Ron 10 #26 April 22, 2004 QuoteI don´t think it would be a popular regulation... I don't care if its popular....I don't think its very popular for me to pay people to sit on their asses all day and collect a check. And it does not have to be militray...Anyone can pick up trash on the side of the road. We are giving them the money now, so why not get some work out of them? As for the military with kids....Well I know plenty of military people with kids."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #27 April 22, 2004 QuoteWhat about someone who can't find a job but has children? When you send the parent to the military, what do you do with the kids? If you read the whole post you will se I aslo included things like picking trash up from the road ways, painting civic buildings...ect. We are paying them they should do something for it. And can't find a job?..McDonalds is always hireing."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Botellines 0 #28 April 22, 2004 Fair enogh, in spain we had the option to declare that you where against weapons and therefore you wouldn´t hold a gun against anyone. So you would have to do community service. If you went to the army it was 12 months, if you did community service it was 18 months. The paycheck was ridiculos, something like what you expended on public transportation to go to work plus 30$ at month (what a joke) it pretty much meant free labor. Even if you give a decent salary to the guys who will be getting welfare you will be taking jobs that would be taken otherwise by people on welfare. So the only thing you are doing is rotating jobs. I don´t know how much of a trouble it is people who could get a job but the don´t and live on welfare (i mean number wise). In spain we have welfare, but while you are getting cash (you only get part of what you have paid previously in taxes, so if you never worked, you will not get a monthly welfare cash) the government is looking for a job for you. And there is only so many times you can reject the job before you loose your welfare. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #29 April 22, 2004 QuoteSo you would have to do community service. If you went to the army it was 12 months, if you did community service it was 18 months. I like that. QuoteEven if you give a decent salary to the guys who will be getting welfare you will be taking jobs that would be taken otherwise by people on welfare. So the only thing you are doing is rotating jobs. Well right now we are just handing them money...So maing them clean a park for it is better than nothing."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #30 April 22, 2004 "One of the proposals was to have a "war tax" when we're at war, because, well, war is expensive." Tax your gasoline. It would reduce reliance on foreign oil, help with your trade deficit, help clean up the environment, lower traffic congestion, maybe some people would take a little exercise, etc etc etc. Just a thought.-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kiltboy 0 #31 April 22, 2004 My poor dad nearly choked when he was over visiting me last time. Filled the corolla for maybe 14 bucks and got 400 miles out of it. I don't miss the UK prices. David Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,111 #32 April 22, 2004 >Do you think the pols would make this a tax for everyone or would >they start a "progressive tax" ie. "tax the rich"? I don't know. I'd be for a flat percentage on everyone above the poverty line. >Then it becomes a political football. It would be a political football no matter what the plan. If proposed right now, the democrats would support it and Bush would oppose it with all his might. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #33 April 22, 2004 QuoteTax your gasoline. It would reduce reliance on foreign oil, help with your trade deficit, help clean up the environment, lower traffic congestion, maybe some people would take a little exercise, etc etc etc. Just a thought. Sadly Bush is trying to lower the cost of gas by reducing pollution control requirements. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #34 April 22, 2004 Quote>Do you think the pols would make this a tax for everyone or would >they start a "progressive tax" ie. "tax the rich"? Quote I don't know. I'd be for a flat percentage on everyone above the poverty line. The political football aspect would be where the poverty line is drawn and what effect the special interest influence would be. >Then it becomes a political football. QuoteIt would be a political football no matter what the plan. If proposed right now, the democrats would support it and Bush would oppose it with all his might. You might be surprised at how many Conservatives would support some type of tax increase if they could be assured what it would be earmarked for. I think we may very well see some type of War Bond in the near future. