| How to Join | Member's Area | Private Library | Search | Sanctuary | Login | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Main Forums | Discussion | Tech Talk | Mature Content | Archives |
A home without a wall, |
|
|
||||||
| How to Join | Member's Area | Private Library | Search | Sanctuary | Login | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Main Forums | Discussion | Tech Talk | Mature Content | Archives |
A home without a wall, |
|
|
|
||||||
| The Alley |
|
Can We Afford It? |
|
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA 
|
Can this nation afford the war in Iraq any longer? If you think we can, what are you willing to sacrifice? Do you think our economy can stand it; and if so, please explain how? Do you think we will be able to continue to afford the best military equipment and training (including protective gear for our troops) as the economy gets tighter and tighter here? It's my fear, no matter whether I think the war is right or wrong, that we can no longer afford it; what do you think? |
||
| © Copyright 2006 J.A.A.Powell - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
stargal Senior Member
since 2006-03-06
Posts 1352OR USA |
Please explain what you mean by, "economy gets tighter and tighter ". I'm not quite sure what that means. Sure, the news is always talking about how the economy is going to crash. What exactly does that mean? I'm not an expert on this, so i would like to know what this means to you, before i offer an opinion. @-->--- |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
I don’t think America can do anything but keep paying, the costs may be high but surely the administration weighed very carefully the consequences and costs of invading Iraq and accepted the price they may have to pay. After all it isn’t like the administration went into the war blind or unprepared. Colin Powell, a man for whom I have a lot of respect, cautioned the US government before the war that a military assault on Iraq was the easy part; the hard part was rebuilding the country based on a democratic framework and maintaining order. He summed it up quite succinctly: "You break it, you own it." If America pulls out of Iraq tommorow without an acceptable framework of government and robust security force the country will degenerate into open civil war. If that were to happen Americas world standing would be so low you wouldn’t be able to slip a postcard beneath it, Americas enemies would be dancing in the streets and every headline in the world would probably contain the word – DEFEATED. America has created the situation in Iraq, America now owns the problem and has to either continue paying the cost or withdraw and accept what will be seen in some quarters as defeat and in other quarters as a gross lack of moral responsibility. |
||
Ringo 
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684Saluting with misty eyes |
Here we go with the "economy" argument again. Since it has been brought out, let's look at the American Economy over the last 6 months: The unemployment rate has dropped from 5.1% to 4.8% There have 997,000 new jobs created, with 243,000 predicted for the month of February alone. The average hourly earnings of the American worker has increased almost 30 cents an hour. The Consumer Price Index has increased 1.5% total. The Producer Price Index has increased 2.7% as well. Productivity has increased 3.7% Retail Sales is up 4.7% Existing House sales prices are up .5% Small business ownership is up Minority business ownership is increasing. People are saving and investing more. Americans have more disposable income. Now, I do not admit to understanding the economy as much as someone who has been in the business for 20 years, howwever it certainly seemns as though the economy, with these numbers is doing just fine. My economy might not be doing so well, and I am certainly not making the $16/hour tht the average American is... however in my small little town, 7 new businesses opened in the last year...breaking the national average, ALL of them are still in operation. Several other local businesses have expanded, including a small family restaurant that has expanded into a banquet hall. In fairness, there have been 4 businesses that have closed in the past year: 2 to death, 1 to bad business practices, and 1 to its owner currently accepting the hospitality of the Pennsylvania Correctional System. That is still an increase of 3 businesses in a town of less than 5,000 people... and that doesn't include the business that switched hands because the owner retired and sold it. That doesn't include the businesses that people run out of their homes (Avon, tax prep, hair salons, etc). The economy is chugging along just fine,. and if the Democrats in congress would take the time to release the numbers to their consitutents, rather than realizing it is the beginning of an election cycle and doing anything possible to scare them, then the American people would be more properly informed.
|
||
|
Ringo
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684Saluting with misty eyes |
Something quick, I forgot to add- Since the war began: Unemployment is down .9% 4.3 million jobs have been created Hourly wages have increased 11% Consumer Price Index increased 11.1% Productivity increased 60.2% Retail Sales increased by 360 Million per year New Home Sales increased 20% Existing Home Sales increased 11% The NASDAQ increased 42% The Dow increased 29% NYSE increased 43% Agaiin...where is the failing economy?
