rayonyx7 - Servicemen are protecting us from what? What country has attacked us?
Let's get something clear people, political solutions ensure freedoms, not military actions...
Disbeliever is dead on! How much more of my money does the gov't get to waste? That's the issue at hand. Not what service men and women do or don't do. Put another dollar in the hands of the gov't and watch us loose 1.50 instead.
I agree with much of your post. The problem is, we are in a shit hole and you can't just snap your fingers and make it all go away.
I don't disagree with disbeliever's general sentiment. The problem is, what to do about the guys who need help NOW. We can criticize the gov't all we want. But if they don't do anything, they don't do anything. Do you sit around and say "government should be taking care of these guys" (whatever that even really means), or do you help out people who are actually doing something?
For me, the difference is abstract thought (government should do it) vs. reality (these guys need help now).
And as for your point that "political solutions ensure freedoms, not military actions"... again, taking the long view, that statement is an abstract sentiment... political solutions have, in the long run, almost always delayed/prolonged and bought time (in some cases, hundreds of years of non-war), yes... but, not solved disputes.
rayonyx7 - T.B, ...I can think of a million things that need our attention here. No new taxes needed, because you are not in Iraq in the first place and you are not wasting money on a pointless endeavor!
I don't think you read my statement at all. Your polemic telling me about everything I "fail to understand" was a bit unwarranted, since I did not offer my thoughts on much of the subject matter you brought up. I offered a very narrow opinion on a couple of specific things. I apologize if that limited snap shot led you to believe something else about my more general views about the Iraq situation.
I did not support the war. I did not say it was more or less stable prior to the war. I did not say we haven't made a mess of things.
I don't disagree with much of your opinion. That said, it still does not make the decision of when and how to leave easy.
Sure, if we "were not in Iraq in the first place" lots of things would be different... but we are.
I am simply dealing with the situation we are in now. Not dealing with "shoulda woulda coulda"...
"Told you so" is not a solution to a present situation.
Pointing out how wrong or what a bad decision it was, may make you feel better about yourself (whooppee, lots of us were against it, you know), but it does nothing moving forward; it does nothing to help those who have been injured.
Eddie Nash - GREAT POST rayonyx7 ... some people are just fuckin retards, you cant get through to them... Simple fact is, America wants to rule the earth and conform everyone. If they dont conform, their TERROIST!
Unfortunately, rayonx7 has just lost a lot of credibility... lol
Tahiti Bo is fuckin commie
you remind me of those commie bastards
Ahh the typical Republocrat argument, we have screwed up and we have to fix it now.
Will here is the scenario: The USA goes bust or we feed the Iraqis? The USA goes bust or we support infrastructure projects in Iraq? The USA goes bust or we waste more money in Iraq.
I am not dealing in coulda woulda shoulda. My point is this: We are in the worst economic morass since the depression. American citizens are loosing their homes, their lives. SO what's more important? Our people or the Iraqis? Not enough money to go around. So where does it go?
We are not helping the troops, we are not helping the citizens, we are not helping ourselves. But according to your rational, we should help the Iraqis because we jacked them up. Got it!
Eddie Nash - Tahiti Bo is fuckin commie... you remind me of those commie bastards
Actually Marx was a very bright guy. Not a great economist, but had much insight on the human condition.
Tahiti Bo - rayonyx7 - T.B, ...I can think of a million things that need our attention here. No new taxes needed, because you are not in Iraq in the first place and you are not wasting money on a pointless endeavor!
I don't think you read my statement at all. Your polemic telling me about everything I "fail to understand" was a bit unwarranted, since I did not offer my thoughts on much of the subject matter you brought up. I offered a very narrow opinion on a couple of specific things. I apologize if that limited snap shot led you to believe something else about my more general views about the Iraq situation.
I did not support the war. I did not say it was more or less stable prior to the war. I did not say we haven't made a mess of things.
Sure, if we "were not in Iraq in the first place" lots of things would be different... but we are.
I am simply dealing with the situation we are in now. Not dealing with "shoulda woulda coulda"...
"Told you so" is not a solution to a present situation.
Pointing out how wrong or what a bad decision it was, may make you feel better about yourself (whooppee, lots of us were against it, you know), but it does nothing moving forward; it does nothing to help those who have been injured.
Wow, so you are not willing to take a position. You take a middlish of the road position so when your post is poked full of holes you can waffle back and forth. Nice! Typical Repbulocrat stance!
Das Kapital was correct in a lot of its assessment, especially today. At its extreme, capitalism = communism.
Tahiti Bo - Eddie Nash - Tahiti Bo is fuckin commie... you remind me of those commie bastards
Actually Marx was a very bright guy. Not a great economist, but had much insight on the human condition.
I rest my case, fuck a commie, I slap commies on my day off
rayonyx7 - Ahh the typical Republocrat argument, we have screwed up and we have to fix it now.
Will here is the scenario: The USA goes bust or we feed the Iraqis? The USA goes bust or we support infrastructure projects in Iraq? The USA goes bust or we waste more money in Iraq.