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #35 April 22, 2004 Quote>no one would support any sort of military action that is outside our borders. You are honestly saying that americans are so callous that the idea of killing ten thousand Iraqis doesn't bother them, but paying another $500 in income taxes would? I, for one, refuse to believe that we would be so greedy and uncaring. I think callous is the wrong word. It's just that it's been decades since very many people have felt any direct impact of our military actions abroad. Look at the first Gulf War. Given that every year hundreds of soldiers die in training accidents, it was safer serving there. (admittedly it's less true when factoring in the suspected Gulf War Syndrome malaises). Even as bad as it is now, it's 700 dead soldiers out of over a hundred thousand. I think that's why Bush's polling numbers haven't budged in recent weeks despite the great setbacks in Iraq. The war is blowing 70B a year, but that's lost in the sea of a 2T budget. Since DC can run a deficit, it's no different then running up a visa bill, which Americans are very comfortable doing. So if it doesn't cost people anything in terms of money or lives, support comes down to political and moral beliefs. Given that the NY attack killed more Americans than the last several military conflicts, it's not surprising that most are in a shoot first, ask later mode. Indignation and anger is free. otoh, if you want callous, Toles ran a cartoon in 1990/91 that went like this: A pollster asked an american on the street: How many Arabs would it be ok to be killed in order to guarantee you cheap gas? Answer: All of them. (On a side note, is anyone tracking how many Iraqis are being killed by the other side? They seem far less concerned about collateral damage than the US forces) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,111 #36 April 22, 2004 > The war is blowing 70B a year, but that's lost in the sea of a 2T >budget. Since DC can run a deficit, it's no different then running up a > visa bill, which Americans are very comfortable doing. Except that we WILL have to pay it all back with interest. $70 billion? That's cheap. Estimates for the total cost range from $200 billion to $1.6 trillion (if you include follow-on costs.) That's between $1000 and $8000 per taxpayer. And we WILL have to pay that back. Credit cards can be bad because they can get you so far into debt that you find yourself bankrupt with no idea how you got there. >So if it doesn't cost people anything in terms of money or lives, > support comes down to political and moral beliefs. Sad that we're willing to send someone else to die for us but not willing to pay a few thouand to equip him to do so. >(On a side note, is anyone tracking how many Iraqis are being killed > by the other side? They seem far less concerned about collateral > damage than the US forces) www.iraqbodycount.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnnyD 0 #37 April 22, 2004 Any suggestions in the article on how it would be levied? ie: income, sales, item specific, property, etc. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #38 April 22, 2004 Quote Except that we WILL have to pay it all back with interest. $70 billion? That's cheap. Estimates for the total cost range from $200 billion to $1.6 trillion (if you include follow-on costs.) That's between $1000 and $8000 per taxpayer. And we WILL have to pay that back. Credit cards can be bad because they can get you so far into debt that you find yourself bankrupt with no idea how you got there. No shit? Wow. I didn't know that. Come on, Bill. The reality of deficit spending is rather irrelevent to the topic. People tend to think in the short term, so charging them $2000 each per year now as opposed to issuing $70B in 30 year Treasuries sparks a very different response. Quote Sad that we're willing to send someone else to die for us but not willing to pay a few thouand to equip him to do so. It's among thousands of facts that are sad about the world. Though also it's not their fault that the soldiers are underequiped. It's the allocation of money, not the lack of it, that lead to those sorts of issues, and one that might be fairly blamed on the prior Administration for the short run. I think it's really sad that there are so many Iraqis that don't want to give their country a chance to be more than it was under the last dictator. Or that democracy will remain a rare institution in the Middle East for a long time. The leaders there do not take care of their people, despite vast amounts of oil money which won't last forever. Quote >(On a side note, is anyone tracking how many Iraqis are being killed > by the other side? They seem far less concerned about collateral > damage than the US forces) www.iraqbodycount.com umm, I see a single count here. I don't see any differentiation between civilians killed by the US occupation versus those killed by the opposing factions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,111 #39 April 22, 2004 >Come on, Bill. The reality of deficit spending is rather irrelevent to the topic. It is extremely relevant to the topic. People on this thread