|
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
The economy is going to slip very soon according to most projections because of our enormous national debt, Ringo and Stargal. That is what I meant by "tightening." |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
Grinch, you have a point. But, my questions remain. What are we willing to sacrifice to finance this war, individually or otherwise? |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Depending on your definition of "soon," I would say that's highly unlikely. When Bush took office in 2000, the economy was already in a decline (after something like a decade of growth), and 9/11 sharply accentuated that decline. What turned it around? The same thing that always spurs an economy -- massive spending. In the face of a recession, the National Reserve is quick to lower interest rates. Why? Because lower rates spur spending. You also often see the government (especially a Republican-led government) cut taxes. Why? To put more money in people's pockets so they'll be more willing to spend it. Spending is the key to economic growth. The healthiest growth occurs when businesses spend more money (except, then, we call it investing). Failing that, we want to get consumers spending more money (which, when sustained, gets businesses to spend more money). At the end of the chain, and usually as a last resort, a lagging economy can be kicked in the butt by a government spending more money. Guess what any war pretty much guarantees? The fact that the massive spending is being done with borrowed money won't be relevant to the economy for at least a decade or two. Vietnam and, especially, Reagan, proved that this country's economy can be fueled by deficit spending for a very long time. Why did the Soviet Union fall when it did? Because they went bankrupt trying to keep up with Reagan's defense spending. The greatest danger to our economy right now is a withdrawal from Iraq and the sudden decline of government spending. Unless something else takes its place, we're talking instant recession. So, Iliana, if your *real* concern is the economy and what we can afford, the question you should probably be asking is whether we can afford to end the war. Is a thriving economy worth the loss of human life to you? Put in that light, it kind of makes one think. Reversing the question seems to suggest that maybe war shouldn't be measured in terms of dollars and cents at all. The effect of a war on our economy, whether negative or positive, whether long-term or short-term, probably shouldn't be a determining factor. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Iliana, I think the answer should be the same things you’re expecting your servicemen to risk – everything – if the answer is anything less the reason for them being there isn’t worth a bean. |
||
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
Our government and the Pentagon certainly CAN afford it, no question about that. But I also happen to believe a vast majority of this nation really isn't willing in wanting us to afford it, hardly anyone who supports the war is willing to make that sacrifice or even take to the streets for pro-war rallies, so I imagine barely anyone REALLY wants to make any major sacrifice. The fact is, our nation's war economy is accelerating in growth (in Oregon its higher than its been since World War II), and in the process, basic qualities of life for all Americans are eroding. Economist Doug Henwood has estimated that the war bill will add up to an average of at least $3,415 for every U.S. household, while another economist, James Galbraith of the University of Texas, predicts that while war spending may boost the economy in a short-term, over the long term it is likely to bring a decade of economic troubles, including an expanded trade deficit and high inflation. The $151.1 billion expenditure for the war through 2005 could have paid for nearly 23 million housing vouchers; health care for over 27 million uninsured Americans; salaries for nearly 3 million elementary school teachers; 678,200 new fire engines; over 20 million Head Start slots for children; or health care coverage for 82 million children. Before the 2004 election, a leaked memo from the White House to domestic agencies outlines major cuts in funding for education, Head Start, home ownership, job training, medical research and homeland security. In July 2004, the New England Journal of Medicine reported that 1 in 6 soldiers returning from war in Iraq were showing signs of post-traumatic stress disorder, major depression, or severe anxiety, yet only 23 to 40 percent of respondents in the study who showed signs of a mental disorder had sought mental health care. Many of our schools are either losing money or have gone bankrupt, health care costs have virtually doubled since the war began, more Americans are in poverty since the war began, the minimum wage has remained the same despite that.....this emerging war economy is hurting our own children here at home. In 1967, when Dr. Martin Luther King made his speech "Beyond Vietnam: A Time To Break Silence," he offered a number of reasons for opposing that war. One was of the diversion of resources war encourages, where he said, "I knew that America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures like Vietnam continued to draw men and skills and money like some demonic, destructive suction tube." A second point he made in that speech was tha ""we are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for the victims of our nation, for those it calls 'enemy,' for no document from human hands can make these humans any less our brothers." Those who still believe in the war can and have every right to share and take pride in the short-term rosey indicators, but when you see the tens of thousands of Katrina victims still migrating from place to place, many of them without food stamps and even food to feed their kids, when you see elementary schools in your own community becoming overcrowded, when you recognize many Americans just can't get by on our current minimum wage, you know something is absolutely wrong here, and due to the Iraq war we are experiencing another one of these very diversions of resources from our own children Dr. King spoke about before, to a war effort that may not even succeed, which may cost as much as $2 trillion by the end. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
