To: Rarebird who wrote (15618 ) 9/6/2004 11:27:05 PM From: Lazarus_Long Read Replies (1) | Respond to Firstly, In essence, both candidates are not making a guns OR butter argument. They are making a guns AND butter argument. Reality is not that benign, as shown by all too many examples through history. A war is bad enough, an occupation (like the one in Iraq) is even worse. As history proves, it is not possible to have a war and occupation AND a prosperous civil economy. The two don't mix. From Here - It Gets Even Worse, Lazarus: The contradictions, that is. Both candidates are now going flat out lauding their own war making abilities and powers. Both of them are also promising Americans "security". War and security? These two are bluntly in screaming contradiction to each other. When you are in a war (even an aggressive war of choice), the one thing a nation or an individual inside such a nation loses is security. Here again it is an either/or situation. A nation can choose war and occupation. Or a nation can choose security. Any nation, no matter how big or strong, can have either guns and war - or - butter (economic and financial prosperity) and security. No nation can have both. As an illustration of this fact, the median American family income after adjusting for inflation was about $US 1,535 lower in 2003 than it was in 2000. That data is straight from the US federal government. It shows in the simplest of ways the economic costs from coast to coast as exemplified in the loss of living standards that normal, everyday American families have suffered over those past three years. That is the real and not much longer to be hidden cost which Americans have paid for President Bush's escapade in the Middle East. NO nation has EVER engaged in war without a loss of living standard. And you have the nerve to tell me that I've blown it? LOL. You sound like the judge who tragically realizes while he is on his death bed that he judged all humans except the most important one, himself.
