Posted on 11/21/2007 5:23:44 AM PST by Aristotelian
THE situation in Iraq has im proved so rapidly that Democrats now shun the topic as thoroughly as they shun our troops when the cameras aren't around. . . .
What happened? How did this startling turnabout come to pass? Why does the good news continue to compound? . . .
We didn't quit: Even as some of us began to suspect that Iraqi society was hopelessly sick, our troops stood to and did their duty bravely. The tenacity of our soldiers and Marines in the face of mortal enemies in Iraq and blithe traitors at home is the No. 1 reason why Iraq has turned around. . . .
Gen. David Petraeus took command: Petraeus brought three vital qualities to our effort: He wants to win, not just keep the lid on the pot; he never stops learning and adapting, and he provides top-cover for innovative subordinates. . . .
The surge: While the increase in troop numbers was important, allowing us to consolidate gains in neighborhoods we'd rid of terrorists and insurgents, the psychological effect of the surge was crucial.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Well, I’m all for recovering our war expenses. The current market for a barrel of oil is around $100.00. We are about 470 billion in the hole on the Iraq deal so we need about 4.7 billion barrels to break even to date. Do you have any idea when we might be seeing some payoff?
I am certain that you and your ilk will be eager to support such a program since it's the military that preserves your right to be such a twit.
Have a Happy Thanksgiving! (Hug a soldier when you get the chance.)
You’re talking out of both sides of your mouth, and out of other orifices as well. I’m not wasting any more time on you.
Gee, asking me to pay more after I spent three years keeping you safe from those evil Viet Cong back in the ‘60s. That’s gratitude for ya’. You’re just another sunshine patriot, big on letting someone else do the paying and the bleeding.
Both sides of my mouth? Do ya’ mean that I’m talking faster than you can think? I can try and dumb it down a little for you. How about instead of a cost benefit analysis just tell me why we should stay there. Don’t forget to explain that little thingy about WMDs.
I disagree. I hope that was a glib comment you just threw out as a riposte.
I will put it to you this way:
In my opinion, people who "don't think" are in the subset of people who don't vote or participate in a discourse of the issues. But they also don't care if someone else makes the decisions for them.
"Shallow Thinkers" are people who profess to have given an issue thought, but not the the rigorous degree that is demanded for a thoughtful and effective solution to an issue. Basically, as Thomas Sowell describes them, "One Stage Thinkers". Liberals, if you will. They haven't thought a situation through deeply enough to reach a well thought out conclusion, but in their opinion, have committed enough thought to have a valid opinion that should be considered as a possible solution to an issue. They feel they know the right answer strongly enough that they attempt to convince the people who "don't think" that their solution is the correct one.
Personally, I would rather have people who don't think and stay out of the debate, than people who only think shallowly and demand their opinions be considered.
Sorry dude. I don't care enough to look it up for you.
In my opinion, we should occupy the entire Middle East, and require rounded up American protesters to guard the multiple oil derricks dressed as English Bobby’s... and not arm them.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
I’m guessing it’s a size 4 hatband.....
Yeah, you’re right. As long as you can make the payments with enough left over for a six-pack or two, who cares about taxes.
On Thanksgiving Day, be thankful for such men.
Amen. Excellent article; thanks for posting it.
And you should know that some people think we shouldn’t have won the Cold War. Looks like we’ve got one of those posting here, doesn’t it. Some folks think communism is just dandy.
In a previous post as I followed your back and forth, you posed three choices: raise taxes, borrow, or print more money. I think we can agree that the way the Congress has been financing it (like everything else when we operate in a deficit mode) is by your second choice: debt (via US Treasury bonds against the general overall budget).
I take it you don't like that mode (I don't like it either) and that you realize that you are posing a hypothetical. By that I mean even if you and I and anyone else on this forum agree on the best choice it is highly unlikely that Congress will suddenly change course and adopt our choice. So I think you are asking if we could set political reality aside for a moment, wave a magic wand and rule on this issue what option would we choose for paying for it, right? In that case, I would answer "none of the three." There is a fourth option, and that is by making hard choices on priorities that will allow us to spend $500 Billion or more and still stay in the black. It is really not that hard to see that we could do it a number of equitable and fiscally responsible ways (we are still talking about a small amount relative to the size of the economy). Of course, doing the smart thing and the right thing is very difficult in a democracy designed to make it hard to reach an agreement to do anything. I think Winston Churchill said "you can always count on the Americans to do the right thing, after they have exhausted all other possibilities."
let alone how many soldiers you are willing to kill or maim
Be careful how you state these kind of things. I know it is frustrating and emotional for many, but imho, you need to tone down the hyperbole if you want to have the chance to win someone over to your point of view. Al Qaeda, Sunni insurgents, Shia militias, and criminal elements have been the ones killing and maiming out troops. Let's make sure they share at least part of the blame, if not all of it. I hope you are just using shorthand for "you are willing to put in harm's way".
for the WMD lie.