have said we'd think twice about war if we had to pay the costs up front rather than deficit spend and pass the cost on to the next administration. >People tend to think in the short term . . . Most do, which is very bad. It leads to bad decisions and a poorer world for our children. If we can change that we should. >It's among thousands of facts that are sad about the world. And thus one of the many things we should change if we can. > It's the allocation of money, not the lack of it, that lead to those > sorts of issues, and one that might be fairly blamed on the prior > Administration for the short run. And here I thought we'd get through a thread without a gratuitous Clinton slam. >I think it's really sad that there are so many Iraqis that don't want to > give their country a chance to be more than it was under the last > dictator. Or that democracy will remain a rare institution in the > Middle East for a long time. Why is that sad? Saudi Arabia has a monarchy; is that sad? Why is a people freely choosing the form of government they want sad? Not everyone has to be just like america. "Democracy imposed from without is the severest form of tyranny." - Lloyd Biggle >umm, I see a single count here. I don't see any differentiation > between civilians killed by the US occupation versus those killed by > the opposing factions. Oh, I see what you mean. I thought you meant total. I don't think you can claim we hold no responsibility for those deaths (i.e. rebels killing civilians.) We are in charge in Iraq, and we are responsible for the messes we make. We owe it to the people we killed to not shirk that responsibility. But to answer your original question - I don't know. That website does list all the people killed and how they were killed, so if you wanted to you could pull those numbers out. It would be interesting to see the split. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,146 #40 April 23, 2004 QuoteI think it's really sad that there are so many Iraqis that don't want to give their country a chance to be more than it was under the last dictator. Could it possibly be that Iraqis, like every other nationality, don't like living under a foreign army of occupation?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #41 April 23, 2004 Quote >People tend to think in the short term . . . Most do, which is very bad. It leads to bad decisions and a poorer world for our children. If we can change that we should. It's not an improvement if people's short term thinking restricts the options of the Commander in Chief. Do you believe all military conflicts by the last several Presidents were wrong? I don't think any would get the support of a thousands of $$ a year tax. Quote > It's the allocation of money, not the lack of it, that lead to those > sorts of issues, and one that might be fairly blamed on the prior > Administration for the short run. And here I thought we'd get through a thread without a gratuitous Clinton slam. It's a valid slam. The troops didn't run out of supplies overnight and for better or worse, the Clinton Administration did cost cutting. Quote Why is that sad? Saudi Arabia has a monarchy; is that sad? Why is a people freely choosing the form of government they want sad? Not everyone has to be just like america. Who besides the king chooses to have a monarchy? If the majority of Iraq wants to choose to continue a dictatorship based on bloodlines, they can easily do so by elective choice. The fact that instead some resort to guerilla bombings suggests that a minority is instead trying to impose their will on the rest of the people. Quote Oh, I see what you mean. I thought you meant total. I don't think you can claim we hold no responsibility for those deaths (i.e. rebels killing civilians.) We are in charge in Iraq, and we are responsible for the messes we make. We owe it to the people we killed to not shirk that responsibility. That's a very strange sense of responsibility, particularly given your views related to waivers. When a bomber blows up something and kills people, I tend to blame him. It's not the US's fault that they didn't kill him ahead of time. Not all rebels are noble and righteous - the Contras come to mind. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Jimbo 0 #42 April 23, 2004 Quote> It's the allocation of money, not the lack of it, that lead to those > sorts of issues, and one that might be fairly blamed on the prior > Administration for the short run. And here I thought we'd get through a thread without a gratuitous Clinton slam. Question: Did the Clinton administration significantly cut military, defense, and intelligence, spending? Question: Is it now necessary to 're-fund' those programs under the Bush administration? Question: Would it be necessary to divert significant funds to the previously mentioned programs if they had been properly funded during the Clinton administration? I don't think it's a gratuitous slam at all, but rather a fair question. Don't you? - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,111 #43 April 23, 2004 >It's not an improvement if people's short term thinking restricts the >options of the Commander in Chief. It doesn't. >Do you believe all military conflicts by the last several Presidents > were wrong? I don't think any would get the support of a thousands > of $$ a year tax. WE WILL PAY IT ANYWAY. In fact, we will pay more due to interest. I prefer to pay for what we spend rather than passing the costs onto our children. >Who besides the king chooses to have a monarchy? If the majority > of Iraq wants to choose to continue a dictatorship based on > bloodlines, they can easily do so by elective choice. Agreed. That ends elections, but again, their choice. >The fact that instead some resort to guerilla bombings suggests that > a minority is instead trying to impose their will on the rest of the > people. What will do you figure they are trying to impose? >That's a very strange sense of responsibility, particularly given your > views related to waivers. Hmm. I must have missed the waivers that the Iraqis signed. Did they all agree to be occupied? > When a bomber blows up something and kills people, I tend to > blame him. Agreed. He is to blame. If you hire a security force to protect your house, and your house is broken into anyway, the one responsible is the person breaking in. However, to say the security force bears no responsibility at all is silly. >Not all rebels are noble and righteous - the Contras come to mind. Now that is an odd example to use! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,111 #44 April 23, 2004 >Question: Would it be necessary to divert significant funds to the > previously mentioned programs if they had been properly funded > during the Clinton administration? ?? 90% of the new funding is to fund the war, not underfunded weapons systems. What's getting diverted? The Bush plan has not been to "divert" but to spend spend spend. >I don't think it's a gratuitous slam at all, but rather a fair question. > Don't you? OK, then: Question: Did Bush propose a 2005 budget that cut veterans health benefits? Question: Did Bush propose closing seven VA hospitals? Question: Is Bush planning to eliminate education benefits for some active-duty military? Of course, these are just hurting soliders, not weapons systems, so perhaps all of those are OK with the GOP. After all, most soldiers are not that wealthy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nacmacfeegle 0 #45 April 23, 2004 "Sadly Bush is trying to lower the cost of gas by reducing pollution control requirements." Yes I know , its one of my soap box favourites. I thought it might be some sort of justice, you know, if the war is about oil, then those who consume it should pay for it.-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ron 10 #46 April 23, 2004 QuoteQuestion: Did Bush propose a 2005 budget that cut veterans health benefits? Question: Did Bush propose closing seven VA hospitals? Question: Is Bush planning to eliminate education benefits for some active-duty military? Having been in the Military (Which you have not) And BEING a disabled vet (Which you are not) I have found the VA hospitals run very well. And I have practical experience with this issue that you don't since I have to go to the hospital about once a mth. (This mth three times). QuoteOf course, these are just hurting soliders, not weapons systems, so perhaps all of those are OK with the GOP. After all, most soldiers are not that wealthy. Gee they are treating me pretty well, not hurting me at all."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #47 April 23, 2004 QuoteQuestion: Did the Clinton administration significantly cut military, defense, and intelligence, spending? No, that would be the Republican majority congress. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #48 April 23, 2004 QuoteI have found the VA hospitals run very well. And I have practical experience with this issue that you don't since I have to go to the hospital about once a mth. (This mth three times). Could you pass that info along to your GOP brethren who frequently use the claim that VA hospitals are poorly run in their arguments against public healthcare. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ron 10 #49 April 23, 2004 QuoteCould you pass that info along to your GOP brethren who frequently use the claim that VA hospitals are poorly run in their arguments against public healthcare. No. Since the small number of Vets that go there for service is very small....And would be totally different on a larger scale."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #50 April 23, 2004 So you don't mind that they're claiming something that you dispute to make their point? What I think you're saying is that it's not a valid comparison. So why do they make the comparison, and while doing that, claim that the level of care is horrendous? Or don't you mind as long as it supports your position? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 2 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
