Re: [but that doesn't tell me WHO to support in the Iraqi Civil War.] "The good guys from all backgrounds. I can't for the life of me figure out why you can't figure that out."
And... I can't, FOR THE LIFE OF ME, figure out why you can't see that you can't militarily support INDIVIDUALS --- you have to give military support to GROUPS, SIDES. (And, military SUPPORT was what I was talking about... not some hippy-dippie concept of 'Gee, let's be PALS with all the *good people*' :-)
OF COURSE most everyone would say we should be pals with all the 'good people' in the world --- me too! LOL!
Re: [Right now I see mostly failing and foolish and short-sighted policies] "You see failing because you are pessimistic by nature."
Nah, REALISTIC. That's the *only way* to ACHIEVE one's optimistic and visionary objectives and goals.
Re: "And you seem to buy the demo line that this is short sighted."
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!! To my way of thinking, the Dems DON'T HAVE A COHERENT 'line'! Nah, this is MY OPINION.
Re: "Bush is looking towards a future of a democratic society for the 1st time in the Arab world."
ME TOO!
Just that I BELIEVE his method is naive and over-expensive and a waste of precious resources we don't even have... and that there are BETTER, MORE EFFECTIVE, WAYS... with far BETTER ODDS of achieving the ultimate goal of a peaceful, Democratic Middle East (Hell... a peaceful, Democratic WORLD! Why be small minded?)
Re: [and I am not in favor of spending a dime more of borrowed money unless someone can convince me that a more realistic strategy, with better odds of succeeding, is in place] "So you want to guarantee failure by quitting."
No.
I want to ACHIEVE SUCCESS by changing directions away from a failing, foolish policy!
Re: "America's debt is very reasonable... Kind of short sighted, I would say."
PREMISE --- There are MANY THINGS that need doing in this world (cure cancer, travel to Mars, commercialize fusion power, bring about peace in the world, shrink the size of the government and pay down national debt, grow the economy, educate the next generation, solve environmental problems, reform the corrupt tax system, establish justice, defend ourselves adequately against future threats - military or economic - from emerging competitors/threats such as China, North Korea, Iran, fund Social Security and Medicare promises, build roads and infrastructure, repair storm damage, etc., etc., etc., take-your-pick...), and there are LIMITED RESOURCES to do them all.
This brings us to the concept of COST-EFFECTIVENESS! (For example, if a trip to Mars will cost 12 Trillion Dollars in today's money, or curing cancer will cost 5 Trillion... do you do *both* simultaneously? Or in order? Or some not at all? Etc., you get the idea: LOTS of GOOD THINGS to do... but NOT an infinite supply of money or manpower to to them ALL.)
So... at WHAT POINT does the war in Iraq / occupying Iraq slide DOWN on America's 'to do list', as RISING EXPENSES affect it's costs effectiveness, when measured against OTHER PRESSING NATIONAL NEEDS AND GOALS??????????????????? (One possible hypothetical example: would it be more cost/effective to occupy Iraq for generations... or to invade the oil fields of Saudi Arabia - a country with much smaller population - and seize them for our national uses?)
In your OPINION:
If WAR/OCCUPATION 'final costs' are to amount to $250 Billion (NOTE: a figure we have *long* exceeded already now), is it worth doing?
If costs are $500 Billion?
If costs are $750 Billion?
If costs are $1 Trillion?
$1 1/2 Trillion?
$3 Trillion?
Note two other things: These are simple 'yes or no' type questions, simply asking for your rational OPINION... and ALSO note that the vast majority of expenses thus far haven't even been paid for in real time, no one has been asked to 'sacrifice', the *vast majority* of the money has been BORROWED (mostly from foreigners), so GENERATIONS UPON GENERATIONS will be required to pay for these expenditures....
==============================================
*** My Opinion again***
I have said many times: I am not 'anti-war', I'm anti-failure.
Right now I see mostly failing and foolish and short-sighted policies at play that fail to consider the realities of the world and human nature. I believe that 1/2 TRILLION DOLLARS is *more then enough* to have spent on this gambit... and I am not in favor of spending a dime more of borrowed money unless someone can convince me that a more realistic strategy, with better odds of succeeding, is in place.
Right now, it looks like letting the Civil War play out (letting Sunni 'terrorists' occupy themselves fighting Shia 'terrorists'...) has better odds of producing strategic benefits for the US and the West then continuing to pour treasure and blood down this particular rat hole... in pursuit of a mirage. |