This phrase has been repeated over and over to the point that I think people forget who lied: Saddam lied. He lied so often and for so long and so well that he suffered what most habitual liars suffer and that is once you do start telling the truth no one believes you. He told anyone who would listen both inside and outside his government that he had WMD ready to go. Report after report since it became apparent there were no stockpiles found has revealed that he lied to mislead Iran.
Now, Bush, Blair, Cheney, 99% of Congress, repeated what all the intelligence agencies were reporting: Saddam had reconstituted his WMD program and had stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and was on his way to developing nuclear weapons. They acted on what turned out to be a lie. However, that does not make them out to be a liar. If I tell my children that we are going to my sister's house in Kansas for Thanksgiving and we travel there and can't find it because my sister inexplicably lied about living in Kansas, does that make me the liar or my sister?
Last, I go back to the first part of your question: "How much are you willing to spend?" and a corrollary on another of your posts "have you done a cost-benefit analysis?"
I will answer that, and then return the question back. The short answer is "I am willing to spend whatever it takes." In any cost-benefit analysis, you need to thoroughly consider something that is sometimes very difficult to quantify: "What will be the cost if I don't spend whatever it takes?"
It is a hypothetical, but it is one that business executives wrestle with all the time. For instance, let's say that I am a toothpaste manufacturer, and I am looking for ways to cut costs because I am losing money. After an extremely thorough analysis of all aspects of my business, I discover two things: [1] that we are at some unknown point in a long, soft market but that at some point will come back strong, and [2] that one of our key ingredients is superfluous and never really necessary. It was a lie. We never needed flouride in our toothpaste, especially since now virtually every county in America adds it to the tap water we drink and cook with. It was a clever lie, a marketing gimmick, that has far outlasted its usefulness and is killing us in our COGs. We are faced with layoffs, or piling on debt, or cutting this unnecessary ingredient that is so expensive. Easy choice, right? We just remove flouride and move on down the road, right?
So we contemplate what would happen if we do. At first, our CFO proudly proclaims that "we will immediately start showing a profit and can even start paying our largest dividend in our history if we stop including it." We all get excited and want to vote to do just that. Then a smart executive asks the question: "How will our competition react if we make this choice?" And at that point we start getting to the cost that often is not considered in this analysis.
After a quarter or two, to our horror, our competitors will see an opening and pounce. In every ad they run, they tout the fact that their brand has flouride and ours does not. They trot out dentist after dentist expressing how important flouride is and how you and your family's teeth will get more cavities without flouride and how important that is to dental health. The Today Show features children with black, rotted teeth, and Matt Lauer wonders if it might be because they were using our brand of toothpaste. Our brand starts tanking, as well as our stock, and we are faced with a much more difficult reality: we must somehow spend an enormous amount of capital (far more by factors of 10-20 than we were contemplating losing during this soft market) in order to run counter ads telling everyone and educating the market that toothpaste no longer needs fluoride.
So, a struggle ensues in the company about which way to go. There are many who are betting that our competitors will probably just cut out the fluoride as those costs must be killing them as well. They complain that the whole thing is based on a lie, a gimmick, that we should just cut it and run.
Others, are not so sure and argue that it is now so accepted in the market that we must just consider it a cost of doing business, take our lumps for now, and figure a better way to increase the top line or cut other costs.
My question to you is this: have you considered the alternative to not fighting this war over there and not putting one more man or woman in harm's way over there? Have you thought thoroughly through your cost-benefit analysis? If so, I'd like to see it. I'm serious. If there is a better way that is plausible and doesn't put our troops in harm's way over there and on top of that allows us to cut our military spending dramatically, then I am all ears.
...”This will leave Dem candidates in a very awkward position next November.”....
I sincerely hope the RNC and its media folks are hard at work crafting spots highlighting just this issue. There are uncountable film clips and positions taken by every democrat party candidate that will damn them. I’ve said before, GWB will go down in history as one of the best and most important US Presidents, equal to a spot on Mt. Rushmore. The 2008 elections will doom the democrat party to exile for another 8 years. God is with the USA.
The troll got banned.
LOL! All that work was a mere exercise for me. Oh well, it helped me crystallize my thoughts.
I am going to take advantage of your work, if you don’t mind...great job.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.