It's that kind of thinking that indicates that the civilian population at large (and perhaps the military as well) knows little of what you're actually signing up to do.



Your idea of being used when necessary is not the same as mine. Note that in both oaths, military personnel pledge to obey the orders of the President of the United States. There is no oath pledging to be used only in "necessary" wars.

Your earlier point was that you knew enough to realize it was very sad. Perhaps you were just being melodramatic.



Maybe the standards were too high because I don't see the dramatic dropoff that you assume must be happening.

Yeah, that whole draft thing in WWII was required because people just didn't know where the recruiting office were, right? Same in WWI, right? Because those wars were just, so according to your theory, recruitment should not have been an issue.

Please. No one likes to go to war, but it's a necessary evil. There's enough people who volunteer that a draft isn't required right now. They just have to work a bit longer to find the individuals.

Also, insinuating that somehow the current soldiers have somehow met a lower standard or needed that lower standard is pretty insulting to those who volunteer to fight for your right to speak your mind.

eh, thats factual. I have no idea if it's happened or not BUT if a minimum score on something is lowered, than its lowered...no point in arguing something that you cant.

I guess it's easier for Rainmaker to justify his statements by saying the current recruits are either recruits who wouldn't have met previous standards or recruits who are criminals.

For anyone foolish to believe what Rainmaker is feeding you concerning current recruits, I'd suggest watching a documentary called 'The Recruiter'. It's currently on HBO On Demand and also is shown on their various channels here and there. While it does accurately portray the challenges that current recruiters face, it also shows that many of the recruits that are volunteering even now didn't need the standards lowered and certainly aren't criminals. It also notes that lowering the standards really hasn't changed the recruiting as far as letting people in who didn't meet the previous standard. The few that have got in via the lower standard often don't make it through boot camp, so the military avoids those recruits for the most part despite the lower standard rule remaining in place.

Those are called Air Force recruits. :p

The military is the one that put the restrictions on intelligence and criminal records on the books. They are the ones that felt that lower intelligence and prior crimes were detrimental to their force. You can argue that it has no effect, but the military apparently feels otherwise.

And if these people never get through boot camp, the military would have never lowered the requirements. Fact is that the military was having a tough time bringing in new recruits. You can base your stats off a couple recruiters in an HBO documentary, but the actual numbers put out by the military differ. They had a 54% increase in recruits with 'serious criminal misconduct' (a term the military uses). There have been reports of increases in neo-nazis, skinheads, and gang members being accepted.

The point is that if you don't send these people into bullshit wars, you don't have issues recruiting the best and the brightest (the military was recruiting much better recruits prior to Iraq). Then perhaps you don't end up with the Steven Green's of the world putting other soldiers at risk.

World War II required 16 million active military personnel. We currently have 1.4 million. Considering that 16 million was a much larger percent of the country and the draft had little resistance, the comparision is crazy.

That's the keyword, necessary. This wasn't necessary. If this war was necessary to the safety of our country and your family, you would be fighting in it. Hell, half this board would be fighting in it.

I'm not insinuating that all soldiers are in that classification. In fact, most of them are not. But it is a fact that the standards for joining the military have been reduced and that they are allowing in less intelligent and criminally mischevious people. If anything, I feel bad for the elite soldiers who have to be put next to this new lower standard.

It's my personal opinion that enlisting dumber people and criminals is not good for the military. Without us having in-depth knowledge of how the military is functioning, we can never know for sure. But I'm basing my belief on the fact that the military set those guidelines for a reason in the first place under the believe that those falling under it would be detrimental.

If Stanford decided to lower their admission standards, I would assume that the overall quality of the school would go down.

And anyone who considers Iraq a 'bullshit war' has little connection with reality.

I'm going to cut off at this point on this tangent because it's obvious that you're an Obama supporter looking to use Bush as a distraction to the topic in this thread IMO. I'd prefer to discuss the current administration and their performance.

um, your an Obama opponent so isn't it pot and kettle? It's not like youre the neutral referee. Plus after 29 pages it's not like it's the first time this thread has shifted gears, certainly wont be the last. anyways, Im sure you'll find a nice right wing Blog to post something about negative about the admin tomorrow.