Ron, as you have probably figured out, I am opposed to war, period. I hope you are right. And, Grinch, I guess that is a response to you, too. Since we're there, though, I think our troops should be provided with everything they need. Ron, doesn't the deficit spending catch up with us at some point, though? |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
Noah, you know I'm with you on all your statements here. So, why don't we do more spending internally other than the Pentagon (or perhaps, on fighting worldwide poverty, disease, and energy problems) if spending spurs the economy, instead of war. I know we spend on many internal programs, but many of those budgets have been cut -- Ron, maybe you can give us your insight here? |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
Ron, I heard the economic woes would happen in the next few months -- this was two nights in a row on Fox News with Neil Cavuto and panel of people. |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
Yes, Jo, I do agree as much as I oppose this war with every white blood cell in my body, we must also show our sons and daughters serving there our support and appreciation, so we must continue to offer them the armor, supplies, food and necessities they need until we end this occupation. I am also anti-war, but I recognize also that a majority identify themselves as not part of the anti-war movement and do believe in certain kinds of wars as a last resort, and when that happens, we must spend only on what is absolutely vital for the health and security of our young men and uniform and the best of supplies itself. In other words, much of the money that is being spent on this war effort are going to customizing much of the same Cold War-era military technology, not on new advanced military technology, which I believe most should find absurd, as well as on worthless models like the C-130J cargo plane, which the Pentagon spent $2.6 billion to buy fifty of them, yet can't drop heavy equipment, can't perform in cold weather, even lacks the range to reach global hot spots from here, which, surely, are the expected features of a cargo plane. Another irony is that often many wars are fought over natural resources like oil, yet war itself is the greatest consumer of oil (A U.S-made F-16 fighter warplane burns more fuel in an hour than the average U.S car does in one year) Ever since the war in Iraq has began, Washington has continuously made a simple, blunt message, "NO!". No on health care, job training, veteran benefits, food stamps, college education, Medicaid. "NO!" They're basically telling America, "Besides, we're giving you the C-130J to protect you, so stop whining and be grateful for this gift!" $66 million a piece on defective military models; your health care, job training and education the very thing customizing them in a Lockheed Martin boondoggle. It's bad enough this is happening, the least we could ask for is planes that can actually perform a wide range of tasks. No, it's the needs and necessities of our young men and women in uniform that should ALWAYS come first. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
Points made very well, Noah! *hugs* |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: That’s interesting, are you opposed to all wars or is there a circumstance, as a defensive measure perhaps, where war is regrettable but justifiable? I was opposed to this one by the way– still am in fact but as things stand I believe America being in Iraq is better than America not being in Iraq. |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
Hey Jo, last week at KBOO, the local community radio station I volunteer at, I co-produced a five-part weekly series on Oregon's growing war economy, and I think this is something you'll find important to listen to. Each of the audio installments are below, each one about five minutes long. This is centered around Oregon, but I think it'll give you a good feel about how similar efforts could very well be happening in your own community. Enjoy!  ***** Oregon's Emerging War Economy (Part 1 of 5: How Militarized Are We?) Oregon's Emerging War Economy (Part 2 of 5: Localized War Economies) (Oregon's Emerging War Economy (Part 3 of 5: Nanotechnology & The U.S Defense Department) Oregon's Emerging War Economy (Part 4 of 5: The Affair With Local Businesses) Oregon's Emerging War Economy (Part 5 of 5: What Can We Do About It?) * Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
Noah, thank you. Grinch, I am a Quaker. I believe in nonviolent resolution to conflict. If I had to protect my child in a case of life and death, I do not know how I would react...perhaps, I would resort to defensive measures. I hope I am never put in that kind of situation. It is enough that my son is wanting to volunteer for the Reserves...I am having a real problem dealing with that. |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
"Casualty Transport Systems".....  Very interesting, Noah. So the war machine promotes economic growth, but not the kind of growth that investment in other areas, like education, healthcare, etc.......would promote. Oh my gosh, Noah, the militarry industries' use of nanotechnolgoy interview .... deadening pain centers so soldiers can fight for a week....oh my gosh! Now that bandage thing, that sounds good. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: I'm certainly not an expert on economics, but if spending is to affect the greater economy it has to produce something. Tanks and guns may not be what most people would want for their birthday, but they do create jobs and factories and investments, and that money trickles into almost all other sectors of the economy. I think many of the "internal programs" produce absolutely nothing and, indeed, tend to discourage production. Paying a man not to work just doesn't seem like a good way to build a strong economy. quote: quote: First, Noah, I think you're mixing your oranges in with your apples. Several of the items in your list, like teacher's salaries and fire engines, are the responsibilities of the state not the Federal government. If I don't want the government dictating from afar my local standards or telling me who I can and can't hire to teach my children, then I have to be willing to foot the bills locally. Our Federal government never gives something for nothing. Second, most of the items in your list are the responsibility of the individual not the government. I don't think the cost of the war has anything at all to do with saying No to escalating socialism. The streets could be lined with gold and many of us would still be saying no to government handouts that rarely help and always demean. Helping other people to survive is the job of people, not faceless bureaucracy. Personally, I don't want more government, I want less. |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
