu Jan 22, 2004 at 07:07:30 PM EST

what did world war ii teach you?

some men care more about their ego than the well-being of the  people who live in the territory they control, illegitimately

democracy was the salvation of the people japan, germany

it will be the salvation of the people of iraq, north korea

democracy expresses the will of the people living in a given area, thus, it establishes legitimacy

one megalomaniac bent on domination is not a legitmate ruler of anyone

the difference between you and me is i recognize you have to fight sometimes in this world, while you apparently live in a parallel universe where no one ever needs to fight for what they believe in, there is no conflict and no one ever goes to arms to fight for their convictions, good or bad, and everyone holds hands and dances around campfires


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

You didn't answer my question (none / 2) (#140)
by pyramid termite on Thu Jan 22, 2004 at 07:48:42 PM EST

How many troops do we need to send? If we want to succeed at this, we need to have a good idea, don't we?

On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
[ Parent ]
hey idjit (1.20 / 5) (#143)
by circletimessquare on Thu Jan 22, 2004 at 08:22:09 PM EST

why are you asking me? i don't know... the democratic world needs some troops, i don't know how many, but i know it's not zero or a billion.

that's a part of the connection between september 11th and iraq: no matter what you think of bush's intentions, he could not have justified sending any troops to iraq were it not for that event.

if september 11th had not happened, there would be no american troops in iraq right now, since there would have been no public support for invading iraq.

we won't invade north korea either because there is no public support for it. but we should though, because a soon as la develops a nuclear signature, or tokyo resembles hiroshima, then north korea will cease to exist in 24 hours. if we would just get rid of kim il jong today, tokyo and la may be spared.

you are talking about a country that can't feed it's own people, but holds the largest standing army proportionate to their population by far in the world, is constantly trying to develop nukes, and is in constant wartime preparation.

when hitler invaded the sudetenland, and there was no public will in the west to go to war with him at the time. imagine the lives that would have been saved had the west recognized the threat to world peace hitler represented at the time of the sudetenland. saddam hussein was such a character with kuwait. kim il jong is such a character with lobbing warheads over japan. it's only a matter of time before great sorrow will befall the korean peninsula because of that evil man, and there is no public will to do anything about it right now, because of the risks. kim il jong will be removed, but not until after he strikes, perhpas killing millions of south koreans, japanese, or americans, on top of the millions he has already starved in north korea.

but according to you i suppose, we just need to give him a big hug and he will smile and let the korean peninsula reunite in democracy.

becuase there's no need to ever fight men like him, right?


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

You don't know? (2.25 / 4) (#145)
by pyramid termite on Thu Jan 22, 2004 at 08:33:14 PM EST

why are you asking me? i don't know...

Then you have no idea what you're really proposing, do you? You're just talking through your hat.

(space reserved for more ranting utterly devoid of any facts or sense of practicality)

On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
[ Parent ]
more ranting utterly devoid of any facts (1.20 / 5) (#146)
by circletimessquare on Thu Jan 22, 2004 at 08:38:07 PM EST

the democratic world needs some troops, i don't know how many, but i know it's not zero or a billion.

so you ask many questions, when do we hear answers to your own questions? i am pining for your supreme wisdom i am so obviosuly devoid of in my babbling rambling factless existence

How many troops do we need to send?

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Where are we sending them? (2.80 / 5) (#149)
by pyramid termite on Thu Jan 22, 2004 at 10:08:26 PM EST

You know, that's something else you've left out of your great plan ... I think I'm going to have to know that first before I tell you how many we'll need.

Hmmm, but you did say you wanted to bring democracy to the world. Hmm. Off the top of my head, you mentioned North Korea - we currently have 37,000 troops there, the S. Koreans have 650,000, the North Koreans have a million. I'd say we'd need another 100,000 at least.

Saudi Arabia? Syria? Most of the countries in Africa? Hey, how about that dictatorship in Pakistan and that questionable "democracy" in Iran? There's several Central Asian "republics" that aren't exactly bastions of freedom either. Don't forget Burma and Vietnam, you know, the country we had hundreds of thousands of troops in and lost. Hmmm. Oh, there's China too. You know, that country with over a billion people? They're not a democracy either, are they? Better put them on the list. There's probably a couple of countries in South America that are undemocratic or need help staying that way ...

OK, well, hmm. Somewhere between 2 and 3 billion people we're going to fight to bring them democracy, right? It's a good thing that we've got superior arms ... I'd say 50 million troops would be a good start. We'll draft everyone between 18 and 35 and make everyone else work in war factories.

I'm sure the American people will go for that plan in a heartbeat, being lovers of democracy. Let's roll!

I'm sure that someone like you, who's been advocating a crusade for democracy, has many refinements to this plan I've missed, though.

On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
[ Parent ]
you're weird (1.20 / 5) (#150)
by circletimessquare on Thu Jan 22, 2004 at 10:11:30 PM EST

who said we needed to send troops anywhere except where they are needed?

why would they be needed in any of these places?


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Uh-huh (2.50 / 4) (#151)
by pyramid termite on Thu Jan 22, 2004 at 10:23:53 PM EST

I knew you weren't really sincere about this.

On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
[ Parent ]
dude (1.20 / 5) (#152)
by circletimessquare on Thu Jan 22, 2004 at 10:33:27 PM EST

you are the one who is simplifying things, not me

you don't send troops to solve all your problems in the world, the world is more complex than that, duh!

if you are going to debate me, don't think i am simple, unless you honestly believe this is what i am saying: send troops everywhere... if you think this is what i am saying then the problem is that you are the simpleton

you forgot cuba on your list you know of simpleton thinking, if you want to accuse me of simplistic military thinking

but i don't think we should send troops to cuba, it doesn't represent a threat to the peace and prosperity of the democratic world

what makes you think north korea is not a threat to the peace and prosperity of the democratic world?

china's leader, hu jintao, has publicly stated china should be a democracy someday, but he thinks they are not ready yet... why the hell would we go to war with them? i would never think that in a million years, china is not a threat! china will be a democracy someday!

if you want me to add a place to the list where we should send troops, how about rwanda when the hutus and tutsis were killing each other? we sent troops to serbia at the same time, but not rwanda while millions were killed... to me, this is racism: serbia deserves troops but not rwanda? pure racism from my pov, we should have sent troops to rwanda to prevent the genocide there... why? BECAUSE I CARE ABOUT THE SUFFERING OF MY FELLOW HUMAN BEING

clinton apologized for us not sending troops there after all

so in your mind, my simpleton friend, why do you believe it is never necessary to fight for democracy? why in your mind, did saddam hussein have any shred of legitimacy to his existence? why should he have been allowed to have one more heartbeat in power over the people of iraq? what does his invasion of kuwait mean to you, about his legitimacy, about his intentions?

if a regime becomes unstable and belligerent and startys making threats to it's neighbors and kills millions of it's people, it deserves to be replaced with democracy, and the only way to dso that is with force

i don't LIKE that, i don't WANT to kill anyone, but i will DEFEND THE WEAK who are being killed by evil men

do you understand that pov?


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Do you know what a straw man argument is? (none / 3) (#168)
by pyramid termite on Fri Jan 23, 2004 at 05:26:26 AM EST

I'm tired of having to talk over your arguments with your imaginary playmates.

On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
[ Parent ]
i've made myself quite clear (1.33 / 6) (#204)
by circletimessquare on Fri Jan 23, 2004 at 04:16:05 PM EST

i don't hear you saying a damn thing

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Democracy, republic (2.75 / 4) (#167)
by ttsalo on Fri Jan 23, 2004 at 05:24:12 AM EST

I learned, BTW from great American libertarians that the US is not a democracy, but a Republic.

What? US is a democracy. A republic is a subtype of democracy (namely a representative democracy). The libertarians may think that only direct democracies are democracies, but this is an odd point of view, since it would make the whole term "democracy" meaningless in the modern world, because there just aren't any direct democracies out there. Many if not most western democracies call themselves democratic republics.

Of course, you can't really trust a country's own definition of itself. After all, some of the most oppressive regimes have called themselves People's Democratic Republics and were wrong on all three counts.



[ Parent ]

well, if a republic is a subtype of a democracy, (none / 1) (#249)
by mami on Sat Jan 24, 2004 at 12:11:44 PM EST

which I might agree with, then, obviously, people are quite divided over the issue what kind of subtype of democracy is more democractic and fair and serves the need of the people better, a US-style republic with your kind of set-up of competing state and federal legislatures even on very basic human and civil rights issues, or a some other constitutional democracies or even differently designed democratic republics (like Germany for example), but differently designed, which have different kind of representation, different voting systems than the electoral system and different legal systems.

If you think that those differences are not important enough for people to disagree over vehemently, then you just haven't looked at it cloesely enough. It seems to me that the basic ideas of how, for example, the constitution in Iraq should be designed, brings those differences in opinions in the open right now.

[ Parent ]

in addition to that (none / 0) (#259)
by mami on Sat Jan 24, 2004 at 10:38:26 PM EST

apparently it's now also in the open that the Bush administration doesn't know either what's the best democracy type in Iraq .

[ Parent ]
Except... (none / 2) (#94)
by Znork on Thu Jan 22, 2004 at 05:21:27 AM EST

"the iraq war ADVANCES THE LIBERAL AGENDA by placing democracy as mollifying bulwark against religious fundamentalism in the middle east."

You place a lot of trust in the dream that Iraq will become a democracy. Currently the mullahs cant seem to wait until the opportunity to seize power in the (real soon now) upcoming elections.

If I had the faintest belief that the various wars will lead to democracy I'd applaud them wholeheartedly. But frankly I'm more inclined to believe those countries will end up as fundamentalistically dominated breedinggrounds for fanatics.

Thinking globally I'm of the opinion that we have all the self-detonating crazies we need in the world. We dont need to spawn more of them.

[ Parent ]

10,000 doubting thomases (1.20 / 5) (#125)
by circletimessquare on Thu Jan 22, 2004 at 04:27:59 PM EST

matter less than one person who believes in a plan of action... ANY plan of action

sitting around criticizing and doubting is easy, actually DOING something is hard

you would have said the same thing about democracy in germany/ japan in 1945... the details of your criticism about iraq mean nothing, because at issue is your lack of faith in democracy, not your details and analyses of this sunni tribe or that muall's attitude

democracy must prevail, period, worldwide

pandemocracy is a world of peace

get with the program

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Your Argument is Stupid (none / 1) (#246)
by jameth on Sat Jan 24, 2004 at 11:47:04 AM EST

Germany and Japan had a unified population base, and still do. Each is over 90% composed of one ethnic group and views itself as a unified state. Furthermore, that's over 90% today, they were even more unified fifty years back.

Iraq, by comparison, is only around 75% Arab, with the rest being groups with large portions of violent revolutionaries who don't want to be a part of the country.

We cannot make Iraq a democratic country until we can make it a united country, and we have no way to make that happen.

[ Parent ]

doubt doubt doubt (none / 1) (#273)
by circletimessquare on Mon Jan 26, 2004 at 05:05:10 AM EST

you can make a list of 10 million reasons why democracy will never work in iraq

i submit, were this 1945, you would be doing the EXACT same thing if we were discussing germany or japan in 1945

so the point is that your list of 10 millions is not important, the point is that you have so much doubt in democracy, whatever the country, whatever the era, whatever the circumstances

it's the only legitimacy-ensuring form of govt we have, all other forms of government do not establish legitimacy in the eyes of the public of any country in any way nearly close to the way democracy does

100 PhDs with cogent detailed analyses of why democracy here or there or anywhere won't work are uttlerly trumped for all time by that observation

your doubt is the point, not your intelligence

as soon as you doubt democracy, you can invent a million reason why it won't work

so as soon as you doubt the power of democracy, you lose your argument, no matter how detailed

but democracy always is able to work, anywhere, anytime, it is always a superior form of govt

faith my friend, faith


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Tell me those reasons (none / 0) (#278)
by jameth on Mon Jan 26, 2004 at 10:29:55 AM EST

No, really, tell me the reasons that democracy wouldn't work in those other countries and...oh, wait I don't give a shit.

Other things than democracy work, you know.

Did you realize that Japan has been reverting to a monarchy? Not too quick, but the imperial family has more power every year. The people are fine with this. The government runs pretty good. They have lower crime rates and unemployment than the US does, by a long shot. They're doing fine.

If all you have is your faith, which you are so obsessed with, you are a moron. Faith, but not faith alone, whoever-the-fuck-you-are.

[ Parent ]

listen carefully: (none / 2) (#279)
by circletimessquare on Mon Jan 26, 2004 at 10:47:46 AM EST

democracy is the best system so far devised by mankind for maximizing and spreading wealth and happiness.

period.

end of story.

all other geopolitical observations of yours and overall dim view of human nature that you demonstrate are trumped by that simple fact.

doubting dork, meet your rock of gibraltar: pandemocracy is the future of the entire world, if only for that fact it WORKS better than any other system.

smooches

xoxoxoxoxox


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

I'm sure... (none / 0) (#286)
by Znork on Mon Jan 26, 2004 at 05:35:47 PM EST

"10,000 doubting thomases matter less than one person who believes in a plan of action... ANY plan of action"

... you'd find many of the self-detonating nutcases agreeing with you on that one.

Personally I prefer a plan of action that is slightly more constructive. I actually like plans that get me closer to the goal as opposed to plans that get me further from it.

It would be much more comforting if you could come up with another successful example apart from Japan and Germany, considering they _already were democracies_.

It's a tad easier to oust a temporary tinpot dictator and restore democracy in a country than it is to create democracy in a country that hasnt gone through the long process to develop it. Democracy didnt happen overnight in Europe or the US. Or perhaps you have some fantasy that the current subjects of experimentation are several orders of magnitudes smarter than our own ancestors and are likely to 'get it' in a year or two when it took us centuries of social evolution?

