Redstate

of doing nothing would be far greater.

Show me proof that somehow fighting this war has made me safer. All I can see is the hole its burning in my wallet.

BTW, pointing to what has not happened is not proof. General analogies of "terrorists" yada yada, is not proof. As far as I can tell, we've only been hit on American soil by terrorists 1 time, and he's still hiding in Pakistan.

I don't care for humanitarian arguments. If its an attempt to tug on a heart string or make it personal somehow(this includes irrational fears), you've already lost. Show me some sort of solid evidence that my money is being spent wisely.

As of right now, my gasoline still costs me close to $3 dollars a gallon and we're still running a deficit. I'm just not seeing it.

I place economy among the first and most important of republic virtues, and public debt as the greatest of the dangers to be feared." -Thomas Jefferson to William Plumer, 1816

extricate your head from your *$%.... the air is better also.

" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln

Your just a talking head...

Hey, I know not liking the war isn't popular. It's followed closely by thoughts of rainbows, puppy dogs, and grungy hippies wallowing in peace mud.

But this is an honest question, outside of the "fighting them over there so they don't come over here" !#@$! (which makes absolutely no sense), Why do I want to keep paying it? What do I care if we pull out now and a bunch of Iraqis kill each other vying for the crown?

Now, if someone wants to make an economic argument (unstable region, OPEC moving away from the dollar, oil price spike, .. etc) I'm all ears, but it better be backed by something other then your economics 101 text book.

I place economy among the first and most important of republic virtues, and public debt as the greatest of the dangers to be feared." -Thomas Jefferson to William Plumer, 1816

"explain it to me" crowd...and don't deserve my time or anyone elses. If you are that much of a dipstick that you can't come up with the answers you need, on your own...then piss off.

Don't forget to wipe before you pull your panties up.

" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln

Am I not entitled to an explanation of where the !@#@@ my taxes are going?

What kind of idiots are breeding these days?

I place economy among the first and most important of republic virtues, and public debt as the greatest of the dangers to be feared." -Thomas Jefferson to William Plumer, 1816

I'm o.k. if you are against the war. If you have your reasons, so be it.

But to come here and pull the other crap you have been, "are we safer", "my taxes"..it's old ...and you're a waste of time.

As I said, pull your head out of your rectum, look, learn, listen...the haze will clear... but you'll still stink.

" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln

this post just means he has no idea how to answer your honest question without revealing a lack of understanding on the issue. He must be for the war cus "they" told him to be.

2.4 trillion (with a T) was the estimate just yesterday. That is $8,000.00 for every man, woman, and child in America ($40,000.00) I will be paying from my household alone.

are there any domestic spending programs that get you similarly worked up over "where the !@#@@ [your] taxes are going?"

Or perhaps a certain presidential candidate whose name rhymes with fall has the prescription for saving the nation. ;-)

of the federal government is to protect the American people from all threats, foreign and domestic.

Regarding your taxes: Entitlements are the greatest threat to our economy, not military spending.

***

“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan

My understanding was the primary constitutional responsibility
of the fed. gov. was to answer and respond to ALL stupid, ignorant citizens and their moRONic questions?...

" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln

I love it when someone questions the resaons behind the trillions of dollars we are spending in Iraq and all the talking head can come up with is "pull your head out of your rectum." It is that complete moronic dialogue that brings down the integrity of these boards, no that presidential candidate we cannot discuss.

and by the way, I can engage respectfully at anytime with anyone that deserves thoughtful, respectful, replies...I have no problem with that.

PYHOOYR is reserved for idiots that bring nothing to the table.
Got it?...now, may I ask, what camp are you from?

" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln

Well, let us know when you have.

Actually, I'm just writing that to be polite: I don't actually care if you ever do.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

You're channeling the oath of office and the military oath of allegiance here, but you've got it all wrong.

The oath, as established under constitution, affirms that the speaker will defend the constitution, not the people. Unlike many of today's politicians who would gladly curtail your freedoms in exchange for a false sense of safety, the founders recognized that some things are more important that personal security. "Give me liberty or give me death" and "live free or die" were statements to be taken literally.

The oath of office, any office, is irrelevant to this discussion. It only serves as a distraction.

The primary responsibility of the federal government is to provide for the safety and security of the American people. Period. Anything else is wholly dependent on said security for its existence.

If you seriously seek to understand the Founders' intent, then I suggest reading The Founders' Constitution.

***

“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan

you're the one who invoked the oath of office bye echoing its language in your post above. But let's leave that aside for the moment.

My objection to your post is that when you write, "the primary constitutional responsibility of the federal government is to protect the American people from all threats..." you imply that prioritizing the physical protection of Americans (over, say, protecting their freedoms) is somehow prescribed by the constitution. It's not.