I too believe in less government, Ron. My sharing of the statistics wasn't at all intended to reflect that I favor mass governmental influence in each of our cultural outlets, but to simply point out how if it was absolutely necessary to spend large quantities of money like this, it could have been spent on far more important things that depend on the growth and health of our own citizens. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
Ron, I think those "handouts" in some cases are mistakes, too. But, I do think the government could issue grants for research (technology and medical) that would stimulate growth markets, too. Bush himself said we are oil addicted...so why not spend money on getting us energy independent instead of a war? Or....on grants for medical research (or maybe even stem cell) or research to end aids, cancer, or the bird flu....or grants for other things that will produce technology growth, things associated with border protection, port protection....and on and on? [This message has been edited by iliana (03-20-2006 06:48 PM).] |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: When we look at 'the economy' as an entity and consider individual sectors like defense and healthcare it is tempting to consider these as value added activities but in reality they only fall into the 'necessary' category. Here's what I mean. If you have a business that manufactures widgets you may have capex, or capital expenditures in plant and equipment -- that's long-term investment and is a value add to the process of making widgets. You also will have to buy raw material to produce the widgets. This, again, is a value added expense. You will probably hire people to perform labor to produce, handle, and sell the widgets -- these are all value added activities. But, if you buy a security system to keep people from stealing the widgets, buy insurance to protect your investment from damage, and hire a security guard to patrol the premises these may be necessary expenditures -- and those costs will be aggregated into the total costs of all widgets produced -- but they don't add any value to the widget. Similarly -- building tanks doesn't add value to an economy -- unless you're selling those tanks to someone. If you're only buying them with your own tax dollars for the purpose of deploying them for your own defense -- they are actually a drag on your overall economy. The 'broken window' scenario is another way to look at it. If you break all the windows in your house -- you have to spend money for materials and labor to replace them -- but did it add any value to you? Healthcare is a little fuzzier though -- in some ways it fits the broken window model -- but in other ways it becomes a value add like producing food -- because it sustains the population - which is the economy. Conversely -- when wealth concentrates into only a few hands -- and if people don't have the ability to buy basic necessities -- this drags the economy too -- but, if we put enough into someone's hands so that they can buy toilet paper and food and housing -- all of those value-added things get produced and sold to those people -- so it becomes a value add. If we had invested the money spent in Iraq on scholarships, housing, healthcare, teachers, schools -- THEN we would have stimulated the economy for long-term economic health. Infrastructure investments also strengthen the economy - they are like the capex investments in our widget factory. Roads, dams, power generation and distribution (like TVA and WPA), all provide the framework for robust growth. |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
Makes sense to me, Reb. Thanks.  |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Ringo, I feel fairly safe in saying that if those figures were in effect with a Democratic president in office, they would be heralded loud and clear by every person who now claims the economy is going down the drain...such is politics  |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Here's some good reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window http://freedomkeys.com/window.htm |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
There a now little known episode in 18th century American history when Quakers in Philadelphia because of their principled opposition to war persistently blocked measures to fund a defense to the depredations carried out by the French and their Indian allies along the frontier. It got to a point where a party from that frontier brought a wagonload of the the butchered corpses of their relatives to the front step of the state house to show the consequences. Had Roosevelt been a Quaker such as suggested here Europe would be speaking German and countless more millions including my parents would be dead. Such pacifism doesn’t concern itself with what horrors continue as a consequence beyond its front door . . .and there is a moral ugliness in that. |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
I would not criticize your belief system, Huan Yi. And, I do not consider myself morally ugly. That is getting pretty personal to insult me directly like that. You do not know me nor what my concerns are, but I can tell you this -- they are on a global scale. |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