This is a basic fundamental difference in ideology. What the US has done with the GWOT has saved us all the trouble of fighting a "neccessary" war that even liberals could get behind.

Which obviously is not an accurate assessment of my position. I am a huge detractor of Obama's economic positions. I'm a big supporter of most of his social positions. Also, this is a thread about Obama, is it not? There's several existing threads concerning the Bush administration if Rainmaker is more interested in that.

Dutch, Libs were behind the war in great amounts when it was based on the false info when we didnt know it was false. When the info finally came out to be spun, false, or lies most Libs and some conservatives peeled off of the support. Unfortunately most agree that we took our eye off the real ball to support W's revenge push against Saddam. That being said, we all know who was right and who was wrong but it's hindsight. Now we have the here and now and we'll see Obama does with it (Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pirates, N. Korea, etc.).

MBBF, excuse me for doubting almost anything that you type since youve 'lied', had faux shock, spun factual data, and been on the wrong sides of outcomes so many times that Im not sure you'll ever have a soapbox let alone a pillar to stand on, no offense....obviously.

We do?

You can check out the *.mil pages for better information than you ever could from their *.com recruting counterparts. And certainly better information than you could get from CNN (Body Counts only!) or Fox News (Support the Troops only!).

The United States Army Homepage
http://www.marines.mil/Pages/Default.aspx
Air Force Link - Home
Navy.mil the Official Web Site of the United States Navy

yes, based on the why we went to war we were wrong. Change the why and we could be right but the why, being WMD, was wrong. Anyways....

I'm not talking about the GWOT, I'm talking about the war in Iraq.

I'm not an Obama supporter. Being against Bush doesn't make you an Obama supporter.

If it isn't a bullshit war, why not go fight in it? Since this is so vital to our country's future, you should be all gung ho about it. Having other people's kids/spouses/siblings/friends fight in a war for your ideologies while you sit at home is just plain cowardly.

I don't believe now, in hindsight, that this was simply Bush getting revenge against Saddam. That's the lie today and who's pushing that garbage? Who's cherrypicking the information now?

The reality remains that the actual true liar here was Saddam Hussein. He duped his own Generals into believing that "other" units would be firing WMD's at incoming American forces, that's why all the Republican guard troops had chemical masks. Iraqi's own Generals believed it.

As time goes on and as the Bush administration will continually be dogged for this, we will forget the reality of the situation in Iraq before it was freed of that "non-secular free thinker" (as the liberals claim him to be now) named Saddam Hussein.

Iraq was part of the GWOT.

In fantasy land perhaps, but Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or terrorism. Bin Laden hated Saddam and vice versa.

No evidence, that's true.

But...




...just sayin...

But in any event, there are other terrorists out there that did have Saddam's full funded support (read: Hezbollah suicide bombing campaign against Jews in 2001/2002). So that's good enough of a establlished role in terrorism for me.

Count me IN the block of people who thought it was a "slam dunk". Count me IN the group of people that would have supported the war on simply genocidal reasons. Count me IN the group of people who knows now that the administration cut out dissenting information and touted supporting info in the race to war.

There is evidence that it is NOT true that Saddam had any link at all to 9/11 and if being happy it happened is a crime than there are millions of people all over the world who are criminals (I happen to hate that they would feel that way but it is not criminal....they just suck :) )

I don't want anyone to take this the wrong way, but we need people of all intelligence ranges in the military. Just like having too many people that are highly intelligent at a company is not good because each decision is debated, in the military you need people that will just follow orders to the best of their ability.

Which administration doesn't do this? I mean hell, let's look at the recent stimulus bill. Did anyone in the administration say anything about it not really being felt for at least a couple years down the road? Have they talked about the ramifications 5-10 years down the road of the spending package? Which is worse, fighting a war that has cost lives, or instituting policies that will hurt the standard of living and possibly harm countless more lives (make it more difficult for people to attend college, lead to higher, more oppressive taxes, "idealistic" policies that force people to do something, etc.)?

I dont think any of the latter things will happen {shrug}...

more money available for student loans,
higher taxes back to the clinton era
I dont think tax rates during the Clinton era were oppressive

True, but it could also be worse with the amount that they are spending. Plus, I do not think student loans are a great idea. When you have more racked up in loans than you can afford to pay back with your degree/job, you are in trouble.

