ntalwar
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
Interesting quote by Hugo Chavez:
I'm sure he can cut a few billion a month from Iraq.
I'm sure he can cut a few billion a month from Iraq.
Global stock market crash in progress
- Thread starter financeguy
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Exactly, but I've brought that up before to oscar, he doesn't believe that counts as spending...
purpleoscar
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
Exactly, but I've brought that up before to oscar, he doesn't believe that counts as spending...
It is spending. I think it's a priority for national security and security for the free world. The cuts in spending will have to come elsewhere (health, education). George Bush and the congress MASSIVELY increased entitlements over his reign and many true conservatives were aghast over it. The war expenses aren't what got the U.S. to 10 trillion in deficit by itself. Bush was looking at the popularity amongst older people and retirees who demanded more health spending.
Eventually the war will have to end on grounds that Afghanistan and Iraq will have to run their own country, but leaving when we are getting ground success in Iraq and not applying the same tactics in Afghanistan simply to save money in the next 2 - 5 years is too short sighted. Cut health and education entitlements and reduce earmarks and you can still win the war and balance the budget.
This is a good article that politicians will avoid in their talking points because it's an unpopular truth:
It?s the Economy, Stupid by Victor Davis Hanson on National Review Online
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Was Iraq a priority to national security? No. Do we leave just to save money? No. But we need to leave as soon as we can.
Cut health and education?! Yes, because that's responsible... Health and education need to be completely overhauled, and yes that will take some money.
Oh yes, the National Review, once again you come with another stellar reliable source...
purpleoscar
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
He needs to find more money through either an increase in taxation without new spending or cutting spending.
Cutting in Iraq is has more to do with wanting to fail in the middle east and to make it harder for the U.S. to ever go to war again, and bash Bush. They know that success in Iraq and Afghanistan will be very popular in the U.S.
Quitting too early will enbolden enemies for sure. For Obama's sake he doesn't want to be in that position because he will be criticized for it. It's easy to criticize but hard to do the cutting and pissing off special interest groups. If he wins the next 4 years will be interesting. If Obama balances the budget he will have to be able to say NO to a lot of people. Maybe if he acts like Clinton and has a conservative congress to push for control in spending it could happen like it did in the '90s. Getting the congress to control spending will be key for a president to get success.
If Obama increases spending and Congress increase spending the tax increase will have to be very large to cover those expenses. If he can't say no to lobbyists then the deficit and debt will increase. No matter what scalpel Obama wants to use he will have to make tough choices. Most presidents have 2 years to fix problems and show some progress because the last 2 years is preparation for elections.
BTW Chavez is a jerk and his idea that Bush is far to the right was wrong. Bush moved to the left at the beginning of his first term and increased spending because he barely won the election and wanted to go the middle ground to not appear far from the popular vote. It shows that if you dally with the left you will get burned and ridiculed in the end. It's best to stay with your principles and not whore yourself for popular vote. Nixon whored himself with wage and price control despite what his economists told him. He got no thanks for it when it naturally failed.
ntalwar
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
But the US does not necessarily have to fund it, even using your assumptions. What about the $70+ billion Iraq oil surplus? A lot of the monthly US outlay for Iraq is probably going into Swiss bank accounts anyway. Billions in funds are unaccounted for. Halliburton no-bid contracts don't exactly provide great value for the money either. Entitlements will be an issue for any candidate, because of the large numbers of baby boomers nearing retirement.
purpleoscar
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
Did you even read the article? Even McCain can't cut taxes or even keep them low without cuts in spending. You don't even need a "reliable source" to understand that concept.
What are more reliable sources to you?
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
This is something many have been saying for quite awhile, but for some reason their voices are being drowned out...
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
purpleoscar
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
I don't see any problems here that are so massive that it would equal quitting in Iraq and Afghanistan before the war is over. How much would be the cost if we had to go back in there again if they fail.
What are your beliefs for U.S. foreign policy? What should the U.S. do if allies get attacked? There are many areas where the U.S. has to be involved in war because of people like Putin, Ahmadinejad, Chavez, Kim Jong Il, China v.s Taiwan. I don't see failure in the middle east as an option simply to balance the budget.
Dictatorships want to consolidate their power by invading other countries and getting other countries to depend on them economically. Democracies have a duty to prevent this because it challenges the viability of our own democracies. The only way I see a future of no war would be one where every country was a democracy and trading with each other. Until that happens we have to be on guard.
purpleoscar
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
You really need to lay off the kool-aid...
You have to admit that political parties act like sports teams and also want to win for their own reasons right?
purpleoscar
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
ntalwar
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
You didn't address the point. If Obama can do with $5 billion what it takes Bush $10 billion a month, that's $60 billion in savings a year right there.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Yes I read it. And I agree, and I'm not sure why Republican don't understand this, you're right you can't cut taxes and then spend all you want... but that's exactly what we've been doing.
Reliable sources are those that don't include jabs such as "like good liberals do", aren't dripping with partisan rhetoric and advertising.