Democratization is a process that takes place over a long period of time. Fundamentals like social systems, literacy, education, human rights, equality, freedom of expression, local democracy, parties and political activism and debate dont appear overnight. Germany and Japan had gone through this process and were on par with the rest of the world before their respective temporary setbacks into the dark ages. A lot of this was still in place when democracy was restored, which sped up the process quite a lot.

Granted, the Iraqi Baath being socialists rather than Islamic fundies the country isnt quite as bad off as it could have been as far as some of the prerequisites go, but it's gone backwards a lot the last decade.

But if you want plans for _doing_ something I can give you a whole bunch of them. All with a far higher likelyhood of succeeding in creating democracy in the mideast than the current method.

Of course, I'd be impressed if you could get the current US regime to finance something that didnt make pretty lights and go boom.

[ Parent ]

I agree (none / 2) (#172)
by Cackmobile on Fri Jan 23, 2004 at 08:21:52 AM EST

I am probably similar to you except I don't like war. SOmething has to be done about undemorcatic countries but don't know what

[ Parent ]
Okay (none / 2) (#186)
by Peaker on Fri Jan 23, 2004 at 11:23:07 AM EST

I am probably similar to you except I don't like war. SOmething has to be done about undemorcatic countries but don't know what

Lets ask them to become democracies then!

[ Parent ]

Don't know what (none / 0) (#274)
by Cackmobile on Mon Jan 26, 2004 at 07:40:12 AM EST

but we can surely avoid war. Maybe just secretly make their leaders disappear. Or arrest them when they come overseas or smart sanctions. war should be a last resort. The US needs to show the world it will stay in iraq as long as it takes. Then next time (Iran, Syria) it will be easy to get the locals on side

[ Parent ]
do-nothing liberals (none / 0) (#284)
by bradasch on Mon Jan 26, 2004 at 12:15:40 PM EST

Usually I dislike what you say entirely. In this post you changed that :-)

just because i have a hawkish attitude about my love for democracy (why i supported the invasion of iraq, and why i think we should invade north korea immediately), does not mean i am a social or religious conservative.

You seem noble in your ideas, but narrow in your actions. As much as I dislike Saddam or any other dictator, war should be always a last resort. Always. An unaccounted number of Iraqi civilians were killed. This is against my "hawkish love for"... well, life. I would support deposition of Saddam by all means, except bombing and war. That was brutal. It wasn't called "terrorism" because it had a nation behind it.

You see, somewere in a desert in Pakistan or whatever, there is a guy who thinks 9/11 was beautiful. And he uses the exact same argument you just exposed. As much as I hate this guy and Saddam and any other brutal dictator, bombing places will not stand as a reasonable solution. Never. Yes, I am all in favor of taking action. Sanctions were a good one (partly prevented Saddam from obtaineing WMD). The UN inspections were working. Diplomacy, in the humane sense (americans seem to understand only the commercial way of diplomacy).

Not war.

globalization is not a dirty word, despite some knowing it as "americanization"... globalization has more to do with the spread of liberal ideas than anything else, and very little to do with nike shoe factories in indonesia. about that liberal clueless local-tinking children DO NOT GET IT

Oh, I couldn't agree more with you. Globalization is about people, not money. But try to make an average american understand that. Explain that to the people in charge on the US. You'll have a hard time.

i always have, i have voted democrat my entire life.

Democrats and Republicans are virtually the same today. The two-party system that americans created failed. Americans have a hard time explaining their political ideas outside the "I'm a Democrat/Republican" range. Your ideas don't match the practices of these two parties. Why do you still vote for them? And by you, I mean the american people, in general. Why is that a "third-party" is as sinful as a crime?

Otherwise, I think we agree on this one! ;-)

[ Parent ]
I don't get the Budget (2.80 / 5) (#32)
by llamasex on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 07:40:46 PM EST

Our goal is in Five years to cut the 500 BILLION dollar debt to 250 BILLION dollars, that means another 2-3 trillion added on to the national debt. Yet, during this time you make the tax cuts permanent, we are spending 500 billion more than you are taking in and you are cutting taxes!?! It makes no sense, and it will fuck us over in the future at some point.

Howard Dean punched me in the face
Lower taxes, more benefits, cut deficit. Pick one. (2.60 / 5) (#38)
by cburke on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 08:39:54 PM EST

That's a summary of his domestic policy, minus picking just one.  He wants to do all three.  Since you can really only accomplish one of those goals at a time, that's obviously bullshit.  But on the other hand, it's such generic politician bullshit that I can't really get upset.  Though overreating by trying to optimize in several incompatible directions at once can lead to a disorganized mess that doesn't accomplish any of its goals.  Though in the case of politics it will -- irregardless of any particular failures -- cause the rich to become richer.

[ Parent ]
See thats why I like Dean (2.75 / 4) (#41)
by llamasex on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 08:49:32 PM EST

He seems to be the only Dem with the balls to say we need to repeal all the tax cuts to get the budget straight. Of course he seems to have been shot down, and I don't know if you could sell being resposible to America, but damnit I liked the idea of actually paying for the services we are getting and cutting those that we aren't willing to pay for. All the other Dems pander to the middle class on the issue with pisses me off to no end.

Howard Dean punched me in the face
[ Parent ]
Dean couldn't do what he says (none / 2) (#81)
by mami on Thu Jan 22, 2004 at 12:01:25 AM EST

when he is in office. So, it's doubtful, if he could actually walk his talk. I don't believe balancing the budget of Vermont and balancing the budget of the US is the same thing.

May be the other Dems are just more careful, because they know they can't provide what they promise.

[ Parent ]

$500 billion debt? (2.87 / 8) (#71)
by polish surprise on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 11:26:51 PM EST

Are you measuring that in US dollars? What year are you living in? The US National Debt is more than $7 trillion and counting.

Oh, pardon me, you're exactly in Bush's target audience - the people who confuse deficit with debt. Nevermind.

--
Controversy is my middle name.
[ Parent ]

Nobody can get the budget - there is none (none / 1) (#78)
by mami on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 11:52:00 PM EST

even the President can't get the budget.

[ Parent ]
No one gets the budget (none / 2) (#116)
by godix on Thu Jan 22, 2004 at 01:45:10 PM EST

The problem is that the economy isn't a zero sum game, raising taxes doesn't always raise governments income in the long run and cutting taxes doesn't always result in less. Which is why I hate hearing democrats talk about economics, they never understand that basic point. On the other hand you have Republicans which fail to comprehend that cutting taxes isn't always a good idea. There's a balancing game that needs to be done and professional economist are far better to do it than some politican who only knows how to kiss up to voters. I suppose it's a good thing that the President really doesn't deserve much credit or blame for the economy because I can't think of the last time we had a president capable of understanding the economy.

I will do whatever the Americans want, because I saw what happened in Iraq, and I was afraid.
- General Qaddafi
[ Parent ]
gwbush is an idiot (1.17 / 17) (#37)
by circletimessquare on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 08:26:04 PM EST

but liberals only have a spotlight on a minor area of the concerns of those who live in the us

liberals need to look at the entire ecosystem of the concerns of those who live in the us, and address them in a prioritized fashion in the same order that people living in the us care about those issues

until they do so, until they move their focus away from issues that the people in the us consider minor- for whatever reason, good or bad, then gwbush will remain in the white house

the people who live in the us set the agenda with their concerns, not liberals, not conservatives

when liberals respect that fact that some issues that the american people care about do not jive with the liberal agenda in the same order, for good or bad reasons, then they will persuade no one on the liberal agenda

reality is what it is, whether for good or bad reasons, and liberals have to work in it, regardless of your level of denial over the reality we find ourselves in today

the fact about the iraq war and september 11th is that gwbush and his stupid evil conservative cronies addressed the concerns of those who live in the us about these issues in a superior fashion, and they win power because the people who live in the us are more satisfied with how the conservatives addressed these issues than how liberals did

many liberals are still in complete denial over september 11th and iraq

liberals have not addressed september 11th and iraq in a way that satisfies the people who live in the us

until they do, liberals will never regain the white house

liberals: please, get your head out of your ass about september 11th and iraq... until you do, until you find a platform that resonates with the american people about these concerns, which are larger than things you are concerned with, then liberalism is doomed in the us

am i saying that something like the environment is less important than iraq/ sept 11? no... am i saying that the people who live in the us are right in thinking that iraq/ sept 11 is more important than the environment? no

but what i am doing, that a lot of other liberals are not, is recognizing and realizing two facts about reality... 1: people living in the us are concerned about their security first and foremost- not anything else! and 2: conservatives are doing a better job of persuading them that their agenda answers their concerns better than liberals do

liberals: focus on the issues that people in the us care about in the same order they care about them, and get over your denial about iraq and september 11th: conservatives are eating your lunch... PLEASE find a platform that resonates with people living in the us better than what conservatives are offering them, or you will never regain the white house


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

9/11 and Iraq ... (2.33 / 6) (#50)
by pyramid termite on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 09:43:12 PM EST

... are seperate issues. And no amount of bullshit from you or Bush is going to change that.

1: people living in the us are concerned about their security first and foremost- not anything else!

True, as far as it concerns terrorism. BUT

Terrorism, 21 percent.
Health care costs, 19 percent.
Economy, 18 percent (33 percent named the economy and other economy-related issues).
Unemployment, 14 percent.
Education, 6 percent (9 percent named education and related issues).
Iraq, 5 percent (13 percent mentioned Iraq (news - web sites) and wars generally).
Immigration, 5 percent.
Poverty, hunger, homelessness, 5 percent.

You're not painting an accurate picture of what the American people are concerned about - or what the liberals are concerned about.

Yes, it's terrorism. But it's also health care. And still, "it's the economy, stupid". And Iraq is pretty far down there on the list.

And guess what? The conservatives aren't really addressing a lot of those issues effectively, either.

On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
[ Parent ]
-1, childish (1.00 / 7) (#51)
by Typical African American Male on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 09:43:53 PM EST



[ Parent ]
we've been down this road before (1.20 / 5) (#52)
by circletimessquare on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 09:52:14 PM EST

you voted 0, not -1

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
If liberals never regain the Whitehouse (1.00 / 9) (#121)
by sellison on Thu Jan 22, 2004 at 02:42:54 PM EST

it will be a very good thing for America and the world.

Look what happened last time: bjs in the oval office, moral anarchy in the nation, and the rise of Qaeda and the WMD programs in Iraq, Libya, N. Korea, and Iran.

Now at least we are back on the Right track to making the world safer for Americans, which is what the office of the President is supposed to be about, not looking really slick in an expensive suit and using your power to impress young girls!


"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God."- George H.W. Bush
[ Parent ]

i never understood that (1.60 / 5) (#123)
by circletimessquare on Thu Jan 22, 2004 at 04:23:17 PM EST

why conservatives had a problem with bjs in the oval office

i mean, clinton could have roman orgies on the white house front lawn for all i give a shit, as long as the economy is good

why does a bj in the oval office bother conservatives so much?

so weird... i completely don't understand the problem

oh, and btw sellison, you're a fucking dick

smooches

xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxox


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Because promoting responsible morality (1.00 / 6) (#127)
by sellison on Thu Jan 22, 2004 at 05:58:40 PM EST

is an important role of any leader.

It's not strange at all that degenerates such as yourself and your slick willy don't get that, it's quite obvious that the only leader you respect is the one below your belt.

Meanwhile, George Bush stands tall as the kind of ruler Americans want and need, someone to protect us, lead us, and stand tall and spew down fear and loathing on our enemies, the enemies of freedom!

We will write our name in the sands of time with leaders like George Bush, proudly, while leaders like slick willy just leave disgusting stains on the sheets.


"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God."- George H.W. Bush
[ Parent ]

careful (1.85 / 7) (#142)
by circletimessquare on Thu Jan 22, 2004 at 08:06:23 PM EST

if you march any faster or shout any louder, that blood vessel might burst

but stroke is a glorious death for unthinking fascists like you anyway, so keep on marching and shouting, my mindless loyal subject


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

And what a role model he is (1.75 / 4) (#207)
by royalblue tom on Fri Jan 23, 2004 at 05:16:14 PM EST

Oh yes! GWB is such an upright, moral role model that all decent Americans should emulate ...

... oh, wait a minute. Didn't he have a coke problem in the 60's. Didn't he go AWOL from the National Guard? Wasn't he convicted for DUI? Didn't he describe this as a youthful indiscretion, even though he was 30 at the time?

This is our strong leader, preaching personal and moral responsibility?


[ Parent ]

Sounds like a good role model... (none / 2) (#241)
by EOIAI on Sat Jan 24, 2004 at 11:17:35 AM EST

Unlike, others.. he hasn't denied any of it.. none of this "I didn't inhale" crap. Now the AWOL from the national guard.. hmmm look at that time when that happen, 60's, to go along with his coke problem , and almost every college student during that time did the same exact thing, as a matter of fact, There are quit a few democrates who did the same thing.

Almost always the best role models are the ones that have been through the problems, and who have learned from them, and changed to become better people.

So... yes... a Damn good role model.

Anyone that has gone through all those things that you have mentioned and still was able to change and make it to the leader of the free world, and you want to say that isn't a role model? Please.. that to me is a role model, one that shows pride in ones self and persiverence and the intenstinal fortitude to carry on no matter what.

So.. again.. A damn good role model indeed.



[ Parent ]
LOL (none / 0) (#310)
by royalblue tom on Wed Mar 03, 2004 at 02:56:23 PM EST

> he hasn't denied any of it..

Did you mean to avoid saying that he hasn't admitted to it. He's definitely gone out of his way to evade every question. Which speach did I miss where he said "Yes, I was AWOL" ... I don't think he's going to, because he would suddenly face some consequences of doing that. My gosh, exactly the same as admitting to illegal drug use ... which he hasn't (HINT: saying you haven't committed a crime in 27 years is not the same as admitting to one thirty years ago).

I just love the way his youthful college indiscretions are always glossed over, despite the fact that he went to college after being an officer in the National Guard. When *was* drug taking, and DWI, model officer behaviour. Oh, that's OK, no court martial for you, it's only a youthful indiscretion ...