I think taxes will be worse than they were under Clinton, eventually. Plus, I think the whole nanny state possibilities are worse than anything else. Still, we've been headed down that path for a while.

Tasteless paintings and comments are not a reason to go to war and sacrifice thousands of lives.

Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. Out of all the countries in the Middle East, he was probably the least connected to terrorism.

Hmm, two essential problems with your statement.

One, much of the issues people had with the war fell along ideological lines, and they still do. Nothing much has changed in the time since, except that pretty much everyone agrees that no one really knows for sure (including, sadly enough it seems, the administration) what the truth is or was.

Second, you're talking about who is "right" and "wrong", when discussing opinion. Regardless of the issue being discussed, I just think that's poor and incorrect terminology to be using.

CR you could be right, I shouldve said used accurate reasoning perhaps. good point though.

on the first case Im not sure if it was ideological to the masses, perhaps it was to most but it wasnt to me. I believed in the goods I was sold instead of the deep seeded ideology lying underneath but I do recognize your point that it couldve been a neoconic issue for many people outside my bubble.

You're not necessarily wrong. I think it's more word choice/semantics. For you, you may feel confident about what happened in that time. For me, not so much, so much still feels unanswered, or what we have comes from obviously biased sources on either side of the issue. Everything was so divisive on this issue, it was (and still is) hard to find a clean perspective. It's further muddled by the fact that the Iraq situation has improved dramatically since the surge, leading some to a "ends justify the means" situation, which of course, is also faulty reasoning.

In the end, I just feel like we don't know crap, and sometimes I think it's going to end up like the Kennedy assassination, where 50 years from now, people are asking what did Bush really know and believe? Was it mistaken belief in flawed information or dogged dedication to an ideological stance in spite of the evidence or conspiratorial manipulation for unsavory reasons ranging from cronyism to economics to revenge.

So it's tough for me to accept with any certainty that we know "right" or "wrong" with the situation. Just glad at this point that, as a country, I think we're at a point where we can begin to move on.

We discovered that painting after the war, btw, see all the "criminals and idiots" in uniform standing next to it? The comments were made by Democrats, I can assure you that we didn't go to war because of what those chuckleheads said, just pointing out how the reality has changed a bit.


GOTW is not just 9/11. Just like WWII wasn't just Pearl Harbor. WWI wasn't just the assassination of Ferdinand (or whatever that guys name was). There are many reasons.

BTW, did you check out the links to the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines?

Can they shoot good?

How do you define stupid? Even if the average IQ is lower in today's US Armed Forces versus the group in 2002, does that make people who are still of average intelligence stupid?

Also, in today's U.S.A. defining criminal can be a point of perception depending upon what laws you break.

Bottom line, there is nothing wrong with the soldiers in today's US Armed Forces.

Also, to RA's point it is a volunteer Army. Post Viet Nam, the US has maintained a fairly large standing Army. It is an ingenious move by the executive branch (if you are in their shoes). As long as nobody is getting drafted it is virtually impossible to get any real sustained protest going while maintaining an Armed forces large enough to commit in war.

I know that, you used that picture as a way of trying to justify the war.

I know we didn't go to war because of what he said. We went to war to eliminate the WMDs........to liberate the people of Iraq.......protect our oil interests.......I mean bring Democracy to the Middle East. Yeah that last one. Tough to keep up with what the reason was after it's changed half a dozen times or so.

And again, Iraq had little to do with global terrorism.

Yes, I've seen the sites before. I don't see how that changes the fact that the military for decades set standards that they believed were beneficial and necessary.

I'm not defining anything. The U.S. military did for decades though. They are the ones that felt that if you fell below a certain intelligence level you did not meet their requirements. They are the ones that felt that being a violent criminal was something that disqualified you. The military is the ones that called them stupid and immoral for decades. Your issue would be with them.


It's an old trick though. When you're sending the poor kids to war, no one cares. The public perception of Vietnam didn't hit the breaking point till rich white suburban kids started being brought home in coffins.