Unquestionably some people (like you, I gather) would argue that "safety and security" must necessarily precede all other duties of the government, but it's an open question. Others would argue personal security is not worth having if you have to sacrifice personal freedom to get it. My point is not to argue one way or the other, but to point out that your claim that your position is rooted in the constitution in unsubstantiated.

the price of defeat is higher.

Factor in the cost of the deaths of Americans in the Trade Center, the sailors on the Cole, the deaths in the embassy bombings, and the desire of our enemy to destroy us. Significant costs.

Why can't I/we enjoy the security of stopping terrorism somewhere else? Is it only terrorism if it happens in the US? Explain that to the British. I would also say that the intelligence effort in the GWOT (monitoring phone calls, emails, etc.) has also reduced the effectiveness of AQ. It's not just the boots on the ground that matter, though they matter a heck of a lot. It's the overall effort that is paying off.

Your statement "What do I care if we pull out now and a bunch of Iraqis kill each other vying for the crown?" is inane. Maybe you ain't reading the news, but amazingly, the civil war has dramatically decreased as AQI gets killed off. Or to put it another way, maybe the "civil war" was really acts of terrorism by a terroristic organization, and the different sides killed each other as a result of the attacks and agitation (AQI Sunnis kill Shi'ites, Shi'ites retaliate against Sunnis, Sunnis join AQI to kill Shi'ites.) Killing AQI reduces the attacks and agitation, and amazingly, the terrorism decreases. Difficult topic, but stick with it. You might see it eventually.

As far as the price of oil is concerned, we didn't go to war to win oil fields. A rise in price of oil does not equal a failure in the GWOT. The recent increases in the price of oil are the result of instability in Iran, you know, the whole nuclear arms race, blow Israel off the map, use it to threaten the Saudis and the US, little things like that. Unless maybe you think that Iran has the right to do these things.

Is this another MoRon that snuck under the wire?

Well its a start.

First. And yes, its a tired argument, but I believe it is the non-starter for most conversations such as these.
If the goal is terrorism, Iraq was a horrible place to start looking.

Now this is the part of the conversation where I post things like the 9/11 commission report stating Iraq and Al Quaeda had no connection. Then you point out that we can't undo our past mistakes, and maybe even point to your own sources sayign there was, either way we have to deal with what we have.

Then I point out all we have is a civil war based on deep seeded religious intolerance. You show how that intolerance has spilled over into a terrorist organization that you deem a threat to the US. I say that they're only a threat when we're on their soil, and we're still spending billions(dare I say trillions) of dollars on people most Americans could give 2 @##$ about.

You bring up 9/11, I say it's in the past, you say its still a threat. I say the threat can be better dealt with on our own soil without making new enemies. You say they hate us anyway, I say we're not helping the situation.

Then we're back to where we started. Somewhere in there further jabs are exchanged, and someone even brings up someone elses mom (coulda been me, sorry I was angry at the time).

So I concede, Apologize for the insult about your mom, and acknowledge that we are just at opposite ends of the party when it comes to this issue.

(as an aside, I'm not voting for Paul because he has no chance of winning, I am, however,looking for the most fiscally consrvative First Tier candidate out there, I may vote for Fred and just hope he's too lazy to keep fighting the war)

I place economy among the first and most important of republic virtues, and public debt as the greatest of the dangers to be feared." -Thomas Jefferson to William Plumer, 1816

and assume you are aware that it is IMPOSSIBLE to "prove" a negative. Otherwise you are not of the intellectual capability to be worth addressing

That being said, you have framed the argument in a way that you can not lose. This is the tactic of a demagogue. My hope is that you continue to have to lament the cost of a policy that I "believe" keeps us both safe, and I further hope that neither of us EVER has to see "proof" of what the consequences of your preferred policy would be.

In the meantime, unless the dems get enough control in '08 to start jacking up your taxes, your wallet will be just fine if YOU take care of your own finances.

I would submit to you sir, that the money to pay for this has to come from somewhere. As of now, watching the Congressional Budget Oversight Committe, all of our illustrious leaders are saying that we are actually charging this war on our national credit card (financing it with debt).

I would also submit that when we finance anything with debt, the interest makes it even more expensive.

The problem with that is that when we need the extra money, the debt instruments that are created increase the supply of our currency in the world market, particularly because US financial institutions are allowed to practice fractional reserve lending, and the value of the dollar drops.

This isn't terrible if your wages go up at the same rate as inflation (with fuel, food, and medical included unless you can get by without those, I can't). Most people just don't get those kinds of raises.

For those of us who have actually saved a little money and are trying to live from the interest it is generating, it is extremely hard. First of all, trying to get an interest rate on an income generating asset that is greater than the unadjusted rate of inflation is nearly impossible. Therefore, the value of my savings keeps dropping, and my money buys less and less every year.

The real cost of this war will be the impact the debt generated to finance it will have on the dollar in the world market.

gimme a break. you don't win arguments that way.

win anything...I was explaining why I was avoiding ...