Face it, if Bush Jr is a great role model, God help America.

[ Parent ]

disappointment (1.25 / 4) (#139)
by SocratesGhost on Thu Jan 22, 2004 at 07:48:02 PM EST

Imagine if your daughter married that greasy car salesman neighbor. You know the one. Mullet. Moustached. Farts into his hand just to whiff it. That's Clinton.

It wasn't just the sex scandals, but his arrogance during the process. "I never had sexual relations with that woman." He said it to you and to me. Right to our faces through national TV.

And then there was evidence of favors granted. This is probably standard for all interns, but it does give the appearance of impropriety. The problem isn't that he screwed some girl, but he does give the impression of whoring out the office. I'd hate to think that if Pam Anderson was willing, that she might have been our Secretary of State.

Ultimately, we hold the President to a higher standard. He failed that publicly. But failing that, democrats didn't seem to care because they had secure jobs. Such complacency is shallow and likely infuriated the Right even more.

As a result, Republicans focused their ire on Clinton at almost any cost.

-Soc
I drank what?


[ Parent ]
i like the russian guy (1.40 / 5) (#141)
by circletimessquare on Thu Jan 22, 2004 at 08:04:42 PM EST

that they interviewed on tv at the time of the scandal, something like this from memory:

"i don't understand you americans, our leader, boris yeltsin, is old and sick, and if he had sex with a young woman, we would rejoice, because that would mean he is strong, like bear"

;-P

people in the us seem to be a little too violent, and a little too prudish, for their own good

to americans, europeans are perverted cowards

to europeans, americans are violent prudes

clinton's lewinsky would be a non-story in germany or france

i just wish people on both sides of the atlantic were more like me: violent perverts ;-P

europeans: grow a backbone

americans: grow a dick (or get wet)


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

it's not about sex (none / 0) (#282)
by SocratesGhost on Mon Jan 26, 2004 at 11:05:03 AM EST

there was also the other so-called sex scandals that surrounded the Clinton governorship, and with 60 Minutes giving news stories about Bill using state resources to find women, it created an impression on people: he has a tendency to use his office to get sex.

I personally don't care if he screwed every secretary on the floor. I do care if he gave the impression that it's possible for a woman to sleep their way to a higher rank in the administration.

-Soc
I drank what?


[ Parent ]
disappointment? (2.20 / 5) (#144)
by michaelp on Thu Jan 22, 2004 at 08:27:08 PM EST

so "the Right" feels disappointment when lied to about sex between two adults, but feels fine with lying to an entire nation about going to war and losing hundreds of American lives?

Yes, I guess that might be true, as there are certainly enough folks here who for some reason feel sex is a worse sin than killing.

If Clinton is the white trash mullet who worked his way up from oil-changer to lead greasy salesman, Bush is the lazy, sneaky rich kid who's daddy bought him the car dealership.

Clinton is the draft dodger who used a legal exemption to avoid way while and Bush went AWOL, and can you really believe that if he didn't have the family connections he wouldn't have gone to jail (or at least to the battlefield) for his little disappearing act during wartime?

I guess yes, a smart poor kid who gets out of war by going to college is much worse than a rich kid who just doesn't bother to show up knowing his family money and connections will protect him.

And it's much worse for that smart poor kid to have sex with an intern than for that rich kid to lie to his people to stir them up for war, while prosecuting soldiers who fail to show up.

After all, the rich are different, and they live by different rules, and the real crime in America is not being born rich, all us low born white or colored trash better do as our born wealthy betters say, not as they do.

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."

[ Parent ]

ummm... (1.20 / 5) (#147)
by circletimessquare on Thu Jan 22, 2004 at 09:13:29 PM EST

war in iraq is just

but otherwise i like it! ;-)


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

It was a repub set up (1.25 / 4) (#173)
by Cackmobile on Fri Jan 23, 2004 at 08:29:52 AM EST

Cause really who keeps a cum stained dress. Thats either a setup or a sign of a seriously disturbed woman.

[ Parent ]
of course not (none / 0) (#280)
by SocratesGhost on Mon Jan 26, 2004 at 10:57:22 AM EST

there are some who hate clinton/love bush and are hypocrits for their setting standards differently because one of them happens to be the horse they picked. I'm not one of them. I'm disappointed in this president as well.

Why did you bring up Bush at all? Was I even talking about him?

-Soc
I drank what?


[ Parent ]
Expectations (none / 0) (#266)
by Handyman on Sun Jan 25, 2004 at 03:08:59 PM EST

Ultimately, we hold the President to a higher standard. He failed that publicly.

Personally, I'd prefer my sitting Presidents to be intelligent, though amoral, instead of brain-dead, though "moral."

Also, while Clinton's lies and indiscretions did bother me, Bush's lies (that whole WMD thing) have bothered me way more.

--
Never be afraid to be the first one on the dance floor.
[ Parent ]
I'd prefer (none / 0) (#281)
by SocratesGhost on Mon Jan 26, 2004 at 10:58:37 AM EST

if he were both.

-Soc
I drank what?


[ Parent ]
you know why (1.80 / 5) (#197)
by Mizuno Ami on Fri Jan 23, 2004 at 01:10:04 PM EST

Conservatives are all bothered by it so much because, deep down, they wish that they could be getting bjs from their interns. Conservatives are very sexually insecure people, after all. And they're dishonest about it all the time, too. It's kind of sad.

[ Parent ]
GW's suits (none / 3) (#203)
by baron samedi on Fri Jan 23, 2004 at 03:22:24 PM EST

Are just as expensive as Clinton's ever were.


"Hands that help are better by far than lips that pray."- Robert G. Ingersoll
[ Parent ]

Cut the hyperbole (2.18 / 11) (#42)
by RyoCokey on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 08:59:57 PM EST

Unlike Afghanistan, and given the vast number of military resources there, chaos is being controlled in Iraq for now, albeit at great cost to American lives.

That statement is laughable. We lost 200 troops in the Beirut Barracks bombing alone. More people were murdered in Chicago in 2003 than died in Iraq.



The troops returning home are worried. "We've lost the peace," men tell you. "We can't make it stick
That's something that gets me too (2.83 / 6) (#60)
by mstefan on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 10:20:37 PM EST

You keep hearing about these "heavy losses" and the "great cost" in American lives in the war in Iraq. Now, don't get me wrong, I do value the lives of our soldiers and we should do everything we can to keep them safe. But in the year 2001 (the latest year I could quickly find stats for) there were around 16,000 murders reported. In my state of California alone, there were over 2,000 murders and 210,000 violent assaults reported. Versus the 502 in Iraq. Compared to the crime statistics of our own major cities, Baghdad is like a sleepy little town.

So can we kindly get some perspective and stop the left-wing knee-jerk bullshit? The only reason that it sounds lile a "quagmire" over there is because the detail of every death is explored ad nauseum by the news media. Hell, they couldn't even do that if they wanted to here in the United States, there literally wouldn't be enough hours in the day. When are we going to hear reports about the "quagmire" in South Central? Or Oakland? Yeah, didn't think so.

The fact is, an American has a better chance of getting murdered in Los Angeles than he does in Baghdad.



[ Parent ]
That's great and all.. BUT (3.00 / 6) (#73)
by cosmokramer on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 11:38:47 PM EST

In Iraq there are 500 deaths from 100,000 soldiers.  In the US there are 16,000 murders of 250M people.  Now lets do some math..

500 of 100,000 equals 1 per 200 troops have died.

16,000 of 250,000,000 equals 1 per 15,625 citizens have died.

So it IS a lot higher casualty rate.  If the same rate was applied to US citizens it would mean there would have been 1,250,000 murders last year.


[ Parent ]

Close (none / 3) (#75)
by gibichung on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 11:40:33 PM EST

But there have been a lot more than 100,000 U.S. soldiers in Iraq.

-----
"No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we require him to obey it." -- Theodore Roosevelt
[ Parent ]
Yeah. (none / 3) (#83)
by andykaufman on Thu Jan 22, 2004 at 12:07:40 AM EST

About 130,000.

[ Parent ]
Right (none / 2) (#108)
by cosmokramer on Thu Jan 22, 2004 at 11:47:34 AM EST

As the guy below says it's actually 130,000.  Of course the US population is actually closer to 280,000,000 .  Should I redo my math?  It ain't gonna be much different.

[ Parent ]
Lies, damned lies and statistics (none / 3) (#86)
by mstefan on Thu Jan 22, 2004 at 12:46:57 AM EST

But then again, the US soldiers aren't there alone and they're not killing each other. They're being attacked by the indigenous population so you need to include them. Iraq is roughly the size and population of California (Iraq has about 6 million fewer people). The murder rate in California is about 6.8 per 100,000 or roughly 2,250 people in the last year. Adjusted for the population of Iraq, that would be about 1,770 murders. Of course, we'd also have to factor in the number of Iraqis which have been murdered by other Iraqis. Some Googling shows that there's been about 9,000 - 10,000 Iraqi civilians killed, and about 1,500 of them are considered "violent, suspicious deaths" at the hands of other Iraqis with another 100 or so political assassinations. The remainder are accidental deaths from military operations (crossfire, etc). So if we consider the deaths of our soldiers murders, along with the murder of other Iraqi's, we're basically in the same ballpark as California.

It's certainly not good, but it's also not nearly as bad as some people are making it out to be.



[ Parent ]
I see :) (none / 2) (#107)
by cosmokramer on Thu Jan 22, 2004 at 11:45:14 AM EST

Your neglecting to mention that most (or atleast half) of the 9,000-10,000 Iraqi civilian deaths were actually killed by coalition troops and not other Iraqi civilians.  Not that it's relevant to this discussion but denying the number of people GWB has murdered isn't right.  And I really don't know how approximately 13,000 deaths in a smaller population base than california which has 2000 deaths is the "same ballpark" but we'll agree that it's closer.

It's certainly very bad when you consider that those 500 troops died because GWB had some fanatical desire to conquer Iraq.

[ Parent ]

Murder and collateral damage (none / 2) (#111)
by mstefan on Thu Jan 22, 2004 at 12:12:41 PM EST

I didn't include the 9,000 or so civilians killed as a result of military operations by the US because we didn't murder them; just the same as when a policeman here in the States kills an innocent civillian in crossfire, it's not considered murder. The insurgents in Iraq are doing their best to blend in with the general populace which means when we go after them, we're going to get some civillians in the process. It's an unfortunately fact of war, but it's not murder (of course, people who think the war is unjust consider it to be murder; I'm just stating how I came to those numbers and the justification I used).



[ Parent ]
Well.. (none / 2) (#137)
by cosmokramer on Thu Jan 22, 2004 at 07:24:31 PM EST

I don't see the difference really between murder and what the US is doing to the civilians of Iraq the same way there is no difference when Saddam killed his own people. It is all senseless killings of innocent people. Which in my belief system is murder.

[ Parent ]
Killing people (none / 2) (#161)
by baseball on Fri Jan 23, 2004 at 02:02:35 AM EST

is most assuredly not "collateral damage" except in the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld version of Newspeak.  By the way, at least some of those civilians were killed quite deliberately by the US.  I read some time back (I don't have the link) that Rumsfeld's personal approval was required for any operation that was expected to result in the death of more than 30 Iraqi civilians.  That approval was, as I recall it, requested 50 times.  Each time, it was granted (and that's the basis for the last part of my sig).  That is the deliberate killing of an Iraqi civilian.  If a "policeman here in the States" deliberately killed a civilian to capture a criminal, he or she would be charged with murder.

* * *
Bush is a liar, Rumsfeld a war criminal.
[ Parent ]

War criminals (none / 2) (#191)
by kurioszyn on Fri Jan 23, 2004 at 12:24:33 PM EST

By your logic everyone who ever waged a war should be indicted on some sort of war crimes.
For example , D-day resulted in about 20 000 dead civilians etc...

[ Parent ]
Who ever loses the war (none / 0) (#271)
by cosmokramer on Sun Jan 25, 2004 at 07:17:04 PM EST

Does tend to become a "War Criminal".. history is in the hands of the victors.  And I'm sure Bush will write his own version of history to avoid him being labelled a war criminal (which he clearly is).  I mean he's already begun the step of passing the blame for the WMD "mistake" onto the intelligence agencies by constantly saying they acted on "the best intelligence they had".

[ Parent ]
killers/war criminals (none / 0) (#288)
by kurioszyn on Mon Jan 26, 2004 at 11:52:06 PM EST

To some people a cop who killes an armed robber is a killer too.

"  I mean he's already begun the step of passing the blame for the WMD "mistake" onto the intelligence agencies by constantly saying they acted on "the best intelligence they had"."

You just hate this guy and frankly I got a feeling you would hate him no matter what he did.

[ Parent ]

In the beginning (none / 0) (#289)
by cosmokramer on Tue Jan 27, 2004 at 01:27:22 AM EST

I didn't hate him.  I had no idea who he was.  I didn't really care until after 9/11 when the world focus turned on him and he had the chance to become a great president by making some real change to prevent things like this in the future.  Instead he went on some vengeful killing spree.  Instead of improving the way that America treats the rest of the world or looking at it's foreign policy and trying to determine why it's not a good idea to where a US flag on your backpack while travelling through many countries.. or atleast not as favoured as many other nations.

[ Parent ]
Blah blah blah (none / 0) (#292)
by kurioszyn on Tue Jan 27, 2004 at 07:44:33 PM EST

"Instead of improving the way that America treats the rest of the world"

Improving relations?
That's just code word for giving up to demans of other nations.
Frankly, you have no idea what you talking about - using empty nonsense like "improving relations" etc ...
It is a fucking jungle out there and everyone ( including your beloved French) fights for survival every fucking day.

Fuck , some people are so naive it is scary.