Far from everyone in the military comes from a poor background, just the ones people like to focus on. And they, uh, still volunteer. Maybe the military should rule out poor people though, we don't want to give them any chances to improve themselves. We need to keep them down.

Just wanted to post this addendum to my response regarding Flasch's false premise that I'm an Obama opponent on all policies. FOXNews put up this article about the shifts in social policy. I'm in agreement with Obama on every one of these shifts, though I know many partisan Republican supporters are not.

First 100 Days: Social Policy Takes a Left Turn Under Obama - Presidential Politics | Political News - FOXNews.com


I also hope he fully revokes the ban on travel to Cuba. The best way to get a non-dictatorial form of government in that country is to get Americans on the ground there to slowly convert the culture of that country.

Protecting oil, as unpopular as it is, is extremely important to our economy....and the world economy. I don't hide that as a neccessity and when President Bush said we were "addicted to oil" he isn't hiding it either.



Pearl Harbor had little to do with 80 million dead, Ferdinand's death had little to do with Germany, Russia, England, France, and America. These were powderkegs. We stopped Iraq from being a powderkeg. But you make an intersting remark here. Define "Global Terrorism". I suspect your definition is 9/11, pure and simple. Mine is terrorism designed to attack the world balance. Iraq picking a fight with Israel through the proxy of terrorism is global, simply becaue of the ramifications. Iraq trying to build nuclear weapons is a global problem because of Iraq's many ties to terrorist organizations and it's formerly uncontrolled borders. Iraq developed into a major player on the world stage and a key rouge state along with Afghanistan's Taliban govt, North Korea, and Iran.



I'm pointing them out because a lot of the work that you said you were unaware of (and these sights can provide you insight into areas that you seemed unaware of previously), is being done by men and women who very well may have entered in on the lower standards that you claimed one "the saddest parts" of us doing something about global terrorism.

So it turns out the Obama administration is insensitive, too:

NYC financial workers see low-flying planes, panic :: WRAL.com

How could they be so insensitive! This is ridiculous! Burn the witch!

(Sorry, can't keep the outrage up. It was a stupid thing to do, but I just can't muster the real outrage my Republican leanings are trying to push out...)

it was pretty numbskulled but in the grand scheme of things pretty minute.

We have much different views on what is worth sacrificing American soldiers and innocent lives over. Personally saving 20 cents a gallon on gas is not one of them in my book.

We each have different opinions on what justifies military action. I guess my whole point was that it was odd that the people who strongly supported the war weren't on the front lines fighting it.

That is a pretty narrow view of the world economy's dependence on oil...

Given that the "torture memos" were written by associates of Cheney and Rumsfeld and were, in general, people with little military or Intelligence/interrogation experience, it seems to me the most likely conclusion is that the true rationale was some misguided "24-style" belief in torture yielding good actionable intel. Where they went too far was in ramming this policy down the throat of intelligence services to the eventual detriment of a) morale b) America's standing in the world and c) the collection of quality actionable intel.


For the record, the invasion of Iraq was a bullshit war.


Were it not for the invasion of Iraq, we likely wouldn't be in Afghanistan today, fighting a resurgent Taliban that has also developed the strength to challenge Pakistan, a nuclear-armed country that has already traded in nuclear secrets on the black market.

And that's only one of the many reasons why the Bush Administration's appalling counter-terror "strategy" has made us more at risk, not less.

If we invested the 3 trillion we'll put into Iraq into alternative energy and fuels, would we really be that dependent on oil anymore?

1. 20 cent increase isn't anywhere close to what could occur.

2. Your continued argument that people who supported the war weren't on the front lines doesn't have any basis in reality.

People who send other people's kids off to war to die for their cause while they sit on a computer at home are cowards. You believe in a cause enough that you feel it's worth giving up life for, be a man and give up yours for it.

"reality" i do not think that word means what you think it means.

I typically try to stay away from these threads, but I happened to click on this one.


Are you serious? You think every person that supports a "cause enough that you feel it's worth giving up life for" should put themselves in that role? Every person that supported the Iraq War should be in Iraq? Every person that supports law enforcement should be a cop? Everyone that supports Oil should be on an oil rig?

