The magazine "The American Conservative" is not "conservative" the way most Americans would understand the term. The magazine has basically adopted the Pat Buchanan definition of "conservative" which is a combination of libertarianism at home and hard isolationism abroad. Remember, this group does not think the U.S. should ever have entered World War Two because doing so meant we had to fight alongside Stalin.
Hyperbole. Every government expenditure "contributes" to the debt of the American government. But $1.7 trillion over 10 years is HARDLY a death blow. We've had trillion-plus dollar deficits for several years in a row now; our budget shortfall last year alone was more than 50% the estimated cost of the entire Iraq War. If the Iraq War is the costly disaster that takes us down, then we REALLY shouldn't be undertaking Obamacare, which has similar costs (est. $1.85 trillion over 11 years). And if costs of that scale put us in danger of going over the fiscal precipice, the government should be taking radical action on our current budget shortfalls. But that isn't happening. In fact, we're assured by the powers-that-be that there is NO debt problem.
Yeah, that bit was somewhat ridiculous, but what about this part? It's not about the cost in treasure, or maybe even in blood. It's about the strategic damage to our position in an area of central importance.
If you're going to raise the multiplier effect, I'd suggest that a great deal of spending in the Iraq War went to increase production capability and fund research and development in a great many high-tech and industrial firms. Regardless of any positive effects of Iraq War spending, it would still be small compared to the $5-6 trillion dollars the government has gone in the hole in the last few years.
It would seem obvious that blowing random shit up isn't as good for the economy as building infrastructure or ensuring a healthy, secure workforce, but apparently the obvious isn't so obvious to everyone. It also would seem obvious that you can't forget about taxes when it comes to government debt, but that too slips by some folks. And as for whether or not U.S. federal government debt is in-and-of-itself a problem currently, here's a little exercise for all to enjoy: Given the following three premises, construct a model in which current debt is a problem: 1) You have the power to tax; 2) you have the power to print money; and 3) you can borrow essentially unlimited amounts of money long term at negative real interest rates. Any debt accumulated now can be paid off in 10 years with a lesser amount of real dollars. A dollar of federal debt now represents six cents or so of absolutely free money to the government with no strings attached. I want to see the model that shows that the failure to finance government with deficits is anything other than irresponsible at the moment. I'm curious if anyone will even give it a serious shot.
Deficits bad Rush said so, my credit card statement says so, I don't understand things like real interest rates and the time value of money!
I don't know that there is any strategic damage. If some crisis does erupt in the Middle East, at least we won't have BOTH Iran and Iraq to contend with. And I bet all those bases built in the region to support the Iraq War would very conveniently function for use against Iran. And regarding Iran, the country is still isolated. The President--who I assume is better informed than I am--sure talks about Iranian nukes a lot if there is no credible danger there. I presume we'll have the full support of Israel and Saudi Arabia if push comes to shove with Iran. As far as popular sentiment goes, well, America is never going to be popular there. But if you're an Iraqi Shi'a or Kurd, you've got to have at least some satisfaction that Saddam is gone. Militant Islam really took a public relations beating in the Iraq War; couple that with the loss of its ideological figurehead, and you have dwindling support for radicalism in the region. So, though few are happy, the situation--looked at objectively--is much better than it was before.
Good grief. Can the trolling at least be funny? I know gul is always hit/miss but I expect better from you.
America is unpopular because of its freely chosen policies. It is not a fluke of nature that cannot ever be changed.
Our foreign policy is always going to be geared towards upholding our interests. Popularity is not the priority.
Partially true, but since those dreadful policies include believing that Israel has a right to exist, largely meaningless. We've been thoroughly hated in some regions through administration after administration. The mere fact that it's partially because of our policies doesn't make those policies automatically bad; it can also just mean that the people doing the hating are unreasonable extremists who can never be satisfied.
I was against it Dayton, flat out. As a Christian, it's my duty to try to avoid war as much as possible. How about you? And I'd like to see your data as to your assertion that a majority of Americans supported invading a country that was once our ally and that had next-to-nothing to do with 9/11. We all know why Bush went into Iraq- the same reason why Kennedy signed off on the Bay of Pigs.
It is correct that on the eve of the invasion, a majority of Americans were in favour of attacking Iraq. But that was after a very intense propaganda campaign about WMD and other falsehoods. It was also out of line with most of the rest of the world.
A large percentage of that group were against it, but resigned to the fact that it would happen. I recall a thread here in which many war opponents (myself included) said just before it happened that we wanted the United States to win and do so decisively. But that's not the same as supporting the invasion in the first place.
A Christian in my view has no duty (in fact the opposite is true) to avoid war if such avoidance allows evil people to continue to do evil.
February 2001 Seven months prior to the September 11 attacks a Gallup poll showed that 52% would favor an invasion of Iraq while 42% would oppose it.[4] Additionally, 64% said that the U.S. should have removed Saddam at the end of the Gulf War.[5] So even 7 months BEFORE 9-11, a majority of Americans supported an invasion of Iraq. Sure, people will say "it is only 52-42 in favor of an invasion". But in the United States, a 10% margin is generally considered a "clear majority". When a president wins the popular vote for example by a 10% or greater margin, he is normally referred to as winning "in a landslide".
RickDeckard disagrees: Except that that's dishonestly selective. Not at all RD. By the time 9-11 came around it shows that there was ALREADY broad support for the U.S. to invade Iraq and depose Saddam Hussein. So saying (as many do) that the U.S. invaded Iraq because of 9-11 is at best an exaggeration and at worst outright lying. In all likelihood, no 9-11, the U.S. invades Iraq and deposes Saddam Hussein sometime in the 2002-2004 time frame. Because President Bush had already made the elimination of the Hussein regime one of his administrations goals.
There are dozens of polls quoted on that page and you took the couple which suited you, pretended that they were representative and ignored the rest. I'm not sure why I'm bothering debating with you here anyway, given your jaw-dropping mendacity a couple of pages back to claim that even when Cheney outright said that Iraq had nuclear weapons, he didn't say it. Fuck off with your shit.
If this is the case, do you think it would be legitimate for another Christian to kick the living shit out of you for having hit women? You know, because hitting women and domestic violence, that's usually classed as evil.
Even the best people occasionally do something evil. An occasional evil act (outlier) that causes no permanent damage to anyone or anything and is not part of a pattern does not make a person evil.