kelpdiver 2 #35 April 22, 2004 Quote>no one would support any sort of military action that is outside our borders. You are honestly saying that americans are so callous that the idea of killing ten thousand Iraqis doesn't bother them, but paying another $500 in income taxes would? I, for one, refuse to believe that we would be so greedy and uncaring. I think callous is the wrong word. It's just that it's been decades since very many people have felt any direct impact of our military actions abroad. Look at the first Gulf War. Given that every year hundreds of soldiers die in training accidents, it was safer serving there. (admittedly it's less true when factoring in the suspected Gulf War Syndrome malaises). Even as bad as it is now, it's 700 dead soldiers out of over a hundred thousand. I think that's why Bush's polling numbers haven't budged in recent weeks despite the great setbacks in Iraq. The war is blowing 70B a year, but that's lost in the sea of a 2T budget. Since DC can run a deficit, it's no different then running up a visa bill, which Americans are very comfortable doing. So if it doesn't cost people anything in terms of money or lives, support comes down to political and moral beliefs. Given that the NY attack killed more Americans than the last several military conflicts, it's not surprising that most are in a shoot first, ask later mode. Indignation and anger is free. otoh, if you want callous, Toles ran a cartoon in 1990/91 that went like this: A pollster asked an american on the street: How many Arabs would it be ok to be killed in order to guarantee you cheap gas? Answer: All of them. (On a side note, is anyone tracking how many Iraqis are being killed by the other side? They seem far less concerned about collateral damage than the US forces) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,111 #36 April 22, 2004 > The war is blowing 70B a year, but that's lost in the sea of a 2T >budget. Since DC can run a deficit, it's no different then running up a > visa bill, which Americans are very comfortable doing. Except that we WILL have to pay it all back with interest. $70 billion? That's cheap. Estimates for the total cost range from $200 billion to $1.6 trillion (if you include follow-on costs.) That's between $1000 and $8000 per taxpayer. And we WILL have to pay that back. Credit cards can be bad because they can get you so far into debt that you find yourself bankrupt with no idea how you got there. >So if it doesn't cost people anything in terms of money or lives, > support comes down to political and moral beliefs. Sad that we're willing to send someone else to die for us but not willing to pay a few thouand to equip him to do so. >(On a side note, is anyone tracking how many Iraqis are being killed > by the other side? They seem far less concerned about collateral > damage than the US forces) www.iraqbodycount.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnnyD 0 #37 April 22, 2004 Any suggestions in the article on how it would be levied? ie: income, sales, item specific, property, etc. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #38 April 22, 2004 Quote Except that we WILL have to pay it all back with interest. $70 billion? That's cheap. Estimates for the total cost range from $200 billion to $1.6 trillion (if you include follow-on costs.) That's between $1000 and $8000 per taxpayer. And we WILL have to pay that back. Credit cards can be bad because they can get you so far into debt that you find yourself bankrupt with no idea how you got there. No shit? Wow. I didn't know that. Come on, Bill. The reality of deficit spending is rather irrelevent to the topic. People tend to think in the short term, so charging them $2000 each per year now as opposed to issuing $70B in 30 year Treasuries sparks a very different response. Quote Sad that we're willing to send someone else to die for us but not willing to pay a few thouand to equip him to do so. It's among thousands of facts that are sad about the world. Though also it's not their fault that the soldiers are underequiped. It's the allocation of money, not the lack of it, that lead to those sorts of issues, and one that might be fairly blamed on the prior Administration for the short run. I think it's really sad that there are so many Iraqis that don't want to give their country a chance to be more than it was under the last dictator. Or that democracy will remain a rare institution in the Middle East for a long time. The leaders there do not take care of their people, despite vast amounts of oil money which won't last forever. Quote >(On a side note, is anyone tracking how many Iraqis are being killed > by the other side? They seem far less concerned about collateral > damage than the US forces) www.iraqbodycount.com umm, I see a single count here. I don't see any differentiation between civilians killed by the US occupation versus those killed by the opposing factions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,111 #39 April 22, 2004 >Come on, Bill. The reality of deficit spending