And reliable sources especially don't include the racist bullshit you tried to push on us last week in the immigration thread...
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Yes, but you suggesting that Democrats want to purposely fail in the Middle East is beyond ridiculous...
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Did you even read his post? Not one word in your post addresses what he said... man this is getting old.
The problem with this whole argument--and it's not that it's just you, it's the whole Republican, pro-Iraq-war clan--is that we have no definition of when the war will be "over." What is that definition? Do we fight until we get a peace accord from the insurgents? We can't do that--there is no unifying group governing all of the insurgents, so no peace will be honored by all. Do we pull out when we kill bin Laden, no matter how many insurgents are left fighting? We can't really expect to kill all of the insurgents? To expect that is to underestimate why they're fighting. Our mere presence there creates new insurgents and inspires anti-American feelings in some adults and children there daily. I'm not saying that we should pull out because doing so would create fewer insurgents, but I think it's folly to fail to recognize that any continued presence there will only create more to fight against.
What is the end to the war?
The war that made it harder for the US to ever go to war again was Vietnam. Already suffering from the stalemate "victory" of Korea, the American and international public lost even more of their unified support and awe of the US military's might and virtue with Vietnam. The first Gulf War helped some, but an American war will never be viewed in the same way after Vietnam. In the next 30 years, the Bush War, no matter how it ends, has made matters even worse.
If you listen to the way John McCain talks about Vietnam and Iraq together, saying things like "I'll never let our troops hang their heads in defeat again," he makes it sound like he would have had us fight in Vietnam for decades until victory.
All of this is offtopic, of course.
ntalwar
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
On-topic, it looks like investors are heeding Buffett's advice (at least for today) 
.
.
martha
Blue Crack Supplier
Sometimes it's hard to keep up.
martha
Blue Crack Supplier
Yep. Cuts which can determine the future of the children are preferable to cutting war spending. The mind boggles.
What the hell will we have to be "secure" about if our children are sick and undereducated?
purpleoscar
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
Yep. Cuts which can determine the future of the children are preferable to cutting war spending. The mind boggles.
What the hell will we have to be "secure" about if our children are sick and undereducated?
You're assuming there is not waste in health and eduction and that national security wouldn't be jeopardized if we cut an ran, right?
martha
Blue Crack Supplier
How much ya gonna cut? And what are ya gonna cut?
purpleoscar
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
It's not off topic if people want to save money by eliminating the 2 wars and reducing the size of the military.
The attitude of John McCain is that we leave when Iraq and Afghanistan can deal with their own security issues. The U.S. is already starting to pull troops out of Iraq because we are getting close there, and Afghanistan will need more help. Bush didn't have much of a plan on how to fight a counter-insurgency so people like Rumsfeld had to go and a General like Petraeus came in with a different military strategy and tactics. This has to be applied in Afghanistan with a surge while the U.S. winds down in Iraq. If the surge doesn't work or if Afghanistan is lethargic in their response to the surge then the U.S. will have to leave simply because they can't handle any other threats in the future if they are there forever. The conservatives want to try the new tactics in Afghanistan before they leave.
The war could have been finished sooner if they had these tactics at the beginning, but hindsight is 20/20. Ultimately if Obama gets the U.S. out of Afghanistan quickly we will see how they respond. An Afghani at work told me that the biggest mistake the U.S. did was to leave Afghanistan too soon after the Soviet invasion. All the enemy needs is money to fund people and they can bully them into submission. If Afghanistan has the military capability to defend themselves I think the U.S. should be able to leave.
Bush thought the middle east would be like Japan in WWII but he forgot that the cultures are different. If they reject nationhood and go back to tribalism it will be REALLY bad and will undo everything we did there. We are trying to get into people's minds and show them that democracy and limited government and constitutions will be better than despotism.
So ultimately we are in some agreement just a disagreement to WHEN we should leave.
purpleoscar
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
I did address it. You are looking at imperfections in Iraq and Afghanistan. I'm not disagreeing with his assessment of corruption and flaws. Those imperfections are not a good enough reason to leave though. It will be worse if we leave the countries half baked. When the U.S. leaves in victory there will still be problems with different sects, and opium dealers that those countries will have to deal with. Certainly a republic with limited government and a constitution is better than despotism. If we can withdraw with those countries with their own national security available those quibbles the poster was talking about won't be enough to quit the mission. I'm tired of people using as many excuses as possible to avoid war and conflict. The U.S. is going to sink or swim based on their ability to defend democracy. In fact the western world will sink or swim based on it's ability to defend itself. I'm sure when we invaded Germany in WWII we can find atrocities and errors in judgment but was that enough reason to give up? I'm trying to get people to way the consequences. The consequences of leaving Vietnam in the lurch were HUGE. Who gives flying F%$k about Halliburton or Opium? The constant nitpicking prevents any executive decision from being made so that when you have to act you are paralyzed because you want perfection.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
No, you didn't read his post, because if you did you would realize he didn't even mention leaving.