Really? Think about what you're saying for a second. I realize your intention, but the fact is that you just can't/won't/shouldn't have everyone in support of a war on the front lines.

You really think it's that simple?

Though I hope you're right, because that would certainly mean we'll be off oil in Obama's first term.

This concept that you're painting of a bunch of scared kids and convicts heading off to fight a war that they don't want to fight simply is a grasp at straws that doesn't mirror the situation in any way. The vast majority of the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan support the cause that they are fighting for.

Also, your continued reliance on what I or others do regarding military service has no foothold whatsoever. I volunteered when I was younger and was not allowed to join the armed forces based on a medical condition. You're barking up the wrong tree here.

Reality: the payback period for investing $3 trillion into alternative energy and fuels is going to be more than 4 years. However, if one imagines that, starting in 2003, we spent the Iraq money on this instead, it's interesting to think where we'd be now, and where we'd be in 4 years, vis-a-vis our dependence on foreign (specifically Middle Eastern) oil. Also bear in mind that the vast majority of our oil does not come from the Middle East.

Were you in favor of an armed response in Afghanistan? What about Darfur? Somalia?

for me, yes, yes, and yes. Not all spearheaded by the US though, but a role nonetheless.

Every poll I've seen on this for Iraq states that this is not, in fact, the case.

{citation needed}

I'm assuming though, that you don't share Raimaker's opinion that if you support a war, you should fight on the front lines there (or if you do, then were you on the front lines in those 3 places?).

He would call you a coward, unless you were there.

(I have a suspicion though, that this "rule of thumb" only applies to wars people disagree with).

What's funny, is that Flasch and I had this argument about 4 years ago. :D

Great, we're back to discussing polls again :popcorn:

I don't know if it's as simple as: deduct $ from Iraq, put it somewhere else. The Iraq money went to American companies. That created tax revenue, jobs, economic activity - basically it's a stimulus package. There's no doubt that Iraq is responsible for some of our federal budget issues (just as the present stimulus packages will be, for decades), but it's quite a stretch to say that if the Iraq war didn't happen, that Bush (or Gore, or Kerry), would have practically been able to put $3 trillion over that time into alternative energy. What does that even mean, tax cuts, or actually bumping private companies companies out and the government taking it on? I'm not sure the alternative energy industries could possibly generate enough income to warrant $3 trillion in tax cuts/subsidies.

of course not, I think that that is a baseless emotional argument that I hope he comes down to earth on.

No. Blowing these people up does nothing but make them hate us more.

Ah yes, here we go.


I could do anecdotes instead, if you'd like. :D Only one guy in my brother's unit thought the war was a good idea, and he wasn't so sure by the time they left.


Oh I agree 100%. If the Iraq war doesn't happen it's not as if someone's going to appropriate the estimated cost of the Iraq war for another purpose. Appropriations doesn't work like that.

This is merely an argument of spending X for Y result as juxtaposed with theoretically spending the same X for Z result.

I don't think Somalia/Darfur were about "blowing people up".

And you really would have allowed the Tailban regime to continue unfettered in Afghanistan? That's pretty scary. I wonder how far their influence would have spread by now. Pakistan?

I mean where would you draw the line? Wait until the Taliban has nuclear weapons?

Ironically, this is pretty much exactly what the Bush Administration did and exactly where we are now with those fuckers.

There is a big difference in supporting a war and advocating it.

I personally believe that war should only be fought when you would be willing to give your life for the cause. Otherwise you are essentially saying that your life is more important than theirs.

Not at all. There are other ways to stop regimes like the Taliban. Do you really believe that blowing the shit out of Afghanistan has ended the threat of terror?

Really? I must have missed the $3T alternative energy bill we passed

SI

So how would President RainMaker "end the threat of terror"? And is there anyone with national qualifications that share your views?

If that's all it takes, Obama will surely do it. He's not exactly stingy with the taxpayer wallet. And really, getting off oil is definitely worth that cost.

Fortunately, despite their rebound, it's not exactly 2001 again.

Both the Bush and Clinton administrations dropped the ball, though it's kind of understandable in a political climate where reaction is more important than prevention.

I don't think you ever end the threat of terror. Terrorism has been prevelant in the Middle East, but it's hardly isolated to that part of the world (Oklahoma City, school shootings, etc).