And I will conintue to avoid exchanges with Rectumites...yes, those that continue to live with...

" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln

scrape together a few cents and buy yourself a new wallet?

In other words, you are a waste of time.

Are you paying more or less in taxes than you did before the war? If there is a "burning in your wallet" I'd suggest reaching for the Preparation H, not a ballot.

Do you really think the war has done anything to the price of oil?

The deficit is what percent of GDP. What percent was it in the 80s and 90s?

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

What the deficit was in 2000.....

I can also tell you how the Dollar compared to the Euro in 2000...

I can also tell you how much of out national debt is owned by foreign countries.. as compared to 1988...

I can also point you to Japan in the 90's for an example of the road we seem to be on...

I can also tell you what the dollar was worth compared
I place economy among the first and most important of republic virtues, and public debt as the greatest of the dangers to be feared." -Thomas Jefferson to William Plumer, 1816

You are trying to use one year as being indicative of something other than that one year. Surpluses are worse than deficits, at least is you profess to believe in "small government". Look at the trend in deficits and get back to me.

Dollar v Euro? what does that mean? that ours isn't as big as theirs? I thought it meant that our exports were cheaper and imports more expensive.

I hope all of our debt is owned by foreign countries. We get their money, they get our paper. How is this a bad deal? Oh, I know they'll forclose on us and send their armies to kick us out.

Okay, give me the parallels between us and Japan in the 1990s. I'm all ears.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

but if you haven't been hit again you may conclude by fair inference that you are safer.
Interesting use of the phrase "made me safer", you! 300 million people and it's all about you? It says a lot my friend.
He who hides in Pakistan shares common goals, he has allies. Do you recall the TV images of women dancing in Palestine after 9/11 ? I offer that as symbolism easy to understand and representative of the situation we face.

One plus one equals two, you forget the first WTC bombing. You ignore the USS Cole bombing, Khobar Towers, etc. Presumably and only because it didn't happen on American soil, or in your neighborhood, these American deaths can't count.

You are indisputably right about one thing, you are not a humanitarian, for after all to be that you must first be human.

Fear not, you are not alone, America today is populated heavily with savages.

"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville

You may not infer by fair "inference" that because we haven't been hit that the War in Iraq is the cause. And I didnt ask to prove a negative. I asked to prove a positive "Show me How I'm safer". Show me their is less Terrorist activity in the world, show me less people that hate America and dance in the street, show me their are less weapons beign delivered to terrorist organizations. These are all thigns that could be shown.

And yes, it is about me, me and my family. How these policies affect me and mine is my #1 reason for questioning them. I'm wary of any man that claims he has a higher calling then that of himself and his family.

I place economy among the first and most important of republic virtues, and public debt as the greatest of the dangers to be feared." -Thomas Jefferson to William Plumer, 1816

For Heaven's sake, use spellcheck.

Then we can work on grammar and capitalization.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

Just for you sugar bumpkins

(call me)

I place economy among the first and most important of republic virtues, and public debt as the greatest of the dangers to be feared." -Thomas Jefferson to William Plumer, 1816

...you completely misspelled that response where you didn't actually backtalk a site moderator.

Try again.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

Just another troll.

In Vino Veritas

...for people who show up uninvited and demand that I give them reasons why they should change their mind. It was a favorite tactic of 2004 Democrats, you see, and it really drove home that these are the best sorts of political enemies to have: which is to say, stupid ones.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

he's actively involved in a tragic and public self-beclowning, something to do with the "burning in his wallet" or some such nonsense, and providing amusement value.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

Gustogus, you've set it up so that no one can prove anything to you, even assuming such proof is possible. To say, "provide me with proof, but the following general categories of information don't count," is akin to sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "lalalalala I'm not listening!!!!"

In any case, I don't know if proof or evidence that a war is "worth it" is really fully possible until after the war is over. Even during the American Civil War, loads of northerners felt that the war WASN'T worth it (both copperheads and more well-meaning citizens). Today, however, I think nearly everyone agrees that it was.

In the Deep South.... Some of us still have dreams of grandeur...

Vietnam and Korea could be examples of the latter (ask the Russians about Afghanistan)

As to setting the bar to high, Perhaps your right, I just wanted to avoid "terrorists will get you in your sleep" argument. When its all said and done, in spite of 9/11, terrorists aren't going to storm this country and force me to learn the Koran.. And this war isn't goign to "stamp out Terrorism".. It more or less strikes me as a costly exercise in futility. Did I mention the costly part?

I place economy among the first and most important of republic virtues, and public debt as the greatest of the dangers to be feared." -Thomas Jefferson to William Plumer, 1816

"When its all said and done, in spite of 9/11, terrorists aren't going to storm this country and force me to learn the Koran"

It happens to be their ultimate plan to do Exactly what you think they won't. That or kill you after raping and murdering your wife and daughters while you watch.