I am not dealing in coulda woulda shoulda. My point is this: We are in the worst economic morass since the depression. American citizens are loosing their homes, their lives. SO what's more important? Our people or the Iraqis? Not enough money to go around. So where does it go?
We are not helping the troops, we are not helping the citizens, we are not helping ourselves. But according to your rational, we should help the Iraqis because we jacked them up. Got it!
No.
Actually, I simply said that there is nothing wrong with private foundations asking folks for donations to help our troops.
Got it?
" And as for your point that "political solutions ensure freedoms, not military actions"... again, taking the long view, that statement is an abstract sentiment... political solutions have, in the long run, almost always delayed/prolonged and bought time (in some cases, hundreds of years of non-war), yes... but, not solved disputes. "
Pray tell what military engagement in of itself brought freedom to the masses? American Rev War: Nope. Civil War: Nope. WW1: Nope. WWII: Nope. Vietnam: Nope. Irap: Nope. Afghanistan: Nope. Which European war would you like me to dissect to prove my point? Which Asian war? Which Roman war?
The only was to settle a dispute is through political negoiation. When all parties feel that they have something to gain and loose, then a dispute will be settled.
TB,
I got it. You have nothing useful to say and you are reactionary. Got it.
I fell for it, touche sir.
rayonyx7 - Wow, so you are not willing to take a position. You take a middlish of the road position so when your post is poked full of holes you can waffle back and forth. Nice! Typical Repbulocrat stance!
Wait a sec... now you want it both ways...
How can you poke my position full of holes, when, as you note, I haven't taken a position in the first place?
Don't dislocate your shoulder patting yourself on the back.
rayonyx7 - The only was to settle a dispute is through political negoiation. When all parties feel that they have something to gain and loose, then a dispute will be settled.
LOL... ok, if you want to consider all those peace/surrender treaties following wars to be mere "political solutions", feel free to do so... that's RICH.
Aug 3, 1945: Japan categorically rejects Potsdam Declaration
Aug 6 and 9, 1945: US bombs Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Sept 2, 1945: A political solution, under which each of the US and Japan felt they had something to gain and lose, is reached and Japan signs the Instrument of Surrender aboard the USS Missouri (formerly a US battleship, but converted to a solution-finding political think tank sometime between 1941 and 1945)
Note all the American gentlemen surrounding Foreign Minister Shigematsu: they are US diplomats, bureaucrats, and polticians who helped to find the political solution, you can tell by the uniforms:
Here is one to infuriate you more: Note, while I said that political solutions have only delayed and not resolved disputes, I did NOT say the military solutions have solved them either, did I?
Poke some more holes in your straw man arguments.
Once again sir, you deserve a touche. Your cyclical meandering arguments are to powerful for me. I can't do stupid for long periods of time.
No offense, dude, but the only "stand" you have concretely taken is that we should never have gone into Iraq in the first place. And I was ahead of you in making this point. Keep up.
rayonyx7 - Das Kapital was correct in a lot of its assessment, especially today. At its extreme, capitalism = communism.
Hmmm...sort of... I don't think his "assessment" (if you mean economic analysis) was spot on... Schumpeter had a much stronger analysis coming to much the same conclusion... not that capitalism = communism, but that capitalism will lead to communism.
TB,
I understand that you get joy out arguing semantics. But this isn't philosophy 101 where one needs to qualify every word to ensure its proper meaning is understood, unless it stated otherwise.
If one was to take capitalism to its pure distillation it would look remarkably like....
In pure capitalism (classical econ) there is very little asymmetrical information. I concede some is needed for profit sake, but what we see today would never occur in a real pure capitalist society. By implication, communism is the same, there is very little asymmetrical information.
Labor is the key ingredient in both systems, as it is they who make up the majority and via differing mechanisms (dependent upon the system) would control/own (for a lack of a better shorter term) companies. Professional managers, who are not the owners of the companies, would be relegated to secondary status as they should be, subservient to the owners of the company.
Tahiti Bo - No offense, dude, but the only "stand" you have concretely taken is that we should never have gone into Iraq in the first place. And I was ahead of you in making this point. Keep up.
I know my stances are hard for you to understand, but I have laid out my views very clearly. Understanding them is your issue.
" Sept 2, 1945: A political solution, under which each of the US and Japan felt they had something to gain and lose, is reached and Japan signs the Instrument of Surrender aboard the USS Missouri"
Hmmm... Do I really need to say anything else TB? I get your issue with term surrender and peace and treaty. But my point still remains valid, unless there is a political solution, there is no way to end a war. Germany post WWII, the Ottoman Empire post collapse, the US post Rev War, the US post Civil War, etcc... Get it?
Look at places where no political solution has been made: India and Pakistan; constant wars and fights. Get ready for another. Israel and Palestine. Iraq. Afghanistan since the USSR fiasco. Columbia and the FARC. The Leftist geurillas in the southern hemisphere. Burma. Thailand.
Military got us here, but what was the final solution?
And let ye forget my friend, the military is subservient to the political apparatus, it is only a political tool. Nothing more nothing less.