I think you need to figure out why these people want to blow us up (it's not that they hate our freedoms). Are there things we can change in our policy that would reduce terrorism? Are there ways we can reduce their overall power? Start revolutions? Put pressure on neighboring countries like Pakistan to stop it? Even start re-education programs so that the next generation of people aren't born with an inherent hatred toward us. Maybe it just comes down to putting massive security procedures in our country to ensure they don't get in.

I wish I had the answer to the problem. People have been trying to stop it for centuries. I do know that trying to blow them all up has never worked and never will.

Ah, so you're making stuff up. Got it.

SI

First of all Darfur and Somalia weren't even about terrorism in the context of US-involvement - are people cowards if they advocate a military response in those places but don't sign up for the army?

I'm sure if it were possible to just "start a revolution" in Afghanistan or Iraq, we would have done it. I'm sure we've been supporting anti-government organizations in those countries and others for years. But dictatorships and military governments are pretty good at stamping out dissenters before they grow. What kind of pressure can you put on Pakistan? They've been a decent ally for the U.S, but they have their own problems, and they don't even have control of their whole country (and I don't think it's as easy as telling them to "get control!"). And how in the world to you start re-education programs in foreign countries that don't want you there? Why would islamic fundamentals turn over their children's schooling to the U.S.?

And as much as you try to paint it with a simple brush, I assure you that the analysis of these problems at the federal government goes beyond "let's blow stuff up!". Sometimes they win, sometimes they fail, but it's a very complicated world and these are highly educated and accomplished people trying to work out these issues.

Blowing stuff up (though the actual objective there was regime change) in Afghanistan was critically important, and it has made our country safer. Most liberals (even Michael Moore), agreed with combat operations there.

Iraq is more debatable. Obviously the entire war was sold to the public on flawed intelligence (that Bill Clinton also apparently fell victim to), but that one reason was by no means the only reason, and it's not the only possible benefit of success in Iraq. Now that we're there, should we try to realize those benefits, or should we just invalidate any positive thing that might come from that war because of mistakes 6 years ago? Obama saw the light on this, he was originally a "pull out immediately" guy, and he changed his tune after visiting the country and meeting with officials there during the campaign (and I really admired the way he was willing to change his view on that).

I don't think there's many people that are OK with US soldiers dying just out of vengeance, or to "blow stuff up". Most people are interested in the security of the United States as a whole. A few hundred (or less) causalties in Afghanistan might have prevented 9/11. And maybe Iraq has created a terrorist magnent or "ground zero" for battle that has taken the focus of terrorist groups away from international terrorism, and towards that war. We'll never know. Whether you agree or not, that's the hope of people, for very few does it begin and end with 'blowing stuff up". That's where you see a lot of disrespect for people's contrary opinions. We all have the same goals. If someone has a different opinion about achieving a goal, it doesn't mean that their goal is necessarily different.

Are you following the context of this or do you just jump in wherever to be a troll?

I was responding to Rainmaker's suggestion that we wouldn't be dependent on oil anymore if we spent the Iraq war money on alternative energy. I argued that wasn't practical to simply spend money over 4-5 years to get off oil, though if it was, Obama would surely do it (which would give us proof that it was possible).

There is a difference in support and advocating. I support many endeavors that our military has taken part in. But I'm not actively advocating and demanding it. Advocating is when you are jumping on your soapbox and saying "we must send our troops here or there".

If you are someone calling for military action on someone, you should be willing to put up the same risks the soldiers that you are sending there should. Otherwise you are simply saying your life is more valuable than theirs. When MBBF says we need to fight this war in Iraq but I'm not fighting it, he is essentially saying his life is more valuable than those soldiers.


It's an extremely complex issue. I don't subscribe to the notion that I have any of the answers in this. There are much smarter men and women who would be able to brainstorm much better ideas.

But I do know that blowing up countries and killing innocent civilians does not change anything. In five years, the people of Afghanistan will still not like us. They will still want us to perish. They don't view us as liberators saving them. They view us as the guys who bombed the crap out of their village and killed someone in their family. We may succeed in temporarily killing enough terrorists to make a difference today, but another generation will come up with the same hatred toward us. Israel has been fighting terrorism with force for decades and not had any success in curbing it.