[ Parent ]

I am naive.. (none / 0) (#293)
by cosmokramer on Tue Jan 27, 2004 at 08:15:30 PM EST

To believe such things are possible when American's are involved.  Your selfishness and greed overcome's anything that matters for the betterment of the world.  It's sad that every day the whole world gets scarier and the US tries to forcefully disarm other countries while constantly giving itself bigger and scarier WMD.  Why the fuck does the US need to all these weapons?  And not only that they sell them to every country in the world so now we have people all over fighting wars versus each other but the US is happy because both sides are using good old American hardware so it's created more revenue for them.

I apologize for the wandering of these remarks but my anger is extreme when it comes to the state of the world. And people who think it's because "the world" is a scary place but there own section of that world can't possibly be related to the cause exist.

[ Parent ]

Fuck this (none / 0) (#295)
by kurioszyn on Wed Jan 28, 2004 at 06:19:49 AM EST

"Your selfishness and greed overcome's anything that matters for the betterment of the world."

We haven't changed since 1945 - you have.
And back then the world was more than happy to have this "arsenal of democracy" at their disposal.

Greed ?
Where is our payout for hundreds of thousands soldiers lost "civilizing" Europe ?
Where are our "imperial" perks for all that shit , all the money spent defending South Korean ?
Where the fuck is it - I want to see it.
A fucking freedom tax on EU and Korea would be nice ( instead we ended up financing not only their war but also their reconstruction.)

These days I sincerely believe that US is making mistake in Iraq - just like it did back in 1945 in Europe and later in Korea.
It was simply not worth it. Fuck the world - let them roll in their own filth ...

If we get attacked - be it Bin Laden or some other fuckhead, we should respond in a truly unilateral fashion - nuke whatever place is causing us the trouble, without sending a single fucking soldier. A fucking genocide in the middle of Europe ala Bosnia ?
 Why bother -  let them sort it out - even if it takes 10 years and 500 000 dead.

We have that capability , so why not use it ?
Why bother with this whole "imperial", nation-building bullshit ?

[ Parent ]

Isolation (none / 0) (#298)
by yooden on Sun Feb 01, 2004 at 01:43:39 PM EST

Fuck the world - let them roll in their own filth ...

How long do you think the USA could maintain their standard of living without access to cheap labor, cheap resources and cheap money?

[ Parent ]
What ? (none / 0) (#299)
by kurioszyn on Sun Feb 01, 2004 at 01:58:20 PM EST

I am talking about political and military isolationism.

There were plenty of immigrants coming to US in the early 1900s ...

US had never access to what you describe as "cheap resource" in the same sense that major European powers had, so get off your fucking horse and face the reality.
If there is fucking unrest and poverty in the world it is mainly of European doing - just look at the middle east or Africa.
Fucking British, French and German , Belgians - everybody had their little imperial hands full, screwing over people all over the world.

[ Parent ]

Isolation (none / 0) (#300)
by yooden on Sun Feb 01, 2004 at 02:27:56 PM EST

I am talking about political and military isolationism.

You can't have it both ways. If the USA would close the thousands of military bases in other countries and stop exerting influence, they would lose much of their wealth in short order. (They would also have to build their concentration camps on their own soil.)

US had never access to what you describe as "cheap resource" in the same sense that major European powers had, so get off your fucking horse and face the reality.

They have now. US economy is depending on cheap oil much more than European is.

If there is fucking unrest and poverty in the world it is mainly of European doing - just look at the middle east or Africa.
Fucking British, French and German , Belgians - everybody had their little imperial hands full, screwing over people all over the world.

http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/attack.htm

[ Parent ]

Heh ? (none / 0) (#301)
by kurioszyn on Sun Feb 01, 2004 at 02:44:24 PM EST

Concentration camps ?

Fuck you must be one of these Germans who believe Bush is behind 9/11.

Fuck you, you are not worth my time ..


[ Parent ]

Concentration Camps (none / 0) (#303)
by yooden on Sun Feb 01, 2004 at 03:22:44 PM EST

Concentration camps ?

Yup, the one in Cuba.

Fuck you must be one of these Germans who believe Bush is behind 9/11.

Why do you think that? (Actually I think the question is largely irrelevant.)

[ Parent ]

Cuba (none / 0) (#304)
by kurioszyn on Sun Feb 01, 2004 at 04:10:32 PM EST


"Yup, the one in Cuba."

Nice try.
No matter how much you try you will never be able to trivialize the crimes your nation has commited...

The only concentration camp on Cuba is the nation itself run by your kin Castro.

Why the fuck am I wasting my time writing to a fucking Nazi.
Don't bother to respond fucking krautz.


[ Parent ]

Concentration Camp (none / 0) (#305)
by yooden on Sun Feb 01, 2004 at 05:03:29 PM EST

No matter how much you try you will never be able to trivialize the crimes your nation has commited...

Nor would I try. What's your point? Are you trying to trivialize the crimes your country has commited by comparing them with greater crimes?



The only concentration camp on Cuba is the nation itself run by your kin Castro.

I won't comment on Castro, but the concentration camp I'm talking about is operated by the US government.



Why the fuck am I wasting my time writing to a fucking Nazi.

Why do you think I'm a Nazi?

[ Parent ]
You're forgetting something... (2.50 / 4) (#102)
by duffbeer703 on Thu Jan 22, 2004 at 09:21:10 AM EST

How many US civilians get their limbs blown off on a regular basis?

There's a difference between death count and casualties. A wounded american soldier is approximately 10-15 minutes from a military hospital (better than the emergency response available to about 40% of the US population), which nearly eliminates some deaths. (ie., few soldiers bleed to death)

American soldiers are now all equipped with ceramic/kevlar body armor protecting their torso and head from shell fragments and small arms. So lots of once fatal wounds now result in amputation.

[ Parent ]

I've been waiting for this... (3.00 / 13) (#88)
by Tyler Durden on Thu Jan 22, 2004 at 01:00:44 AM EST

It's funny every time people start droning on and on about statistics.  I find them interesting as well.

How many people died in the WTC and Pentagon?  Around 3,000?

How many people in the US die of the flu each year?  36,000.

Why is there no war on influenza?  Why aren't we spending $100 billion to find a cure?  

Jesus Christ, EVERYONE is a troll here at k5, even the editors, even rusty! -- LilDebbie
[ Parent ]

Excellent Point (none / 1) (#138)
by cosmokramer on Thu Jan 22, 2004 at 07:29:44 PM EST

Not to mention AID's.. I mean look how paranoid people became over SAR's and it's SUCH a small threat related to even getting hit by a bus. People are curious things.

[ Parent ]
Buses are kinda useful (none / 1) (#245)
by jameth on Sat Jan 24, 2004 at 11:31:20 AM EST

SARS just isn't. The idea is, we don't mind things as much if there is nothing that can be done or if the thing truly is needed and the losses are just a side-effect.

For this reason, Bush is a morally reprehensible criminal for having convinced many people that the war on terror was both needed and possible at a time when they were emotionally at their weakest. He took shameful and destructive advantage of an already devastating event.

I hope he dies painfully of bone cancer, penniless and living in a trash can, rather than living off the excess of his ill-gotten gains.

[ Parent ]

Buses are certainly useful (none / 0) (#270)
by cosmokramer on Sun Jan 25, 2004 at 06:49:19 PM EST

And SARS is not.. that doesn't change the fact that it's only killed a couple hundred people ever? (not 100% sure on the stats).  Just like this new bird flu.. the pure energy that's been wasted on reporting this "crazy new disease" could have been contributed to so many more worthy things like bringing attention to the likely little known number of flu victims posted above (36,000 a year?) in the US?

And yes of course Bush and his senseless killing are always painful.  It would be nice to see him disappear but it's not likely to happen as because people spend so much time watching reality TV they don't seem to pay any attention to how badly he's destroying the world, and in so many ways not just killing people and causing instability.

[ Parent ]

Yeah, the Flu kills lots of people (none / 0) (#277)
by jameth on Mon Jan 26, 2004 at 10:26:24 AM EST

And lots of money is spent researching it.

The reason a lot of attention is paid to any new disease is:

  1. Hopefully it won't get bad if we nip it in the bud.
  2. It will give us a fresh way to look at and treat diseases.
  3. Curing it could likely aid in curing other diseases.


[ Parent ]
I agree.. (none / 0) (#285)
by cosmokramer on Mon Jan 26, 2004 at 02:53:30 PM EST

I think my specific peeve is with the press for over sensationalizing it along with many people.  Such as the front page of a paper near me today was "Bird Flu reaches 7th nation" .  I mean that just seems to be a way to create fear so that people buy the newspaper to learn more about whats up.. but then I guess that's the driving force of anything :) (if it makes money)

[ Parent ]
Our nation building should be building the USA (none / 3) (#62)
by lukme on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 10:22:18 PM EST

And then, perhaps Chicago could either have some military assistance or at least hire enough police to effectivly curb it's crime rate.

If he would concentrate on fixing our problems at home he wouldn't have need to attack every dictatorship in the middle east. Problem is there isn't oil in chicago.




-----------------------------------
It's awfully hard to fly with eagles when you're a turkey.
[ Parent ]
Or perhaps (2.40 / 5) (#90)
by Stickerboy on Thu Jan 22, 2004 at 01:45:00 AM EST

...some of those problems at home that you and I are thinking about aren't best handled by the federal government, and some of those problems won't be solved no matter how much money you throw at it.

For example, how much money do you think it would it take to solve poverty?  Or how about drinking and driving?


[ Parent ]

Solutions (2.66 / 6) (#106)
by Ogygus on Thu Jan 22, 2004 at 11:32:23 AM EST

Or how about drinking and driving?

First some background:
In 2002 roughly 17,000 people were killed in alcohol related vehicle accidents.
2,819 died in the 9/11 attacks.
Cost to retrofit 214 million vehicles with Ignition Interlocks: assuming a whopping volume discount of 50% off retail. $96.3 Billion Dollars or $5665 per life lost in 2002.
Cost of the war on terror (Not Including Iraq) $65 Billion Dollars or $23,058 per life lost in the 9/11 attacks.

When you consider that the money spend on Ignition Interlocks would stop the carnage on the highways permanently the cost per life drops to a very small amount. When you consider the loss in personal freedoms? Well, I'd argue that the war on terror has cost more.

Poverty? That's tougher. It would take changes in American society far too massive to contemplate. Greed and selfishness would have to go first and that wouldn't leave any values to build a society on, would it?

The mice will see you now.
[ Parent ]
Heh (none / 2) (#148)
by godix on Thu Jan 22, 2004 at 09:38:20 PM EST

I like how you argue it should be assumed that each and every driver in the country is drunk and ready to violate the law unless proven otherwise in the same post you bitch about the loss of personal freedoms. Tell me, was that bit of humor intentional or did you just not think about what you were saying?

I will do whatever the Americans want, because I saw what happened in Iraq, and I was afraid.
- General Qaddafi
[ Parent ]
Missed Point (2.50 / 4) (#156)
by Ogygus on Fri Jan 23, 2004 at 12:03:10 AM EST

I bitched about the loss of freedom. Oh yes I did.
My point was that we seem willing to give up a ton of personal freedom and a bucketload of cash to do something about 2,819 people dying in a one time incident. When it comes to getting piss-drunk murderers off the road, saving 17,000+ lives annually, we are willing to give up nothing. I then go on to moan about what a sorry bunch of selfish pricks we (collectively, as a society) are.

The mice will see you now.
[ Parent ]
You must not have been paying attention (none / 3) (#158)
by godix on Fri Jan 23, 2004 at 12:53:54 AM EST

Some, including me, claim the 4th ammendment has been violated by our fight against drunk driving. What was that about giving up nothing?

I will do whatever the Americans want, because I saw what happened in Iraq, and I was afraid.
- General Qaddafi
[ Parent ]
Oh Yes. (2.00 / 4) (#177)
by Ogygus on Fri Jan 23, 2004 at 09:31:09 AM EST

Some, including me, think that the 4th was eradicated by the War on Drugs. Where was the hue and cry then? Or the 1st Amendment during the run up to the war in Iraq. (Think Dixie Chicks) Or the shopping list that is the Patriot Act and the provisions of Patriot II that were quietly passed.

Again, my point was, We have identified the problem (and it is serious), we have a solution (an affordable one at that) but we lack the will to do anything about it. Giving up what little is left of the 4th Amendment is not giving anything really.

The mice will see you now.
[ Parent ]
the 1st (none / 1) (#194)
by kurioszyn on Fri Jan 23, 2004 at 12:36:47 PM EST

"Or the 1st Amendment during the run up to the war in Iraq. (Think Dixie Chicks)"

Uhh ... you mean a private radio station refusing to play them ?


[ Parent ]

No (none / 1) (#198)
by Ogygus on Fri Jan 23, 2004 at 01:23:09 PM EST

The knee jerk reaction to any criticism of the President. When saying what you believe begets punishment, people tend to keep their mouths shut. Saying you don't like GWB does not mean you hate America. The right would have you believe the two are linked, just as Iraq and 9/11 have been linked.

The mice will see you now.
[ Parent ]
Why the hell would this magic gizmo do that? (none / 2) (#190)
by gte910h on Fri Jan 23, 2004 at 12:14:25 PM EST

Driving while intoxicated is a social issue, one in which the numbers ARE inflated (MADD is evil as all hell these days). You're not going to be able to fix it with a technological solution.

[ Parent ]
Stop (none / 0) (#199)
by Ogygus on Fri Jan 23, 2004 at 01:27:07 PM EST

No one would be able to drive drunk. The vehicle wouldn't start. It is even (affects everyone) and fair. Therefore, it will never fly.

The mice will see you now.
[ Parent ]
What does it do to stop one from driving drunk? (none / 0) (#267)
by gte910h on Sun Jan 25, 2004 at 03:51:29 PM EST



[ Parent ]
Well (none / 0) (#268)
by Ogygus on Sun Jan 25, 2004 at 04:11:02 PM EST

It is an ignition disabler. If you have alcohol on your breath (over the legal limit, whatever legal is for your state) it will not allow the vehicle to start.