Nixon was a Quaker, Huan Yi...but that did not stop him from participating in war. That is an individual choice...and perhaps some wars are "holy." For myself, however, I cannot justify any of it to myself for killing and violence only lead to more of the same. The Middle East is a good example. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: That might be true, Reb, if the tanks were being built in a vacuum. But the same factories that were built to manufacture tanks can be refitted to manufacture hummers, and the new technology developed to make better tanks can become spin-off industries tomorrow. By your logic, the entire space program has been a drain on our economy. quote: I'm surprised, Reb. I would not have taken you for a "Throw more money at education to make it work" sort of fellow. As to housing and healthcare, again, I believe that is largely the function of private enterprise, not a benevolent government. You want more housing? Get rid of rent control. It's rarely any more complicated than that. My original point, however, remains the same. If the only argument against this war is a high cost and no profit, the logical solution is to turn the war from one of liberation into one of conquest. Let's annex Iraq as the 51st state and take all the oil we can find as spoils of war. Those against the war would then have nothing about which to complain. I don't see a whole lot of difference between this thread and this thread, except for which side is doing the justifying. My point in both threads is that the war is right or the war is wrong, and everything else is just a diversion. It's like getting in a fight with your significant other and bringing up everything that's happened in the last five years that irritated you instead of sticking to what actually started the fight. It's not productive. quote: That's the typical cliché from someone who feels a need to justify violence, John, but in truth, it's only one side of the glass-is-half-empty conundrum. The pacifist, I think, holds the much more promising hand. If Hitler had been a pacifist, such as suggested here, the world need never have suffered the death and torture of some 56 million people. And you wouldn't have anything to bring up every two weeks. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: Ah, a conversation -- I haven't seen one of those around here in a while. Emphasis should be added to the words 'can be'. They aren't. We're going to keep on building A1 Abrhams tanks and the tooling and equipment, and largely the brick and mortar, are sunk cost. But the issue of technology spin-off from weapons technology is always a muddy one in economics. The difference is -- what is the opportunity cost? What else might we have been doing? Space exploration is a prime example -- space exploration isn't re-glazing a window -- or keeping punks from throwing stones at them. It is the very thrust of value-adding. But, by your logic we shouldn't have NASA. The reality is though -- private enterprise would never invest in it. (initially) Spending on defense is necessary -- I didn't say it wasn't. I said it isn't value-added. But, it is merely a transfer of wealth. Certainly the people who are building tanks are taking their re-distributed funds into the marketplace -- but preferably -- our defense industry should be comprised of top talent. Which means -- our top talent aren't doing other things. It's economics 101. Comparative and competitive advantage. quote: Getting rid of rent control won't do anything for the person whose job has been outsourced to the Pacific Rim. The invisible hand will allow that person to simply die. Same for a person who doesn't have any competitive advantage (aka skill set). Unlike our top-talent in the defense industry the low-skilled workers (or unemployed or unemployable) don't have opportunities with or without war. Investing in scholarships -- or financial aid increases the knowledge base of the entire economy -- shifting the entire curve up a notch -- more people in school means more teaching (not necessarily a degree program), and more schools. It's an investment vs. an expense. Keynesian economics works. But preferably you teach the man to fish -- you don't leave him out in the cold while he's learning though. It is also a re-distribution of wealth -- but it is going to a place where there is no opportunity instead of being transferred to a market (top talent) that would be otherwise gainfully building Hummers. It doesn't really matter to this part of the conversation whether the war is necessary or not... and I haven't mentioned it. The war itself though doesn't create any economic advantage UNLESS it is a war of conquest. Last time I looked -- we don't do that. Or, at least we haven't since the Indian wars and the Louisiana Purchase. If there is a valid military threat then defense makes economic sense -- but only from the standpoint of replacing windows. |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
Reb and Ron, I really appreciate this exchange. Maybe I learned something! I like the idea of investing in our future. |
||
|
JesusChristPose Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777Pittsburgh, Pa |
"Grinch, I am a Quaker. I believe in nonviolent resolution to conflict. If I had to protect my child in a case of life and death, I do not know how I would react..." ~ In the OT, all God fearing people would use that same tactic - nonviolent resolutions - and then God would come down from heaven and smote the foe of those God fearing folk. ~ Could you imagine that happening today? Where are the Christians of true faith? If one has faith in the one true God, then that person wouldn't have to use violent measures, but allow God to take care of the enemy for him or her. "If this grand panaorama before me is what you call God... then God is not dead." |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
I said I do not know how I would act, JCP, however, I do know, I would take the bullet for him if that were the choice. By nature, by God-given nature, mankind wants to survive. If survival instincts took over in their raw form, I do not know if that is something I can control and I hope I never have to find out...that is why I made the statement I made. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Ron, The problem is that Hitler was not a Quaker and there are others in power over others like him, (if I bring him up every two weeks it may be that I am part of the “never forget” group, with parents like mine and their experiences that is understandable). Pacifism that disarms the power to thwart such monsters carries the taint of complicity. Hitler was no real threat to the United States at the time. Roosevelt acted against popular opposition for reasons beyond national security or economic prosperity. John |