Ultimately that may lead us down the path where we simply can't stop them. That our best solution is to create our own energy and leave that part of the world to blow themselves up. Without oil, they're Africa. Let them fight their dictators and form their revolutions like the Western world has for centuries.

Maybe it wouldn't get us off oil completely, but it would put a huge dent.

The fact that we are still running engines on oil is an embarassment to the country. Out of all the technological advances over the last 30+ years, the automobile industry has essentially stood still.

Unless he thinks that an Iraq war will save lives in future, via less "necessary" military conflicts, or that a stable and democratic Iraq might otherwise save more American lives in the long run. You may disagree with that, but it's not fair to say that MBBF is choosing 4,000 U.S. deaths instead of 0, or putting his life ahead of anyone else's. He's choosing 4,000 U.S. deaths over the unkown cost of not fighting that war, which some obviously feel would be more than 4,000 lives.

I know that many think that no military action should be used until after an attack, and that military action isn't justified if the results of not acting can't be boiled down to a scientific certainty. It's a scale of what one is willing to tolerate, basically it's about risk tolerance.

I agree that the automotive industry sucks for their lack of innovation. They should of course, suffer the consequences. But they apparently own the government (the same government people think can bring about a new energy age). How can new ideas give consumers different options when the old dinosaurs are so well protected, and has Washington in its' pocket?

I'm completely against the auto bailouts. I'd rather see the money go to innovative people and companies.

As for government bringing on the new energy age. Technology is actually one of the areas that our government has been extremely succesful at.

That would be the people that were taxed (or are about to be) to fund the bailout in the first place. FWIW, I agree.

I saw others had already quoted you and responded, but I had to throw my two cents in as well:

If you feel so strongly about this, have you protested the war? Have you given money to protest groups?

All in all, I'd love to sit down and have a beer with you if you're ever in the Oklahoma area. :)

I've never gone to one of the protests and in a weird way actually think they have a negative effect on the cause. Living in Chicago and working in the loop at the time, the protests annoyed the crap out of me because they made me late coming home. :)

I have donated to groups and politicians I agree with, but it's tough. The anti-war groups and libertarian organizations can get a bit crazy. I do vote though and try and research the candidates as much as I can in my area.

If you're ever in Chicago, we'll have to catch a Bulls game.

Yeah, I think you can be selective about the money. I'd actually love to see them throw a big chunk of change to the guys at NASA and see what they can come up with. Been reading a lot about NASA lately and it's incredible how much stuff they've come up with.

These guys are able to fly a piece of metal to Mars, land it, and power it on its own while it sends data back to Earth. I have a feeling they could find a way to build a car that doesn't require oil.

What, not a Bears game? I'd love to see Cutler go down in flames! ;)


Anyhow, Prime Time tomorrow night for Obama. It should be an interesting address.

Speaking of which, I noticed that Fox will not be showing the address.......

Fox sticking with schedule instead of Obama

I actually am happy to see this happen. Not because I'm a big fan of 'Lie to Me' by any means. I've believed for several years now that blocking out time for a presidential address on the major networks is a waste of time. There's a plethora of cable news networks that these more pedestrian addresses could be shown on (Gibbs even admitted that the reason for this address is nothing more than to mark Obama's first 100 days). Save the times to show the address on the major networks when there's a pressing need. The increase in addresses already under Obama makes people less likely to pay attention to the address. It used to be that an address meant something important needed to be said. Now, it just feels like a free PR opportunity of late with Bush and Obama.

At least I can watch baseball.

Agree that there should be a little more discretion on how much the POTUS goes on TV, but there are many people without cable and receive only OTA signals. If all the major networks didn't carry the address, then some people wouldn't be able to see it.

yeah it should be required that at least 1 OTA carries it than voluntary after that so perhaps it would go on a rotation or something, I dunno...it's not like they get advertising on it so it's not a good thing to get the 'premiere' POTUS events.

Sure. I understand that. I think that important addresses still have their place on the major networks. Tonight is little more than a glorified PR appearance.