The mice will see you now.
[ Parent ]
Sounds easily foiled. (none / 0) (#287)
by gte910h on Mon Jan 26, 2004 at 05:57:52 PM EST

I'm an electronics/systems programmer. I'd have to say I can't think of a way that's even close to fool proof.

[ Parent ]
Math (none / 1) (#220)
by roystgnr on Fri Jan 23, 2004 at 06:45:14 PM EST

$96.3 billion divided by 17,000 is $5.67 million per life.

$65 billion divided by 2,819 is $23.1 million per life.

[ Parent ]

Oops. (none / 0) (#239)
by Ogygus on Sat Jan 24, 2004 at 09:32:09 AM EST

That's what I get for using Windows Calculator. Still, the relative merits of the argument remain the same.

The mice will see you now.
[ Parent ]
Just as difficult as fixing poverty in Iraq. (none / 0) (#237)
by lukme on Sat Jan 24, 2004 at 08:19:56 AM EST

By nation building at home, I mean we support the following:

1) small business, since they have to hire more people than the large business (on a whole since they have to hire more redundant people - every small business needs a receptionist).

2) education - all aspect of education - from the small local public libraries to the large universities with more than just research grants.

3) government services, if there aren't enough police to wallk all beats, perhaps we should hire more police. the same is true for the fire companies ... .

If you take care of these, then you give at least a hand to help lift people from poverty, businesses (hopefully unique enough to survive) would be create and hopefully employing more of the people in places like chicago. Which is better, doing this at home or doing this in Iraq.


-----------------------------------
It's awfully hard to fly with eagles when you're a turkey.
[ Parent ]
Cost of poverty (none / 0) (#256)
by pyro9 on Sat Jan 24, 2004 at 07:13:03 PM EST

I suspect that ultimately, it costs us more to NOT end poverty. We pay in the form of high hospital costs to cover indigant patients, additional funds to law enforcement, insurance, etc. We pay by wasting human potential in the name of making sure nobody gets anything for free. (If that's not so, then why does McDonalds as a matter of policy, not only insist that leftover food MUST go in the dumpster, but actually chains the dumpster closed so nobody gets a free meal?)

We wonder when the next DaVinci might appear. Perhaps he is already here, but he's too busy digging ditches for minimum wage to do any painting (or even find out he can paint).


The future isn't what it used to be
[ Parent ]
Casualties (3.00 / 16) (#98)
by flo on Thu Jan 22, 2004 at 06:27:59 AM EST

Firstly, 200 or 500 casualties is very little, compared to what normally happens in a war, and whining about that (alone) doen't really impress anybody. But what irks me is that Americans seem to totally ignore the casualties on the other side, except when they proudly exhibit body counts.

According to an analysis of news reports, some 8000-9000 Iraqi civilians have died so far. How many Iraqi soldiers died? Probably a lot more than that. But they were just bad guys, right? Wrong. Most of them were just some poor sods enlisted against their will, or brainwashed into volunteering. They all have families. The fact that they're now dead is certainly not a Good Thing (tm).

I won't even mention the many wounded, or the damage done to the infrastructure, or how many people's lives now suck because the economy is stuffed etc. The point is, when Americans complain "Oooh, we lost 500 of our boys in there, how horrible war is!", then it leaves a bad aftertaste in my mouth. Sure, war sucks for all concerned, and all of these 500 (and their families) would be much better off if they were alive, but the Americans haven't suffered anywhere near as much as the suffering they (I mean your government and military, not YOU) have caused. It's bloody callous to forget that.

\end{rant}
---------
"Look upon my works, ye mighty, and despair!"
[ Parent ]
damage done to the infrastructure (2.50 / 4) (#101)
by wiredog on Thu Jan 22, 2004 at 08:30:03 AM EST

Very little of that was a result of the war. The sanctions did quite a bit of it, and the Iraqis are rather fond (according to reports I've seen) of taking apart pieces of it and selling them.

And, of course, there's an insurgency actively blowing up parts of it as well.

Wilford Brimley scares my chickens.
Phil the Canuck

[ Parent ]

not sanctions (2.75 / 4) (#110)
by flo on Thu Jan 22, 2004 at 12:12:33 PM EST

The numbers I quoted are casualties since the beginning of the US attack. The estimates about victims of the sanctions are in fact far more horrendous, ranging well over a million according to some sources (but maybe "only" 100 000 is closer to the truth).

Ironically, one benefit of this war is that the sanctions are finally over. Funny enough, this was never mentioned in justifying the war. In fact, until recently, the toll of these sanctions was swept under the rug, at least in the USA.

And as for casualties of guerilla attacks - if the USA hadn't invaded, there would be no guerilla war.
---------
"Look upon my works, ye mighty, and despair!"
[ Parent ]
My bad (none / 0) (#112)
by flo on Thu Jan 22, 2004 at 12:14:53 PM EST

I thought you were talking about casualties, not infrastructure. It is true that most of the infrastructure decayed during the sanctions. A lot was directly destroyed by the bombing, and even more by the looting.
---------
"Look upon my works, ye mighty, and despair!"
[ Parent ]
Hmm ... (none / 2) (#192)
by kurioszyn on Fri Jan 23, 2004 at 12:28:24 PM EST

So basically everyone would be better off if Saddam was still at power, right ?
In fact, by your logic, military solution was obviously a mistake so were the sanctions (human cost) which leads me to believe that you mister are just another troll ..


[ Parent ]
not a troll (none / 0) (#309)
by wiredog on Mon Feb 02, 2004 at 11:09:32 AM EST

But it is a typical EuroLeft view of both sanctions and military force. They are both bad, because they both hurt common people. Sure, leaving the leadership in power is bad, but it's not the result of a bad action by us (instead, a bad inaction). Compare the reaction to the US interventions in Yugoslavia, and the US non-intervention in Rwanda.

My argument for not invading Iraq was that Iraq wasn't a threat to the US.

Wilford Brimley scares my chickens.
Phil the Canuck

[ Parent ]

Honest Questions (1.80 / 5) (#122)
by CENGEL3 on Thu Jan 22, 2004 at 02:58:27 PM EST

How many Iraqi civilians died in the previous 10 years of Saddam Husseins rule?

How many more would have been executed each year by Saddam (or his sons) had he remained in power?

How many soldiers (Iraqi or otherwise) died as a result of Iraqs invasion of Kuwait?

How many soldiers died as a result of the Iran-Iraq war?

Slobodan Milosevic is said to have been responsible for the deaths of around 275,000 Yugoslavians. Most liberals cheered when we conducted a millitary operation in an attempt to curb his power.

Conservative estimates have Saddam Hussein responsible for the deaths of at least as many Iraqi's. Yet most of those same people who cheered most loudly at our intervention in Bosnia/Kosovo jump to denounce U.S. intervention in Iraq , Why? Are Kurdish lives somehow less valuable then Albanian ones?

You can make lots of criticisms about U.S. policy in Iraq... but I fail to see how anyone can honnestly claim that the Iraqi people were better off under Hussien or that Iraq was likely to suffer less loss of life had he remained in power.

[ Parent ]

Irrelevant Questions (3.00 / 8) (#160)
by baseball on Fri Jan 23, 2004 at 01:42:14 AM EST

The Bosnia/Kosovo intervention was explicitly based on saving lives and preventing genocide. The Iraq war was a "preemptive" war which, we were told, was necessary to prevent Hussein from using his alleged weapons of mass destruction or from giving them away to terrorists. Neither America nor anyone else has a right to launch a "preemptive" war, and the claims about Hussein's weapons of mass destruction were speculation, sheer fantasy or outright lies (you can pick).  In short, we didn't go to war in Bosnia/Kosovo on false pretenses; we did in Iraq.

I don't think many people deny that Hussein was a bad man.  But we didn't go to war on the claim that he was a bad man.  The American public and the Congress would not, in my opinion, have supported a war whose only purpose was to get rid of Hussein because he was a bad man.

I also think it is disingenuous for people (not you necessarily) to point to crimes against humanity committed by Hussein before or during the first Gulf War (e.g., the Iran-Iraq war, the gassing of the Kurds, the invasion of Kuwait) as a basis for claiming it was correct now to remove him from power.  If those crimes support his overthrow, he should have been overthrown in 1991 (and I thought at the time that he should have been).  At least then we would have been responding to a real threat and act of aggression, and not launching our own preemptive, act of aggression war.

In terms of your questions about how many Iraqi people died in the things you refer to, I have no clue.  I do know that the United States supported Iraq in its war with Iran (which is hardly surprising given the Iranian hostage matter).  But I don't know how many Iraqi civilians Hussein had killed.  I also don't know how many Iraqi civilians the US has killed because the US Govt refuses to count them.  And I don't know if we have killed more Iraqi civilians in the last ten months or so than Hussein would have killed in that time had we not invaded.  I also don't know if there is a basis for the US decision to hold thousands of Iraqis at various prisons around Iraq without allowing them to communicate with their families, nor do I know whether those prisoners are being abused (which is the subject of an inquiry by the US Govt, the details of which we can't be told because it would supposedly jeopardize the investigation).  I do know that there have been lots of reports of US soldiers shooting randomly whenever they are fired upon (and sometimes when they are not).  I also don't know how many innocent Iraqis have been killed (or will starve because their bread winners have been killed) as a result of the lawlessness that has spread (and continues to exist) because of the security vacuum that resulted from Hussein's overthrowal.

And I don't know, and neither do you, whether the Iraqi people will ultimately be better off as a result of this war.  We don't know if the new government Iraq will eventually have will be any better than Hussein, we don't know if the average Iraqi will be able to survive economically in the supposed "market economy" the US is trying to install (in a country where the people have always lived on government provided food, supplies, wages, etc.).  And we don't know if any government that may be installed will succeed or whether the country will devolve into a civil war among the Sunnis, the Shiites, and the Kurds.  We don't know, if the Kurds are given autonomy in the north, whether that will lead to war (or war-like conditions) with Turkey.  Nor do we know if Iraq's next government will by an Islamic theocracy destroying the rights of women and imposing punishments that we would regard as barbaric for actions we would regard as trivial (e.g., torture for having parties attended by both men and women and at which alcohol is served).  The situation in Iraq right now is so uncertain that we have no idea if the Iraqi people will be better off as a result of this invasion.  I truly hope that they will be but I have grave doubts.

* * *
Bush is a liar, Rumsfeld a war criminal.
[ Parent ]

and you waited 10 years.... (none / 0) (#170)
by the sixth replicant on Fri Jan 23, 2004 at 05:39:54 AM EST

....because????

ciao

[ Parent ]

because .. (none / 1) (#179)
by kurioszyn on Fri Jan 23, 2004 at 09:52:12 AM EST

Clinton was running things ?

And Bush Sr administration lacked balls ( they had Powell but not Rumsfield) to go all the way.

[ Parent ]

Speaking for the US (none / 2) (#201)
by phred on Fri Jan 23, 2004 at 03:09:23 PM EST

The US waited 10 years because the Iraqi administrator we supported (Saddam) was having a few problems, so the US was trying to bring its favorite middle east administrator (Saddam) back in line. The US only gave up last year and decided to try installing a new administrator. A bit of force was needed. Hope that helps.

[ Parent ]
The War Reasons Were Wrong (none / 0) (#243)
by jameth on Sat Jan 24, 2004 at 11:25:59 AM EST

The war was pushed as a preemptive strike to remove weapons of mass destruction and combat terrorism in the US.

Saddam hasn't made terrorist attacks against the US.

There are no WMDs there (and they wouldn't reach the US if they were there).

All preemptive attacks are wrong.

Also, the US is hugely in debt, cutting taxes, and in a recession. War is dumb. (and, if you think that last one is placing too much importance all in the US, consider that, with an 11 trillion dollar economy, if the US suddenly collapses, most of the world economy will go with it)

[ Parent ]

Yes, he has (none / 0) (#269)
by RyoCokey on Sun Jan 25, 2004 at 05:57:15 PM EST

Saddam hasn't made terrorist attacks against the US.

He ordered the assassination of then-president Bush Sr. right after Clinton took office. His operatives got caught planning it.



The troops returning home are worried. "We've lost the peace," men tell you. "We can't make it stick
[
Parent ]
Assassination != Terrorism (none / 0) (#276)
by jameth on Mon Jan 26, 2004 at 10:24:22 AM EST

Assassination is an attempt to kill one man.

Terrorism is an attempt to cause general damage and fear.

I do not refer to American assassinations of drug-lords as terrorism, and I extend the curtisy to those I hate.

[ Parent ]

Casualties and the human cost of war (none / 1) (#180)
by JonesBoy on Fri Jan 23, 2004 at 10:13:22 AM EST

The 500 casualties are from AFTER the war.   More died during the war.   Anyway, this was a war against a nation that had been disarmed and embargoed for 10 years, and had a very small professional army for its size, no air force, outdated technology weapons....   It was not much of and adversary and its quick demise should not be suprising.

What bothers me is that there is no information on the number of wounded troops.   This war is being fought with weapons such as small mortars, explosives and mines.   These weapons are designed to embed shapnel and remove body parts more than kill.   I can't remember where the number was quoted, but I have seen it as high as 10,000 US soldiers wounded and maimed.   This is a pretty danm significant number that is being overlooked.   I wonder what Bush will do about the thousands of disabled vets that will be returning in the coming years.   So far, he has been cutting benefits.
Speeding never killed anyone. Stopping did.
[ Parent ]

The official numbers (none / 2) (#188)
by Wah on Fri Jan 23, 2004 at 11:46:13 AM EST

of wounded are about 2,500.

There have been over 6,000 soldiers flown out and through hospitals, although my guess is they get a special classification that keeps it out of the papers.

One thing to note is that deaths have been kept very low due to improvements in body armor and mobile medical care (getting medical attention within the 'golden hour').  This is a good thing.