||
|
Ringo
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684Saluting with misty eyes |
'Deer- I wasn't going to pull the "D" card, however I am not objecdting to you using it.  quote: What is the percentage of the non fighting Americans who have mental disorders and do not seek mental assitance? And what do these facts have to do with the economy, the price of the war, or anything like this? quote: This was a challenge for much longer than the last 3 years. American Schools have been failing the students for 50 years. Health Care has been increasiing in cost for so long, it isn't funny to think about, and more Americans are in poverty because of such things as loss of jobs from natural disasters, and the government changing the indicators for what "povery" is. quote: Take out that one line, and it seems like what we are doing in Iraq, does it not? quote: Is this any different than the Osprey that the Marine Corps was given during the Clinton Adminstration to replace the aging CH-46 that was so useless it was taken off the market? This has more to do with pork-barrel politics than it does with a war-time economy, Noah. quote: Gee, Ron... I thought that was what this was being fought to do. Isn't that what the war protesters wanted us to believe in the first place? Or is it possible that they have changed their minds? quote: Reb, by freeing Iraq, and making them a valued membner of the world's stage, would you not agree that we now have another market in which to sell our products to? And isn't that what you said is required in making the building of weapons an economic windfall? Before 2002, the Iraqi government was purchasing their weapons from Russia and the former Soviet Union. SOMEONE was making a buck. Now, we are in there and have freed the place from it's oppressive and tyrranical government, and have created a new market for those weapons that we are creating. At $33 million for an F-16 (or whatever the cost), equipping an entire squadrom comes out to somewhere between 400 and 500 million dollars. Do that for 10 squadrons, and you have $4-$5 BILLION. Then, you need to add the support aircraft, and replace the tanks, and don't forget the various weapons being used on the ground, and in the heat of battle. We also need top think of the other products the US makes that we now have anothe buyer for. Is that economy building enough for you? Most people- myself included, many times- do not think long term, and only of what it is costing right now... yet they are quick to say that you need to spend money to make money. I submit that it is exactly what we are doing now. To be merciful to the cruel is to be cruel to the merciful. www.impressionsintime.net |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
No one who seems to be in favor of this war and its continuance has yet to answer the question -- what are you willing to sacrifice? Not to mention the obvious, loss of human life, there are bound to be economic ramnifications somewhere down the line because you just can't keep taking money from some sources to pay the other -- it may not happen right away (we'll see), but it will ultimately catch up with us. Are there measures that can be taken now, that could conserve somehow? John -- I find your comments about Quakers to be very biased and prejudiced, and personally offensive. Quakers did not cause your parents' suffering. If seems very strange you would single out that particular group to vent against. If you don't mind, would you please reframe from any further insults on this thread against my belief system. If you want to trash my faith, please do it elsewhere. Try to stay on point here. |
||
|
Ringo
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684Saluting with misty eyes |
What are we willing to sacrifice? OK, here you go, in no particular order: 1) Ridicule, and taunting by those who are militant about ending the war. 2) watching the mainstream media talking all the trash about how there have been over 2,000 combat deaths when the actual number is more like 1,600. 3) watching the mainstream media disrespect friends and family who are over there and who are doing this VOLUNTARILY. 4) listening to my son talk about wanting to be a Marine so he can make a difference, and realizing that if he signs there is a very good chance he will go over there... and not talking him out of doing what he feels is right... as I raised him to do. 5) watching friends, and former foster children come home damaged physically, and damaged emotionally after finding out that their "friends" told them that the good things they were doing and all of the people they saved were done in vain, and that nobody seemed to care. 6)Re-joining the military as a part of the Naval reserves (my apologies to the Marines on the board who might feel I am betraying them lol) knowing full well that there is a very good chance that I am going to be sent over there as part of the re-building, as I am going to be a heavy equipment operator. Plain and simple, my family has been involved in every single military conflict since the American Civil War, and they all did their part willingly. And in those various military actions, there has been a loss of life starting with Alfonso Stott at the Battle of Fredricksburg, and ending with a former foster child, a friend, a girlfriend's family member, and a former foster child (who volunteered for a SECOND term) in the current one. While I respect your faith and your views, and your respectfully voicing those views, I would ask that you take a few moments during your devotional to remember the men (and now women) who have given you the right to think and speak as you do, and who are attemptng to do the same for others who have no one to do so for them. What am I willing to sacrifice for this? How about me?