Read what he wrote:
Even using your assumptions, why are we paying for the rebuilding of Iraq when they are the ones with money and we aren't?
purpleoscar
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
If Bush didn't rebuild and left Iraq early he would be criticized for being so callous to bomb and leave. "Wham bam thank you mam!" I think rebuilding is an important part of our relations with the country we bombed. BTW Iraq is a part of rebuilding efforts and it helps them have something to fight for.
Listen to Bushie and his reasons for rebuilding:
Fact Sheet: Rebuilding Iraq
It's fun listening to Democrats talk about how they love Charlie Wilson's war and criticizing the lack of rebuilding in Afghanistan during the Soviet invasion and now these precepts of abandoning the rebuilding is now considered okay.
It seems like no matter what happens you can find contradicting criticisms. You just can't win.
Rebuilding in Iraq and Afghanistan is necessary since a balanced budget on their part is hardly enough to rebuild war damage. Bush even wrote off the debt from the Sadaam years to help them get going. I think the rebuilding efforts are a part of the national security for those countries and it would be PR disaster if we said "up yours fix your own country." That's why aid to Africa doesn't mean much if their political and economic systems are despotic and counter wealth building. When Iraq and Afghanistan are secure with their own forces they will have a constitution, democracy and a freer private sector to fight for. If we just bomb the daylights out of a country but give them nothing to fight for there is no reason why they won't go back to despotism. I'm pretty sure you agree with at least the idea of rebuilding. Democrats were attacking the Reagan administration for not helping the Mujahideen and just giving them weapons without any follow up. The question is what are we fighting for? My answer is we are fighting for institutions and infrastructure that the people in Iraq and Afghanistan will want to fight for.
Vincent Vega
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
I think you should read that sentence a third time and then think about what he might mean, not what you mean he is saying.
There is no line of "We should have left right after the war was over", and there is no line of "We shouldn't help rebuilding the country." There is just a line of "We shouldn't foot the whole bill while Iraq is generating huge surplusses."
There is no line of "We should have left right after the war was over", and there is no line of "We shouldn't help rebuilding the country." There is just a line of "We shouldn't foot the whole bill while Iraq is generating huge surplusses."
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Thank you Vincent.
I give up, oscar you once again leave me no choice but just leave another thread. This will be the third time, I guess third time's a charm...
You would be a much more productive poster if you actually read people's post, read the articles posted(including the ones you post) and discussed what is at hand, not what you think is at hand...
Till next time
I give up, oscar you once again leave me no choice but just leave another thread. This will be the third time, I guess third time's a charm...
You would be a much more productive poster if you actually read people's post, read the articles posted(including the ones you post) and discussed what is at hand, not what you think is at hand...
Till next time
purpleoscar
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
Yes I get his point but we're not going to stop rebuilding what we destroyed simply because they have a surplus, and Iraq is almost a complete mission. There have been rebuilding accomplishments since 2005. When we get to Afghanistan there will be lots of work to do after eliminating the Taliban. The focus should not be surpluses or debt but success in having an infrastructure that will LAST. If there's no basic education system, constitution, democracy and military it will be for nought whether there is a surplus or not. Iraq is partially funding the rebuilding and will eventually take over the total cost as the U.S. moves out and starts entering into Afghanistan. We have to be careful of a free ride situation but having institutions for them to fight for I think is the step that can lead to a lasting government. It will cost more if we have to go back again.
purpleoscar
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
Thank you Vincent.
I give up, oscar you once again leave me no choice but just leave another thread. This will be the third time, I guess third time's a charm...
You would be a much more productive poster if you actually read people's post, read the articles posted(including the ones you post) and discussed what is at hand, not what you think is at hand...
Till next time
I think you just don't understand my posts and act like a snob and superior. I read my articles and other people's articles and I just don't always reach the same conclusion you do. Also what you think is important in a discussion is often not what other people think is important so they will not follow YOUR template. I think you ignore my posts by far more with:
"Stop drinking the Kool-Aid"
"You didn't read my post"
"That's not a good source"
and more brilliant "gotcha" moments like that. Anybody can do that. You also like to ask people to bring TONS of evidence from the internet to back up their opinions yet I don't see you doing the same either. It's like a tactic to wear posters out while you use one sentence responses. Why don't you do some work for a change? Why is it that other conservative posters complain about the same responses from you? Is it because all conservatives are stupid and don't read posts or is it because they don't saying things in agreement with you?
I don't think the Iraqi surplus is as important in the discussion as you do. Too bad. You have to learn to agree to disagree instead of belabouring small points, and brow beating posters. All wars have elements of reconstruction. Step one is to win the war. Step two is to have an infrastructure that people want to fight for. Step three is to have a homegrown military to defend it. Step four is to pull out. If they happen to have a surplus in the meantime who cares? These democracies will be fragile for years to come with mean next door neighbors. If anything I WANT them to have a surplus, because when we pull out they will need it.
Similar threads