Unfortunately the larger price for this comes out of the hides of the innocent and the weak, as usual.  The U.S. citizens sees lower casualty numbers and thinks lower-intensity combat ('We lost that many soldiers a day in Vietnam').  The soldiers see high-intensity combat and fight back that way, leading to the 'collateral damage' we all know and love.  Applying the same judgement to a different set of circumstances provides a warped perspective, at least if this last weeks' bayesian research is telling me anything.

I am not complaining about this, just observing. The body armor saved the life of friend of mine who ran into a building with one too many suicide bombers in it.
--
"Beware the Jabberwock, my son! The jaws that bite, the claws that catch! Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun The frumious Bandersnatch!"
..or simply
[ Parent ]

is this the same... (none / 1) (#216)
by EOIAI on Fri Jan 23, 2004 at 06:15:50 PM EST

war against a nation that after the first gulf war killed over 100,000 of its on people in the south..?

Hmm.. I don't know.. if your adversary has the power to pull a trigger and have a gun, to me.. there well armed.

A ak-47 is a way better weapon, than a M4 or M16A2, when it comes to reliablility, effective distance of the 47 is a little shorter.. but still a very impressive weapon, and packs more kenetic energy on impact. (more stopping force) than a 223 or if you will 5.56.

The size of the military has no direct bearing of its qaulity or its effectiness. That was proven in the first Gulf war, when company's of tanks took on divisions of iraqs.



[ Parent ]
Sure is! (none / 1) (#275)
by JonesBoy on Mon Jan 26, 2004 at 09:25:39 AM EST

>war against a nation that after the first gulf war killed over 100,000 of its on people in the south..?

Yup.  Those were the people who the US said they would support if they attemped an overthrow of the government (which they tried).   Too bad we changed our minds, and too bad we let Sadam keep helicopter gunships for "policeing" purposes as a term of their surrender.   Theres a few other "too bads" I could rattle off, but whats the point.

>Hmm.. I don't know.. if your adversary has the power to pull a trigger and have a gun, to me.. there well armed.

http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/2001/08/15/story10368.asp

http://www.click10.com/news/2780512/detail.html

Do you think these people are well armed adversaries?   Do you think a poor schlep with a gun stands a chance against a APC? a tank? Blackhawk?  Nightvision? Bodyarmor?

>A ak-47 is a way better weapon, than a M4 or M16A2,
Sure, to scare people away.   Unfortunately, it doesn't SHOOT STRAIGHT.   All the KE in the world doesn't make a rats butt if you don't hit your target.   The M4/16 longer standoff, lighter weight, and accuracy make up for the reduced lethality.   Anyway, any US soldier (and I have heard from several who have) that wants to use an ak can just pick one up off the street.   The danm things are everywhere in Iraq, as is ammo.

>That was proven in the first Gulf war, when company's of tanks took on divisions of iraqs

Their old soviet tanks couldn't hit a moving target without a lot of luck, and ours can shoot accurately while moving.   Most of their tank rounds can't penetrate the frontal armor of our tanks anyway.   Our rounds went in one side and out the other of their tanks, and one verified one shot double kill was recorded (in one side of a tank, out the other, into second)!   Urban small arms combat aside, it was a slaughter.

Speeding never killed anyone. Stopping did.
[ Parent ]

Well, flo (2.50 / 4) (#196)
by OddFox on Fri Jan 23, 2004 at 12:54:03 PM EST

You are most certainly justified in your belief that Americans are making a big deal out of how many servicemen and women we've lost during this war, but you miss the fact that most of the people who are crying out because of the body count do it because it shouldn't be there in the first place. Their deaths were unnecessary and caused by the illusion the current administration conjured up of an "imminent threat" Iraq.

It's one thing to yell "retreat!" after 50 of your soldiers die in combat, but it's a completely different thing to yell foul when someone's caused the unnecessary deaths of 500+ armed forces.

I don't pretend that the Iraqis didn't suffer far more than we did (After all, it's inevitable that casualties will be extraordinarly high, considering the intense "Shock and Awe" campaign that was played out), and I don't think a lot of the people who oppose the war really think that the Iraqi civilian death toll is nothing to sneeze at.



--------------------------

"No escape from the mass mind rape
Play it again jack and then rewind the tape
" - RATM


[ Parent ]
I agree 100% (none / 0) (#214)
by flo on Fri Jan 23, 2004 at 06:07:04 PM EST

The war should never have happened. Those 500 (or however many) should today be alive and well, doing pushups in a base somewhere. I feel sorry for their families. Same goes, of course, for the thousands of dead Iraqis.
---------
"Look upon my works, ye mighty, and despair!"
[ Parent ]
Indeed (none / 0) (#229)
by OddFox on Fri Jan 23, 2004 at 08:24:27 PM EST

I'm glad that my little grammatical error in the post didn't throw you off. :P

--------------------------

"No escape from the mass mind rape
Play it again jack and then rewind the tape
" - RATM


[ Parent ]
I agree... (none / 0) (#244)
by jameth on Sat Jan 24, 2004 at 11:28:16 AM EST

...but the "Shock and Awe" comment is wrong. The "Shock and Awe" method significantly reduced casualties on both sides by making the active combat phase of the war much shorter.

The war is still wrong, but IF IT HAD TO OCCUR, that was the way to do it.

War still wrong.

[ Parent ]

And those boys are in a far better place than this (1.00 / 4) (#120)
by sellison on Thu Jan 22, 2004 at 02:30:37 PM EST

fallen world, so we should admire them and envy them, not grieve.

They had but one life to give, and they had the honor of giving it to protect their homeland and to bring morality and the rule of law to a desecrated and desperate people!

No, we could lose ten times that many in a month and may well do so as we bring peace to the world over the next few decades, but we are fighting the Good fight for the Good cause, and we should salute, not cry over, the brave Americans who go to Heaven in the process!

This war is a story of Good vs. Evil, and while some of the Best will fall in the process, Good will triumph in the end, like it always does!


"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God."- George H.W. Bush
[ Parent ]

Trust the government (none / 1) (#206)
by micromoog on Fri Jan 23, 2004 at 04:41:16 PM EST

As long as people believe this absurd "good vs. evil" rhetoric, the U.S. war machine will have plenty of human fuel for its numerous fires.

[ Parent ]
remember folks (none / 2) (#200)
by phred on Fri Jan 23, 2004 at 03:06:07 PM EST

The brave RyoCokey can himself die 500 times with one arm tied behind his back. So if he can do it, our soldiers can too!

[ Parent ]
No mention of moonshot and Mars (2.75 / 8) (#70)
by Lode Runner on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 11:12:42 PM EST

Dubya didn't mention his bold space plan even once in the SOTU. I hope the Administration isn't having second thoughts, because setting foot on Mars would be really, really, really cool.

Quibbles about the bounties: 1) Saddam's bounty went uncollected; 2) the amount of cash seized in the (ventilated) hideout of Udai and Qusai far exceeding the millions of dollars on their heads.

d'ya know why? (2.80 / 5) (#113)
by wrax on Thu Jan 22, 2004 at 12:38:37 PM EST

cause the state of the union was probably in final draft form 4 months ago, the moon announcements were probably done just to make Shrub sound forward thinking.
--------------------

I don't know whats worse, the fact that people actually write this crap or the fact that people actually vote it up.
[ Parent ]

Just a note (none / 1) (#117)
by GhostfacedFiddlah on Thu Jan 22, 2004 at 02:10:33 PM EST

I would have rated you 3 if you hadn't used the word "Shrub".  Do you say that in regular conversations with real people?

[ Parent ]
Why the hell not? (none / 2) (#175)
by fenix down on Fri Jan 23, 2004 at 09:27:45 AM EST

He's gotta be used to it by now, he's got the same name as his dad, he probably never even heard his actual name until kindergarten.  At least Shrub is more dignified than "Little George" or "Junior", whichever one his family uses.

Hell, he calls Dennis Kucinnich The Mayor, and Olympia Snowe is The Big "O" for god's sake.  Let the man have a taste already.

[ Parent ]

Don't forget one of his favs (none / 0) (#185)
by Wah on Fri Jan 23, 2004 at 11:14:22 AM EST

Pablo O'Neill.
--
"Beware the Jabberwock, my son! The jaws that bite, the claws that catch! Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun The frumious Bandersnatch!"
..or simply
[ Parent ]
Great article (none / 0) (#283)
by GhostfacedFiddlah on Mon Jan 26, 2004 at 11:43:19 AM EST

But it seems to paint name-calling as childish and "bullying".  Bush loses credibility and respect by using these names.  Which is exactly how I feel about people who use terms like Shrub or Micro$oft.

[ Parent ]
Eh.. (none / 0) (#290)
by wrax on Tue Jan 27, 2004 at 02:23:43 PM EST

If it makes you feel any better I could call him Mr. President, but that would mean that I actually believe he's the legitimate winner of the election.
--------------------

I don't know whats worse, the fact that people actually write this crap or the fact that people actually vote it up.
[ Parent ]

Bush would be acceptable (n/t) (none / 0) (#302)
by GhostfacedFiddlah on Sun Feb 01, 2004 at 03:17:49 PM EST



[ Parent ]
Calling names (none / 0) (#308)
by paranoid on Sun Feb 01, 2004 at 09:11:49 PM EST

Have you ever wanted to punch someone in the face so badly it hurt, but knew you were unable to? A little name calling really helps in such cases.

[ Parent ]
Shrub has lost all respect I ever had for him (none / 0) (#242)
by jameth on Sat Jan 24, 2004 at 11:20:15 AM EST

I intend to give him exactly as much respect as he deserves.

[ Parent ]
A few points. (2.52 / 19) (#77)
by Kasreyn on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 11:45:02 PM EST

and there would certainly be no card decks depicting 55 "undesirables" which the American taxpayer has now payed more than 50 million dollars in reward money to apprehend.

Divided among us, that's less than a quarter per American. Yes, the coins with Washington on them, that kind of quarter. While I may doubt the method which was used to determine who would go on the "wanted" list, I hardly think the payout broke the bank. :-P

Never mind that democracy, gender equality, free markets, fair courts, and most of the other original goals have been largely abandoned for a shorter-term exit strategy in both countries.

Great. The sooner we're out of there, the better. And don't look at me like that. Yeah, I'm sorry the war happened, but I refuse to be manipulated into wanting to clean up Dubya's mess just because it's a mess, and it's there. *I* voted against the prick. I feel no responsibility for his mess. You fuckers who voted for him can clean it up with YOUR tax dollars, if you feel like it. Leave me out of it. To any Iraq sympathizers reading this: blame the ones who invaded, not the ones who dragged their heels.

and meet important domestic needs - and begin the process of halving the deficit during the next five years.

I love how he's trying to take credit for this. "Def'cit? Now whar'n tarnation'd that cum frum? But Big Dick says ah'll fix't no poblem, y'all!"

Kissing up to the AARP seemed to be a significant priority in this speech, and George accomplished the task with vigor. Indebting generations of young taxpayers to support the new measure was not mentioned.

I'd hate to be a politician. Old people can't wipe very well. And they seem to be greedy for attention. But, of course, this may go away once the "Me" Generation finishes dying of cancer in 20 years or so (good riddance).1

sexual abstinence, zero-tolerance, drug testing in the schools, restoration and codification of the Defense of Marriage act to forbid same-sex marriage, government supported faith-based charities, and even a call to professional athletes to cut down on anabolic steroids were the solutions.

Let's run down the list: guaranteed useless failure, training children to not expect privacy so they won't miss it later, pointless failure (few gays marry) designed to make homophobes give a beer-cheer, kickback to rich fundie friends, and cheesecake publicity move.

They need help too, according to George, and they'll get it from his second big proposal of the night, a 300 million dollar Prisoner Re-Entry Initiative

Hey Georgie, I have a better idea, and cheaper, too. How about legalizing pot (you know, so you and your fellow Bonesman Willie Clinton can wail on some fatties at the ranch)? It'll sure empty the prisons in an awful hurry. Oh, wait - you don't want THAT. Why, that'd let all the niggers out, wouldn't it?

Our cause is the cause of all mankind, George concluded. And yet, we must trust in the higher power Who guides the unfolding of the years, knowing that His purposes are just and true.

Eh, same old American Manifest Destiny, just dressed up in more religious garbage than the usual. That part doesn't surprise me.


-Kasreyn

1 Note: my own parents are Boomers. Regardless, on the whole, I will be glad when their generation is dead (hopefully they'll be last to go, of course :-). It's not like America will immediately improve, but at least I'll be able to dance on the graves of those responsible.


"Extenuating circumstance to be mentioned on Judgement Day:
We never asked to be born in the first place."

R.I.P. Kurt. You will be missed.
my gosh, stop hating so much (nt) (1.07 / 13) (#79)
by mami on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 11:55:24 PM EST



[ Parent ]
Sir, (1.00 / 8) (#85)
by Danzig on Thu Jan 22, 2004 at 12:13:33 AM EST

why do you hate our freedom?

You are not a fucking Fight Club quotation.
rmg for editor!
If you disagree, moderate, don't post.
Kill whitey.
[ Parent ]
You obviously want to live in a socialist state (1.26 / 19) (#119)
by sellison on Thu Jan 22, 2004 at 02:23:19 PM EST

so why don't you go there?

Here in America, we are bringin peace, justice, liberty, and basic Christian morality to the rest of the world, whether they want it or not.

We need to do this because the rest of the world won't leave us alone, in fact they will attack us brutally out of jealousy.

Our overwhelming economic and military successes demonstrates we are Right, and people who live by erroneous creeds ranging from atheistic socialism to islamic fundamentalism will continue to hate us and attack us so long as we allow people who believe these destructive ideas to have the power to do so.

So we need to remake the world's power structure in our image, to expect the world to live by our morality and laws and make it do so, because the alternative is to be a victim of continuued terroism.

And that we will not do.

So Love Fighting George Bush, or leave with the Baldwins, you are either with us or with the terrorists!


"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God."- George H.W. Bush
[ Parent ]

Hats off to you! (1.40 / 5) (#165)
by Yoshi Mon on Fri Jan 23, 2004 at 04:44:06 AM EST

Such a classic troll, one of the reasons I keep coming back to k5.  Such works of art should not be left unseen.