PBS would be a pretty good place to put a press conference like the one tonight. That's available to all and doesn't require an advertising interruption.

Yeah, some of us don't have cable. :)

Yeah, but you could just walk down the street and watch it in person. :D

Hey, you were the one who made the cheap statement as one of your main arguing points.

If you had given Obama the money we had pissed away on the Iraq war, he definitely would have put it to better use. But that money's spent so you can't just say "let's spend a ton more" when the guy is trying to get us out of there so we aren't spending that money (and instead trying to spend it on things at home).

If we had instead spent that $3T over the next 10 years, let's say, as opposed to 4, I would be doing cartwheels with what we could have done. This goes back to the types of infrastructure projects I was excited about in the recession thread.

Huge investments in new energy technologies- once we hit a tipping point where mass production of another source is more efficient than oil, this country will convert 80%+ over in a matter of 10 years. That's just how it works with discoveries- if you can save serious money by doing it, it's going to happen. And if the government directs that towards clean, renewable sources- then that's better for us as a whole.

We need completely revamped water and electrical grids- a lot of efficiency to be had. Hell, start on a water pipeline system crossing the US so we are no longer decimating our natural water tables to feed places like Phoenix and LA or just to get water to areas that will not have any in 10 years in our breadbasket like western Kansas and Nebraska. We lose those food supplies because we don't have any foresight and there's another major import we'll be looking at.

I'd still love to see high speed rail crossing our country as well as light rail in every major city. Keep as many cars off the streets and planes out of the air as possible. If it's cheaper and quicker to go by rail than car- why not let them drive?

But, back to before- the money is already spent and the argument that "hell, throwing a ton of money away is what Obama loves to do!" is just facetious and you know it. You don't have to agree with it to see what he's thinking. I know there's a bunch of spending there that I don't like. But that doesn't mean I just blithely toss out that Obama's spending money like a drunken sailor and wouldn't expect to be called on it.

SI

The cheap point is claiming what the "$3 trillion" could have done, when in no practical universe could anyone "spend $3 trillion on alternative energy" (whatever that means). Why didn't Clinton do that? Why didn't Gore make that a part of his campaign, or Kerry? Why isn't Obama doing it?

The government isn't like a text sim where you can shift that $3 trillion to something else.

Flere made the point that it's just an abstract hypothetical point to think of what the $3 trillion might have done, and I think that's fair. But let's not pretend that money actually could have gone anywhere.

That money went right back to the U.S., like I said, to American companies. We didn't go to an international walmart and "piss the money away" on French planes or something. No different then a stimulus package (from a financial perspective, obviously the collateral costs were a lot higher). The $3 trillion didn't vanish.

No one would have approved spending $3T over 5 years on any cause, boondoggle or otherwise, save for a war of unknown length where the populace was scared into supporting it.

EDIT: After your clarifying point, we're in agreement and essentially arguing the same point. I just take it a step further and opine about how it's just brutal to see how that money went to waste and think about how it could have been spent here if not pissed away abroad.

SI

Ok, after both of our edits, I think we've reached a quorum ;)

SI

"Can I help you sir?"

"Yes, I'm here to see the press conference."

"Um, do you have your credentials?"

"No, I just want to watch it."

"I'm sorry, sir, we can't let you in."

"But I don't have cable!"

I want to see this exchange :D

SI

GOP, New Yorkers, whatever outrage. I saw Jon Stewart have a segment about it last night. I know this is probably going to incur some wrath but it should be said.

This happens in any other city in American and people think "hey, the air show is in town". In New York, supposedly home of the biggest, toughest, baddest guys on the block, everyone goes all "duck and cover" then starts filling the air with outrage.

A single person with PTSD is completely understandable and it's a difficult thing to live with, I'd imagine. An entire city claiming it needs to get over themselves.

SI

The White House has apologized, and Obama was apparently "furious".

It was just a really retarded thing to do, though not really a huge deal. But it sounds like a few buildings were evacuated.

I do think there might be a couple other reason New Yorkers might have reacted differently than someone in Kansas City, other than not being the "biggest, toughest, baddest guys on the block". I mean, how dare New Yorkers be jumpy about low-flying 747s! Does their jumpiness negatively impact you in any way?