is rather irrelevent to the topic. It is extremely relevant to the topic. People on this thread have said we'd think twice about war if we had to pay the costs up front rather than deficit spend and pass the cost on to the next administration. >People tend to think in the short term . . . Most do, which is very bad. It leads to bad decisions and a poorer world for our children. If we can change that we should. >It's among thousands of facts that are sad about the world. And thus one of the many things we should change if we can. > It's the allocation of money, not the lack of it, that lead to those > sorts of issues, and one that might be fairly blamed on the prior > Administration for the short run. And here I thought we'd get through a thread without a gratuitous Clinton slam. >I think it's really sad that there are so many Iraqis that don't want to > give their country a chance to be more than it was under the last > dictator. Or that democracy will remain a rare institution in the > Middle East for a long time. Why is that sad? Saudi Arabia has a monarchy; is that sad? Why is a people freely choosing the form of government they want sad? Not everyone has to be just like america. "Democracy imposed from without is the severest form of tyranny." - Lloyd Biggle >umm, I see a single count here. I don't see any differentiation > between civilians killed by the US occupation versus those killed by > the opposing factions. Oh, I see what you mean. I thought you meant total. I don't think you can claim we hold no responsibility for those deaths (i.e. rebels killing civilians.) We are in charge in Iraq, and we are responsible for the messes we make. We owe it to the people we killed to not shirk that responsibility. But to answer your original question - I don't know. That website does list all the people killed and how they were killed, so if you wanted to you could pull those numbers out. It would be interesting to see the split. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #40 April 23, 2004 QuoteI think it's really sad that there are so many Iraqis that don't want to give their country a chance to be more than it was under the last dictator. Could it possibly be that Iraqis, like every other nationality, don't like living under a foreign army of occupation?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #41 April 23, 2004 Quote >People tend to think in the short term . . . Most do, which is very bad. It leads to bad decisions and a poorer world for our children. If we can change that we should. It's not an improvement if people's short term thinking restricts the options of the Commander in Chief. Do you believe all military conflicts by the last several Presidents were wrong? I don't think any would get the support of a thousands of $$ a year tax. Quote > It's the allocation of money, not the lack of it, that lead to those > sorts of issues, and one that might be fairly blamed on the prior > Administration for the short run. And here I thought we'd get through a thread without a gratuitous Clinton slam. It's a valid slam. The troops didn't run out of supplies overnight and for better or worse, the Clinton Administration did cost cutting. Quote Why is that sad? Saudi Arabia has a monarchy; is that sad? Why is a people freely choosing the form of government they want sad? Not everyone has to be just like america. Who besides the king chooses to have a monarchy? If the majority of Iraq wants to choose to continue a dictatorship based on bloodlines, they can easily do so by elective choice. The fact that instead some resort to guerilla bombings suggests that a minority is instead trying to impose their will on the rest of the people. Quote Oh, I see what you mean. I thought you meant total. I don't think you can claim we hold no responsibility for those deaths (i.e. rebels killing civilians.) We are in charge in Iraq, and we are responsible for the messes we make. We owe it to the people we killed to not shirk that responsibility. That's a very strange sense of responsibility, particularly given your views related to waivers. When a bomber blows up something and kills people, I tend to blame him. It's not the US's fault that they didn't kill him ahead of time. Not all rebels are noble and righteous - the Contras come to mind. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #42 April 23, 2004 Quote> It's the allocation of money, not the lack of it, that lead to those > sorts of issues, and one that might be fairly blamed on the prior > Administration for the short run. And here I thought we'd get through a thread without a gratuitous Clinton slam. Question: Did the Clinton administration significantly cut military, defense, and intelligence, spending? Question: Is it now necessary to 're-fund' those programs under the Bush administration? Question: Would it be necessary to divert significant funds to the previously mentioned programs if they had been properly funded during the Clinton administration? I don't think it's a gratuitous slam at all, but rather a fair question. Don't you? - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,111 #43 April 23, 2004 >It's not an improvement if people's short term thinking restricts the >options of the Commander in Chief. It doesn't. >Do you believe all military conflicts by the last several Presidents > were wrong? I don't think any would get the support of a thousands > of $$ a year tax. WE WILL PAY IT ANYWAY. In fact, we will pay more due to interest. I prefer to pay for what we spend rather than passing the costs onto our children. >Who besides the king chooses to have a monarchy? If the majority > of Iraq wants to choose to continue a dictatorship based on > bloodlines, they can easily do so by elective choice. Agreed. That ends elections, but again, their choice. >The fact that instead some resort to guerilla bombings suggests that > a minority is instead trying to impose their will on the rest of the > people. What will do you figure they are trying to impose? >That's a very strange sense of responsibility, particularly given your > views related to waivers. Hmm. I must have missed the waivers that the Iraqis signed. Did they all agree to be occupied? > When a bomber blows up something and kills people, I tend to > blame him. Agreed. He is to blame. If you hire a security force to protect your house, and your house is broken into anyway, the one responsible is the person breaking in. However, to say the security force bears no responsibility at all is silly. >Not all rebels are noble and righteous - the Contras come to mind. Now that is an odd example to use! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,111 #44 April 23, 2004 >Question: Would it be necessary to divert significant funds to the > previously mentioned programs if they had been properly funded > during the Clinton administration? ?? 90% of the new funding is to fund the war, not underfunded weapons systems. What's getting diverted? The Bush plan has not been to "divert" but to spend spend spend. >I don't think it's a gratuitous slam at all, but rather a fair question. > Don't you? OK, then: Question: Did Bush propose a 2005 budget that cut veterans health benefits? Question: Did Bush propose closing seven VA hospitals? Question: Is Bush planning to eliminate education benefits for some active-duty military? Of course, these are just hurting soliders, not weapons systems, so perhaps all of those are OK with the GOP. After all, most soldiers are not that wealthy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #45 April 23, 2004 "Sadly Bush is trying to lower the cost of gas by reducing pollution control requirements." Yes I know , its one of my soap box favourites. I thought it might be some sort of justice, you know, if the war is about oil, then those who consume it should pay for it.-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #46 April 23, 2004 QuoteQuestion: Did Bush propose a 2005 budget that cut veterans health benefits? Question: Did Bush propose closing seven VA hospitals? Question: Is Bush planning to eliminate education benefits for some active-duty military? Having been in the Military (Which you have not) And BEING a disabled vet (Which you are not) I have found the VA hospitals run very well. And I have practical experience with this issue that you don't since I have to go to the hospital about once a mth. (This mth three times). QuoteOf course, these are just hurting soliders, not weapons systems, so perhaps all of those are OK with the GOP. After all, most soldiers are not that wealthy. Gee they are treating me pretty well, not hurting me at all."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #47 April 23, 2004 QuoteQuestion: Did the Clinton administration significantly cut military, defense, and intelligence, spending? No, that would be the Republican majority congress. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #48 April 23, 2004 QuoteI have found the VA hospitals run very well. And I have practical experience with this issue that you don't since I have to go to the hospital about once a mth. (This mth three times). Could you pass that info along to your GOP brethren who frequently use the claim that VA hospitals are poorly run in their arguments against public healthcare. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #49 April 23, 2004 QuoteCould you pass that info along to your GOP brethren who frequently use the claim that VA hospitals are poorly run in their arguments against public healthcare. No. Since the small number of Vets that go there for service is very small....And would be totally different on a larger scale."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #50 April 23, 2004 So you don't mind that they're claiming something that you dispute to make their point? What I think you're saying is that it's not a valid comparison. So why do they make the comparison, and while doing that, claim that the level of care is horrendous? Or don't you mind as long as it supports your position? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