Really, I know what I'm doing...Ohhhh, look at the shiny buttons!
[ Parent ]
Re: socialist state-rant. (2.83 / 6) (#166)
by saryon2413 on Fri Jan 23, 2004 at 05:11:03 AM EST

My comments:
  • Peace: Haven't been in the big cities, have you?
  • Justice: Been wrongfully accused of anything, ever? No matter what, you'd end up in jail.
  • Liberty: Check your laws. You have precious little liberty left, and it's getting less by the day.
  • Christian morality: Ignorance (Churches like people dumb, more believers, more money and power), Intolerance (Churches hate other religions, they cost power and money), Hatred (See Intolerance), Blindness (See Ignorance), Corruptness (See all previous points).
The fact is, the rest of the world won't leave you alone, because the US do not leave them alone. This is also something which is getting more and more impossible to do, as international trade, migration, etc, are getting easier and more lucrative.

Remake the world's power structure in your image? ROFL. I wouldn't want to live in a country where their presidents are bought by megacorps, where said president does what his buyers want, and screw the citizens (who he's supposed to be serving).

As for the might-makes-right-rant, might never makes right. It makes "seem right". And see the rest of this message about the jealousy thing, both previous and later.

The alternative is to be in a free country, being harassed less by various f**ked up laws, megacorps, police, "intelligence" agencies, etc.
Said free country might not be perfect, as there are always things to complain about, but at least it wouldn't be a semi-prisonstate that the US is going to.

As for being with you or with the terrorists.... ....I'm not even going to comment on that one, since that's EXACTLY the reason why the amount of countries which support the US in NATO/UN is down to less than a handful.

Also, the socialist state IDEA wasn't bad. What was bad, was the way it was done in the countries where the idea took hold. But that was due to the nature of people in power. They like it too much, and often fall to corruption and greed. Which in turn eventually led to it's downfall.
Being social isn't bad. If people weren't social, you wouldn't have a democracy. You wouldn't even have a civilisation.

Sar


[ Parent ]

Socialism (none / 1) (#195)
by kurioszyn on Fri Jan 23, 2004 at 12:44:40 PM EST

Oh so let's see ... the socialist state is not a bad idea but unfortunately it is unworkable because of imperfections in human nature ?

Hmm .. I would think it would easier to adopt a different economic/social system than to try to change human nature but hey, who am I to argue ?

[ Parent ]

You are a really, really bad troll. (none / 1) (#226)
by Kax on Fri Jan 23, 2004 at 07:47:37 PM EST

Looooossseeeerrrr.

[ Parent ]
Couldn't agree more old bean....... (none / 2) (#171)
by Nursie on Fri Jan 23, 2004 at 05:53:30 AM EST

My parents generation are out for what they can get, and screw everyone else.
My generation seems to want the world to be a better place for everyone, (and to have lots of cool stuff - I'm not totally deluded about the virtues of my own peers).

I wonder if it's just seeing how the world has become whilst they run the place, or just natural rebellion against the ideals of those who brought us up. I don't quite know. But either way, it will be better for everyone when they're not in charge any more. They don't even have to be dead, just a little older, and away from the power structures.

Step away from the power structures.......

Meta Sigs suck.

[ Parent ]
Maybe they did .... (2.60 / 5) (#184)
by craigtubby on Fri Jan 23, 2004 at 11:13:04 AM EST

The thing is, your parents generation at a young age also wanted the world to be a better place for everyone. (and free love too)

But then they grew up, got jobs and had children, became Cynical and thought "Why the hell shouldn't I have something" (Not necesecerily in that order)

try to make ends meet, you're a slave to money, then you die.

* Webpage *
[ Parent ]

Clinton was no bonesman... (none / 1) (#202)
by baron samedi on Fri Jan 23, 2004 at 03:12:22 PM EST

He went to Georgetown for undergrad, there's no way he could be a bonesman. He did go to Yale for law school, but members of the junior undergrad class at Yale are selected by Skull and Bones, so Clinton could not have been a bonesman. Sorry.


"Hands that help are better by far than lips that pray."- Robert G. Ingersoll
[ Parent ]

Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar... (none / 2) (#213)
by mmuskratt on Fri Jan 23, 2004 at 06:02:05 PM EST

Bush went to school. Big difference. Maybe he can explain his DUI's and the AWOL problem, though. I'd be interested in which prison he'd be in now if he were president during Vietnam...

[ Parent ]
Edit (2.16 / 6) (#93)
by Kwil on Thu Jan 22, 2004 at 04:52:58 AM EST

His response to the little girl actually was "listen to your mom or dad", he didn't say "and".

It's a weird thing to twig off of, but it's what got me. Is he acknowledging the reality of divorced parents there? Is he perhaps realizing that some children may not have a mom, or may not have a dad? Given his earlier statements about the sanctity of marriage etc, I doubt it.

More likely, I think, is for it to stem from being incapable of seeing an equal partnership in a marriage. Given his parents, this doesn't seem out of line. However, it also suggests some of what happened with the entire Iraq/UN debacle -- GWB has no idea how a true partnership works. His entire life has been defined around hierarchical relationships. Who has power over him and who he has power over. If that's the underlying base of the man it explains a lot, and also explains why Americans should be very afraid.

After all.. if he has to be the top, what does that make you?

That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze


xor (none / 1) (#114)
by stu42 on Thu Jan 22, 2004 at 01:14:52 PM EST

"Or" means one, the other, or both. Perhaps GWB knows the difference between OR and XOR.

[ Parent ]
Reading too much into it (none / 0) (#181)
by mpComplete on Fri Jan 23, 2004 at 10:44:00 AM EST

Wow, you certainly read a lot into that. Have you ever considered the possibility of a parent dying? Maybe his statement was accounting for that possibility.

[ Parent ]
Trillion dollar deficit? (none / 2) (#115)
by maynard on Thu Jan 22, 2004 at 01:24:24 PM EST

No mention was made of the trillion dollar deficit which is expected by the end of this year.

Can you cite a source for this assertion? I think GAO expectations are that the FY04 deficit will be about $450B - $500B, assuming a transfer of about $150B - $200B from the FY04 surplus in the social security trust fund (which makes the real general account deficit somewhere between $650B - $700B). Not that a %6.5 - 7% GDP deficit is good, only that it isn't 10% of GDP, as would be implied by a $1T/yr deficit.

Are you adding up the deficits over the last three fiscal years to come to a total debt accrued across the Bush administration? That makes more sense.

Cheers,
--Maynard


Read The Proxies, a short crime thriller.

Two paths diverged into a wood... (2.83 / 6) (#164)
by Shren on Fri Jan 23, 2004 at 04:27:35 AM EST

He emphasized that we Americans now have a choice - go forward with confidence and resolve, or turn back to the illusion of security and safety.

We do have that option. We have always had that option. What GWB and I disagree on is which path leads which directions.

Pell Grants and AP (2.75 / 4) (#174)
by the hermit on Fri Jan 23, 2004 at 09:05:32 AM EST

I don't know about other high schools but most of the people in my high school who were in AP didn't need bigger Pell Grants. It was the ones not in AP that usually needed them the most.

I was in AP (none / 2) (#176)
by simul on Fri Jan 23, 2004 at 09:29:24 AM EST

And I had to borrow a fuckload of cash to put my ass through college.

Read this book - first 24 pages are free to browse - it rocks
[ Parent ]
I was in AP, too... (none / 1) (#233)
by coderlemming on Fri Jan 23, 2004 at 11:01:54 PM EST

and still had to borrow a fuckload of cash.  And I still felt pressure to perform more because I wasn't in as many AP classes as some other kids.

AP's a great way to make a lot of non-AP kids feel really, really bad about themselves.  Adding higher pell grants to this probably won't help matters...


--
Go be impersonally used as an organic semen collector!  (porkchop_d_clown)
[ Parent ]

Are you suggesting... (none / 1) (#222)
by Wain on Fri Jan 23, 2004 at 07:05:29 PM EST

 that if someone is only of *average* intelligence that they shouldn't be allowed to go to school?

Or are you just suggesting that rich people are smarter than poor people?

or are you just making an utterly useless observation about your school?

[ Parent ]

Not uncommon (none / 2) (#224)
by Tr3534 on Fri Jan 23, 2004 at 07:33:39 PM EST

The people in AP get all the paid scholarships, leaving all the bright but still very capable people in the lower levels with two options: 1) Enlist, thinking you're only delaying college by a few years, then find yourself in Iraq 2) Massive debts from student loans.

Basically, there are plenty of people in the lower levels who really should get some money for higher education, but get screwed because they were just a bit too apathetic to get A's instead of B's, or perhaps were rather sick/forgot their calculator/etc the day of the PSAT and thus didn't meet the bar for National Merit, or some other assraping by standardized test.

I've seen it happen to serveral people. Not to mention I've seen a lot of people in AP classes who really weren't that intelligent, but got full-ride scholarships to expensive colleges, because they were rather anal.

Sigmentation Fault: Post Dumped.
[ Parent ]

Good point, I forgot about scholarships. n/p (none / 0) (#231)
by Wain on Fri Jan 23, 2004 at 09:49:42 PM EST

n/p

[ Parent ]
No mention was made... (2.75 / 4) (#178)
by simul on Fri Jan 23, 2004 at 09:32:33 AM EST

No mention was made of how he completely let Osama get away with murder and then distracted us with a war in Iraq. No mention was made of how his boys had planned to go to war with Iraq since 1998.

Read this book - first 24 pages are free to browse - it rocks
Troll (1.00 / 5) (#193)
by kurioszyn on Fri Jan 23, 2004 at 12:31:00 PM EST

Let Osama get away ?
Are you nuts or just trolling ?

"No mention was made of how his boys had planned to go to war with Iraq since 1998."

Uhh .. you read that on moveon.org ?


[ Parent ]

Project for a New American Century (none / 1) (#205)
by maynard on Fri Jan 23, 2004 at 04:30:09 PM EST

"No mention was made of how his boys had planned to go to war with Iraq since 1998."

"Uhh .. you read that on moveon.org ?"

Here's a letter the principals of this administration sent to President Clinton in 1998 which recommends overthrowing the Iraqi regime. And no, PNAC is not moveon.org. Just to clarify.

--Maynard


Read The Proxies, a short crime thriller.
[ Parent ]

Clinton years (none / 1) (#234)
by kurioszyn on Fri Jan 23, 2004 at 11:11:01 PM EST

The concept of 'Regime change' through war was actually invented by Clinton in the late 1990s.

By the time Bush arrived in Washington, the official policy (signed by Clinton himself) was that Saddam should be eliminated. It is just Clinton never did anything about it ..


[ Parent ]

Julius Caesar might dispute that statement... (none / 1) (#250)
by maynard on Sat Jan 24, 2004 at 01:01:40 PM EST

The concept of 'Regime change' through war was actually invented by Clinton in the late 1990s.

Well, to be honest, Caesar was imitating those before him too. But lets assume you mean that Clinton set forth a policy of regime change for Iraq back in '98, yet didn't follow through with enough military force to meet his stated goals.

This is partly true. The Republican congress and Democratic senate passed the 'Iraq Liberation Act of 1998', whereupon Clinton promptly signed it into law. It's important to note, however, that the law didn't provide authorization to go to war, and only authorized the training and arming of local resistance, police actions similar to Operation Desert Fox (bombing campaign in 1998, for which he was skewered by Republicans for "Wag the Dog" distraction tactics due to it having been authorized during the Lewinsky scandal) as well as funding for intelligence. So, while it's true that Clinton signed into law a policy promoting "regime change" in Iraq, he was never given authorization by congress to use force in order to follow that policy through to the end.

Now, ask yourself honestly - would Clinton have been given that authorization by congress given how flimsy the evidence for WMD existence was? The Clinton Administration requested that the UN remove weapons inspectors from Iraq just before Operation Desert Fox began. If you read what Scott Ritter and other inspectors have to say before and after Desert Fox it's pretty clear that Iraq, back in '98, had no biological weapons or Nuclear program - though it was unclear if he had a stockpile of chemical weapons available. And even if they did, it was clear they had no means to deploy those weapons in battle.

So anyone who followed the world press before the current war knew that Bush Administration's WMD claims, especially the nuclear assertions, were total hogwash. (IMO) This is why even Powell (well respected among world leaders) was unable to convince our allies in the UN to follow through with force, because the inspectors were clearly showing that such weapons did not exist during the late '02 early '03 run up.

IMO, this is the most damaging aspect of the Bush preemption policy because we so plainly asserted "intelligence" which wasn't true, and everyone (even the US press) knew it. So we cried wolf for nothing and now the rest of the world won't believe us when the day arrives and we really need preemption to protect the US from a real threat. For example, who thinks China is going to believe the US if we assert the need to overthrow North Korea due to a nuclear WMD program? And yet, that threat is very real. IMO, the Bush policy has truly damaged US credibility across the globe and it may take us a full generation to reclaim that credibility.

--Maynard


Read The Proxies, a short crime thriller.
[ Parent ]

1998? (none / 2) (#208)
by armonica on Fri Jan 23, 2004 at 05:29:50 PM EST

"let Osama get away with murder"... Gee, sending in an Army, overthrowing the Government of Afghanistan and a big reward for his capture... and you say he is letting him get away with it? What else do you think he could or should do? NUKE THEM? You would probably be the first in line to criticize him for that too.

"his boys had planned to go to war with Iraq since 1998" ... Where was GWB in 1998? Seems to me that he was a Governor of TX and Clinton was President - coincidently bombing Iraq in an attempt to get out of his Impeachment trials - or whatever else was the scandel dujour. You seem to give GWB a extrodinary intellegence, planning skills and unprecidented ambition to plan all that over 2 years in advance of an election. You think that he could forsee winning the presidency and everything else that happened just to invade Iraq? The left keeps trying to keep the myth alive that he is an idiot or is stupid? Make up your mind, either he is idiot/stupid or an Einstein. BTW you obviously have no clue just how busy a Governor of a state is.

