Friday, January 18, 2008
What "Conservative" Price, Iraq?
Let's talk about the cost of the United States being in Iraq. Money....good grief, and lives...good Lord. If you are going to talk about one over the other, lives are more important, hands down. You can't put a price on people (unless you are an insurance actuator or the VA). That is an abstract value which conservatives only see as valuable in one narrow context...abortion. When it comes to the lives of innocent people in jail or soldiers...it is whatever the market will bear...translation...soldiers, prisoners, and the homeless can die until there is rebellion in the streets; even then the blame will be to the rebellion in their minds, as everyone else made a choice to end up where they did. In the end, your choices lead to your fate...that is how they sleep at night. Now let's ask them....your collective choices have led to the current situation in Iraq, the defunding of all Federal regulatory agencies, the housing/mortgage fiasco, and the mis-management of the war in Afghanistan to the point that no one seems to know which way is up anymore. Are they living with the weight of their choices, or passing the buck? If they are passing the buck...they should be called on it. They will use their own motto, when backed into a corner the eventual excuse will come whailing...."it was your choice, too...you did it to yourself by letting us run things." Either that, or it was Bill Clinton's fault. That is how they sleep at night.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/president-bush-shouldnt-_b_81998.html
A good but sad article
Being on the War board, I have seen it daily for the past 3 years. However I don't personally know anyone who actually thinks like that. I'd love to find an actual 'specimen' so as I could actually look them in the face. I'm curious to see if they are animated while droning the Party line, or if they are indeed, as I fear, botlike.
I'm still baffled at how "conservatives" have so willingly spent a trillion dollars on a welfare mission in Iraq. As soon as the "no WMD" buzzer went off, I would expect real conservatives to immediately look for an exit strategy with "honor" to reduce all costs to reconstruction only. But lately I've noticed more and more Republicans openly endorsing the "it's about oil" justification. The message is, of course, dripping with the syruppy fear of oil shipping lanes being cut off, making it a matter of national security. The same people that once claimed there was a noble cause now are saying the troops are necessary to avoid a potential, and unlikely, sacrifice on their part. Today's "conservative" seems to have the ideology boiled down to one simplistic principle, selfishness. And when it comes to entitlement, these conservatives seem to think the World "owes us" the money to prosecute the ill-conceived debacle in Iraq. Somehow, they don't seem to connect "loan" with having to pay it back. As if the balance due will just go away if we don't talk about it. Granted, it may seem cold to simply focus on the money rather than the costs in mental health, physical well-being or fatalities of our troops, but let's face the reality that conservatives are not concerned with those issues. The US is DEEP in debt, there's no spinning it with GDP or some other slight of hand. Debt is debt and we're running it up like fools and the bill is coming due right now. Look at our economy.
Hey Huck, keep up the good work, it might take some time to get rockin and rollin. I see there are HTML tags available, I'll have to see what they're good for.
Just a test with these fancy tags, pretty limited, but useful for emphasis. Like this?
Or maybe like this? Huh, I think I'll learn more about this HTML...
I appreciate that, DL.
I'm learning new tricks! I'm not an "old dog" after all! Now here's a fancy one...1zygote's article can be found HERE.
Way to link, demlucky, you old dog! Thanks!
Pot of java brewing and I open a few media resources to get the latest news...what's this? The Wall Street Journal..."Stopping Iran", a commentary by Norman Podhoretz? Norman Podhoretz, the crazy neoconservative? Podhoretz the radical? In the Wall Street Journal. Well, at least they clearly identify the article as "commentary", but how did it make Google's "Front Page" as a primary link? I smell sulfur eminating from the halls of the Wall Street Journal.
"To begin with, Iran was (as certified even by the doves of the State Department) the leading sponsor of terrorism in the world, and it was therefore reasonable to fear that it would transfer nuclear technology to terrorists who would be only too happy to use it against us".
In this paragraph, we see the evil cunning of a con-man at work. "Doves" in the State Department? Please Norman, list their names so I can write them and encourage them to continue to fight for sanity in our foreign policy. But there are no "doves" are there Norman. It's really the sane versus the insane, and Mr. Podhoretz, you represent the most dangerous of the insane. You are given a credible forum to pervert and twist into a Neoconservative Pulpit from which you preach to the masses that America must create more war to "survive". To understand Podhoretz is to cross over to the dark side of humanity. The side that endorses a global war of the civilizations, that endorses creating such a strong disgust among Muslims with American Imperialism that conflict is inevitable. Norman Podhoretz's commentary is irresponsible and reckless and the Wall Street Journal is the same with Rupert Murdoch at the helm. To quote Podhoretz, "God help us all".
Stopping Iran
I need a lesson. Help a brother out, DemLucky.
When Huck first displayed the running total of dollars spent on Iraq, I believe it was about $5 BILLION ago. Help? You're doing great, Huck! You've got the running total and a new poll. One thing is archiving older topics, maybe sending the topics to the archives after 2 weeks or something?
Post a Comment