|
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
Ringo, of course, I will. And, as you can read through this thread, I have a son who is planning on enlisting, too. I have not tried to discourage him despite my beliefs because I believe that is his choice and I will support him in his choice even though it would not be mine. I do support our troops. If you read the previous posts, you'll find one of my best friends is a war hero from the Viet Nam war. My first marriage was to a Marine during that war. My choices are my own; yours are your own. I am really surprised about what people think Quakers are like, really surprised. Thanks for your post, and best of luck to your son and to you. |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
I might add: I believe the mind is a more powerful tool than a gun. My son recently gave me a gift of the "Trigun" anima series. I still feel the same way, though, after viewing the 26 episodes. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Ideally Ringo we hope that Iraq becomes stable and will be able to join the world economy as a participant. But, lets assume for a minute that President Russ Fiengold in 6 years surrenders to Al Quada.. tells everybody in the military to go home and just do whatever the Grand Ayatollah says. Are you going to do it? Will your neighbors? What about the guys hoisting a Coors Light down at the corner pub? They would have a real time trying to govern wouldn't they? Similarly -- we face a long hard slog in Iraq. Clearing a couple of elections and passing a few milestones on a Gannt Chart don't make a stable government or economy in Iraq. Unemployment is still a problem. Electricity is still being produced at rates of only about 10 hours a day (in good areas). The Iraqi forces are not coming online very fast (for which we can thank the amateurish management of Paul Bremmer for having completely dissolved the Iraqi forces.) The President today let it slip in his press conference that withdrawal from Iraq of American forces will be a decision for a future President to make. It takes, on average, 12 years to put down an insurgency. One day, I think we will be able to see Iraq as a trading partner and a stabilizing force in the region. But that's not going to be soon. Now, if we look atarms sales to Iraq from 1973-1990 (when an arms embargo was imposed) we see that as Saddam built one of the largest armed forces on the planet over that 17-year period he spent about 44 billion dollars (1990 dollars level). We can't expect that a new, stable, democratic Iraq is going to arm at as fast a pace as this (especially considering Saddam fought a long hard war with Iran). Even if we could capture half of that market -- we're talking a very minuscule revenue stream over the next 30 years compared to the opportunity cost of investing in education, health, and infrastructure now. What we hope to be doing with Iraq in the future is buying oil. That's their comparative advantage. But if we look at our own trade deficit with the rest of the world -- whatever 'American' products we sell them are going to be very few and far between. We want to build up the economy of Iraq, and other areas of the world that lag behind -- but it is a cost avoidance -- just like war is. We measure the cost of the war in Iraq vs. the cost of a nuclear strike on New York City. That is if we're making an amoral economic decision. War devastates economies -- even for the winners. (Again -- unless you're going to conquer) Wars are either justified or not as Ron says. If you have to fight a war the costs in life and economic impact are not the issue. |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
If it isn't life or economics, then what is the issue, Reb? Democracy? Freedom? Do you believe this is why the neocrats went to war? This has probably been addressed in one of the other threads, but give me your thoughts please. Then as a nation, why can't we as a people hear the truth of why we go to war? Aren't there other ways to prevent 911 attacks...eliminating every terrorist seems an impossible task. It appears we are just creating more. Just like the conflict between Israel and Palestine.... It sounds to me like in going to war in Iraq (and potentially Iran, now), we may very well be sacrificing our own ultimate freedom. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
I don't mind discussing that but I think it's not this thread! |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
k, thanks. Why don't you start one. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
I'll defer to you or someone else... for the initial post you may want to include the Declaration of Independence. |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
LOL....... |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