You should know a lie like the one above when you hear one. GWB "planning" war with Iraq in 1998 is one anybody (even a fool) should recognize. Of course if something is fool proof, it is still only idiot resistant. As for the book, any professional printer can tell you that any fool can print something. Just because it is in print doesn't mean it is true. Even a few VERY prominent news papers in Washington and NY City (one guess which paper that is) amoung other cities have been proven to publish half truths and even outright lies.

[ Parent ]

pnac (none / 0) (#264)
by ulrich on Sat Jan 24, 2004 at 11:49:54 PM EST


Not Bush himself, but the people who actually run America:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm    
 (bottom)

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

[ Parent ]

Running the Govt. (none / 0) (#291)
by armonica on Tue Jan 27, 2004 at 02:57:11 PM EST

Oh, I see... your right... BTW I have a bridge in Brooklyn... want to buy it? You could charge tolls! Just $3000 today only. I have a big developer interested in it as well for a few million but I like you. Interested? Send to:
{your e-mail address here}.
Armonica

[ Parent ]
Mixed feelings (none / 0) (#307)
by paranoid on Sun Feb 01, 2004 at 09:00:31 PM EST

I am not a conspiracy nut. So my first reaction to seeing your post was "yeah, whatever". But then I thought about this post I saw earlier today on /. And about a TV programme I saw today about government corruption (not in the USA). What the heck, I though, nothing a crazy conspiracy nut can write can be worse than what people in power already do and what some Republicans already think... Well, after reading it, you definitely have a valid point...

[ Parent ]
BLAH BLAH BLAH (1.60 / 5) (#182)
by modmans2ndcoming on Fri Jan 23, 2004 at 10:59:26 AM EST

you know....I support Edwards, but this crap is really boring.

"the president shifted focuse really fast, must be a conspericy"

"pipe lines through Afganistan..."

"I love crazy candidates who sqweal like a Pig when they under perform"

on and on.....get over it all...sheesh.

all I know is that either this year or in 4 more years, there will be a backlash against the Republicans and a Democrat will take the white house and congress, then we will see universal healthcare a-la Kusinich's plan, with perhaps buyins that get larger and larger as you get richer.

Things I found Amusing (none / 1) (#209)
by EXTomar on Fri Jan 23, 2004 at 05:33:03 PM EST

  • He spent more time talking about weak ethical ideas than strong ones. I guess fixing the problems that cause Islamic Fundementalists to rise out of poverty strickened countries isn't as pressing as making sure steriods aren't in professional sports.
  • Some members of Congress were clearly not happy with what GWB was pushing and showed it on their faces or other things (like not standing and clapping on cue). Yet this is some how an insult to Bush? Since when is expression a bad thing? It wasn't like they were heckling or being disruptive. I cringed too during the speach. Am I any less American because I thought some points of the speach were silly or wrong?
  • Is it me or did Bush seem more interested in some of the private buisness of Americans than actually making the world safer for Americians? Frowning on steriod use. Frowning on same sex marriages. Claiming that there is a giant need to increase internal spying powers through the Patriot Act. It seems to me that if he is so gun-ho look for something to bomb why is he looking so hard in the US?
  • The Return of Trickle Down Economics! Bleh...it only worked in the 80s because we had room to bury more debt. Now is not the time to incur more especially in the face of monetary pressure from the Euro. My taxes are going to climb even more this year even in the face of tax cuts. My state is cash strapped. Thanks to the cuts in federal funding the state foots more of the bill which is passed along to me! Of course the rich don't have to worry about that....



About Libya (none / 1) (#210)
by otmar on Fri Jan 23, 2004 at 05:39:50 PM EST

I recommend reading this NYT piece and this one from the Washington Post. Quick summary: Iraq had nothing to do with the progress in Libya.

He has the mind of a 13 year old (1.40 / 5) (#211)
by mmuskratt on Fri Jan 23, 2004 at 05:40:46 PM EST

Our President has the maturity of an adolescent. He is a horrible public speaker, he responds in public as though he were no older than 13 or 14. He is a schoolyard bully. Please note, my latest evidence of this is his use of the phrase, "We don't need a permission slip to defend our security." When was the last time you needed a "Permission slip?" Grade school? In fact, when was the last time you even thought about a permission slip? What the...? Permission slip? Really? We don't need a "permission slip" to lie about our intentions to invade a country and then illegally attack them, killing thousands of civilians (close to 3 times as many died in the WTC attacks)? PERMISSION SLIP? How old is this man? I contend that he is just a mean little kid who has some very powerful friends that are making him a lot of money. I hope his mommy doesn't get mad if he doesn't win the next election.

How old are you? (3.00 / 4) (#212)
by gibichung on Fri Jan 23, 2004 at 05:54:11 PM EST

Probably not old enough to have children I guess. Think back a few years and ask yourself who you always brought your permission slips to. Clearer now?

-----
"No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we require him to obey it." -- Theodore Roosevelt
[ Parent ]
Good to know that daddy doesn't need one... (none / 0) (#215)
by mmuskratt on Fri Jan 23, 2004 at 06:14:25 PM EST

I brought my permission slips to my Mom or Dad. Now, when I think of this quote, one question comes to mind..."Who's your daddy?" My questions were rhetorical. Clearer now? Note the sarcasm: he used the words "permission slip" in an address to the people of the only remaining superpower on the planet. I did, however, enjoy being Milk Monitor. I don't know how I'd work that into a State of the Union address, but I'd sure like to...

[ Parent ]
And just how old are you? (none / 1) (#235)
by tonedevil on Sat Jan 24, 2004 at 12:56:42 AM EST

Because while GWB has children I don't think they have brought him permission slips for anything for several years. Good try at covering for abject stupidity, but it didn't really work.

[ Parent ]
Because GWB writes his own speeches ... [nt] (none / 0) (#236)
by Repton on Sat Jan 24, 2004 at 04:14:38 AM EST


--
Repton.
They say that only an experienced wizard can do the tengu shuffle..
[ Parent ]

I'm a 65 year-old... (none / 3) (#217)
by mmuskratt on Fri Jan 23, 2004 at 06:24:45 PM EST

gay, unmarried (because it's the law!), childless, atheist, taxpaying, unemployed, lower class, latino, immigrant-turned-citizen. I get my prescription medication from Canada, when I can afford it. How old are you?

damn, wrong post... (none / 0) (#218)
by mmuskratt on Fri Jan 23, 2004 at 06:25:47 PM EST

should have been in the other thread...lol.

[ Parent ]
things best left unsaid (2.50 / 6) (#219)
by melior on Fri Jan 23, 2004 at 06:32:24 PM EST

I thought from your intro paragraph you might list some more of these:

- So are we going to Mars or not? How could you announce an Apollo-scale effort and then forget to mention it a week later? Not that science isn't a great place to invest resources, but could you maybe explain how are we going to pay for this scale of a project ($500B at the low end of serious estimates)?

- Where's Osama? Do you still have the 9/11 firefighter's badge you waved in the camera and promised to carry with you until you brought Osama back "dead or alive", or is it in some drawer somewhere gathering dust?

- Have you "gotten to the bottom of" who leaked national security secrets to smear Ambassador Wilson yet? Why not, since you've admitted this consitutes treason, and the offender is known to be a "highly placed Administration official" on your team?

- How's that giant AIDS initiative you proposed in last year's SOTU coming along? What about the Asian sex trade crackdown you proposed at the same time?

- How's the 9/11 commission investigation coming? Did they finally get to see all the documents they needed that they were being refused access to by your Administration?

You get the idea.

- That's OK, I wasn't really using all of my Constitutional rights anyway...

You know (1.66 / 6) (#221)
by trhurler on Fri Jan 23, 2004 at 06:50:03 PM EST

If you're going to use the cliche about "what was left unsaid," it pays to actually discuss that subject. Also, it pays to know how to use the English language. For instance, no taxpayers have ever "payed" anything. I assure you of this fact.

Also, combining what at first appears to be a piece telling us what Bush said with a chopjob editorial, and holding the editorial bits off til the latter half of the article, suggests two things.

First, you're a dissembling asshole. Second, you write poorly.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

Hey, I wondered when you'd show up (none / 3) (#223)
by imrdkl on Fri Jan 23, 2004 at 07:25:51 PM EST

It definitely wasn't my best work on this site, but it was my first op-ed piece, and that's kind of a new avenue for me. Typically, as you well know, my bias and opinion is not discernable in the pieces I submit.

As always, your insight and criticism is appreciated, even if your pathetic little diaries and half-assed attempts at producing something for this site are no real example for anyone except your bootlicking friends.

[ Parent ]

Dearest kind sir, (1.87 / 8) (#225)
by trhurler on Fri Jan 23, 2004 at 07:36:01 PM EST

This letter is to inform you that if I gave even the slightest moment's confused and distracted concern to your opinion of my glorious written works, I would most certainly die of mirth. I am, as you know, an avid mirth enthusiast, but dying at my age seems SO 14th century, and of course I have been planning a lengthy sabbatical from my present life of idyll leisure(aren't I so funny?) for some time now, so I have decided to pass on this otherwise intriguing opportunity.

Warmest personal regards,

trhurler

ps: Don't worry. Your mother will be back home in a few days, and she should be walking properly again within at most a couple of weeks. Given her choice, she would stay, but I tire of dreaming up new and ever more witty comparisons between her and the famous "Texas Tunnel."

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
Peace? (none / 0) (#306)
by paranoid on Sun Feb 01, 2004 at 08:52:00 PM EST

Guys (both trhurler and imrdkl), can't we all respect each other? And have a hug? :)

trhurler, your first comment was useful, but unnecessarily hostile. imrdkl, your response was warranted, but the personal attack in the last sentence was not.

If I were one of you, I would apologise. If I were both of you, I would be a schizophrenic...

[ Parent ]

'protect the homeland'?? (none / 2) (#228)
by thenerd on Fri Jan 23, 2004 at 07:58:34 PM EST

What is this 'homeland'?

Homeland Security.
Project for the New American Century.

It sounds like some genocidal totalitarian regime named these things.

Who lives in a homeland?  Do nazis live in one?  Bear in mind I'm not calling anyone nazis but come on, nobody in the US lived in a 'homeland' before GWB was president, surely.

What's next?

Republican youth?
HS officers?

Higher standard from friends (none / 3) (#232)
by hengist on Fri Jan 23, 2004 at 10:54:02 PM EST

Why do I get the feeling that really means "do as I say or we kick the sh*t out of you"?

There can be no Pax Americana
Curious.. (none / 0) (#255)
by t0rment on Sat Jan 24, 2004 at 06:56:24 PM EST

I'm not an economist by any means. Could somebody explain to me how this 1 trillion dollar deficit will be payed back, or even more importantly how long will it take to pay for this? Thanks


. - = [ t 0 r m e n t ] = - .

Anyone can become angry--that is easy. But to be angry with the right person, to the right degree, at the right time, for the right purpose, and in the right way; this is not easy.

- Aristotle
trillion dollar deficite (none / 1) (#294)
by icebike on Tue Jan 27, 2004 at 10:35:25 PM EST

This is far less significant than you think. Bill clinton managed to accumulate a couple trillion surplus just by having the stock market goo thru the roof in the third year of his first term. (More earnings = more jobs = more tax revenue, etc. Economics 101).

[ Parent ]
Not significant? (none / 1) (#296)
by DaChesserCat on Wed Jan 28, 2004 at 01:05:58 PM EST

Clinton also didn't run up a trillion dollars in deficits during his entire 8-year stint in office. Not even if you only count the first six years (there were surpluses the last two). The Shrub is going to do that in only one year.

Not significant? I'm sorry; I beg to differ.

Trains stop at train stations Busses stop at bus stations A windows workstation . . .
[ Parent ]
What it is, how it is financed, etc. (none / 3) (#297)
by DaChesserCat on Wed Jan 28, 2004 at 05:20:15 PM EST

First off, any time Uncle Sam spends more money than they receive in taxes/fees/etc., that's a deficit. Any time they do that, they have to borrow money (just like you and me; if I spend more money than I make, I have to borrow the difference). The deficits become part of the National Debt.

You can look here for a concise description of the national debt, and how it is financed.

So far, it isn't being paid back. The debt is simply accumulating. To see what it has been in recent history, you can look here . In short, about the time Clinton left office, the national debt was about $5.6 trillion. During the eight years he was in office, the national debt rose about $1.6 trillion (Bush I left him about $4 trillion when he started). There were deficits the first six years Clinton was in office (the first was about $255 billion, with each succeeding year having a smaller deficit). That last two years were actually surpluses. In spite of that fact, that national debt never stopped growing. To find these figures, go here and click the link for B-78. It will come up in an Excel spreadsheet. Column D is the deficit (negative) or surplus in $billions. Column K is the National Debt, in $billions. If you look Column K carefully, you'll see that figure hasn't gone down since the 1968-1969 timeframe. Ever since then, the national debt has gone only one direction: up.

So, to answer your questions: the deficit isn't being paid back. It is simply adding to an ever larger principal value, for which we must pay an ever-increasing amount of interest. Even with a $236 billion surplus in 2000, the national debt still grew because the surplus wasn't big enough to make up for all the interest we were paying on the national debt (kind of like running up massive debt on your credit cards, but not paying enough, total, to make up for the monthly finance charges; you have to borrow more money to cover some of the finance charges). How long will it take to pay it off? No one really knows. It hasn't been paid off in a long time, and it has been at least three decades since the national debt was actually REDUCED.

Still, the Shrub's $1 trillion deficit (for ONE YEAR!) will be the largest single deficit in history; his father's combined total over four years was only $933.5 billion.

And hey, doesn't everyone want to "out do" dear old Dad?

Trains stop at train stations Busses stop at bus stations A windows workstation . . .
[ Parent ]
The State We're In - 2004 | 306 comments (286 topical, 20 editorial, 5 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!