The Iraq War may not single-handedly stamp out terrorism, but it will permanently eliminate one more safe haven for them.

Carlos: "What? Were they [Democrats]?"
Seth: "They look like [Democrats]? Is that what they looked like? They were vampires.
"[Democrats] do not explode when sunlight hits them."

In which case, what happens to our economy when we can no longer safely trade overseas?
What happens to our economy when our so-called "allies" and "trade-partners" realize we will do nothing more to back up our agreements than the U.N. does?

Let's say we Did do what certain unnameable "Libertarians" wish. We withdraw all of our official government activities to within US borders.
In this situation, what happens to all the American nationals worldwide? We'll even ignore what our "allies" and trade-partners think of it. But what about our economic interests? What of our intelligence assets?
If other nations can get nothing from us, then why should they give anything to us? So how do we get advance warning when someone wants to attack us?

This is a question I have started asking all isolationists:
"Is the responsibility of the US Government to the USA's Borders or to the USA's citizens?

Carlos: "What? Were they [Democrats]?"
Seth: "They look like [Democrats]? Is that what they looked like? They were vampires.
"[Democrats] do not explode when sunlight hits them."

for the Europeans and Canadians. They will trade with us because we have a strong economy, since when is it our responsibilty to protect their trade? Obviously we use military force to protect our assets, What that has to do with Iraq I have no idea.

Do you really believe the only thing America has to offer is a Strong military? Have you seen our GDP?

Heres one for you, how do you get rid of a National Debt that is approaching 10 Trillion dollars, and maintain a world police force at the same time?

I place economy among the first and most important of republic virtues, and public debt as the greatest of the dangers to be feared." -Thomas Jefferson to William Plumer, 1816

"How do you pay off a National Debt[snip] and maintain a world police force?"

Well, DUH!, reduce wasteful domestic spending. My god, man! Have you even Looked at the actual budget numbers? Our "World police force" costs less than 25% of our budget. Closer to 10%, IIRC.
And we are protecting Europe's trade because doing so protects ours and we started it in the 40s after WWII.

Oh, and have you looked at our Trade and GDP numbers from Before we had an internationally recognized and respected military? How about you look at the same for those nations who Currently don't have such? Notice something?

Carlos: "What? Were they [Democrats]?"
Seth: "They look like [Democrats]? Is that what they looked like? They were vampires.
"[Democrats] do not explode when sunlight hits them."

talk radio, blogs, etc. The Dems and anti-war Left depend on brainwashing, ignorance, and a different climate (volunteer military now vs. draft then, plus now we're under attack). No wonder they hate the New Media, and no wonder the Old Media is suffering scandals, a loss of credibility and customers.

You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.

"different climate" I mean.

Thank you Rush Limbaugh and Fox News for pioneering the way forward.

These groups are not anti-war. They're self-absorbed, un-American special-interest groups with a chronic, some may say near suicidal, case of BushDerangementSyndrome.™

***

“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan

I've been pretty much all over both coasts in the last couple of years hanging in airports, hotels, bars, sporting events, concerts, conferences, and the like. Along the way, I've talked to lots of people from all sorts of stations in life about politics, news, and The War. I know anecdotes aren't data, but I do have a good sample of anecdotes.

There is a small but hard group that are unalterably opposed to The War and to anything associated with GWB and Republicans. I guess I look like a Republican, so I seem to bring out the worst in them. Most common is the castrati couple; he of vague gender and she of unkempt hair, shapeless clothes, and a scowl. They are almost always public employees, academics, or young professionals, especially lawyers and tech types - thought the techies may be more a SEA and Left Coast thing. There's a Volvo or Suburu in the parking lot and they each are carrying bottled water. And, of course, there are the college aged rebels without a clue. Nothing to see there.

The vast mass of people that I've talked to are not opposed to The War and don't like the anti-war types, but they are tired of the war and fearful for the outcome. Unfortunately, the Dem/Media meme that we were bogged down in an endless butchery has resonated deeply throughout the Country. Among these people there remains a deep and sincere patriotism and a real support for the troops, a support that is often translated into actually doing things to show that support. When my soldier son was flying back from leave a couple of months ago, not in uniform, but pretty obviously a soldier, some total stranger on the flight from the East Coast to Munich gave him his First Class seat and took his center seat in the back!

Good news, and even a lack of bad news from Iraq, will quickly and dramatically alter the view of these people towards The War; they don't want to lose, they don't want to withdraw, but they just as sincerely do not want to spend American lives and treasure to no avail and with no gain in sight. I don't think they have to see an end in sight, there's a healthy built in cynicism in this Country about "light at the end of the tunnel," but they do have to feel - and I use that emotional word purposely - that something good is coming of it. Only recently, have they had much to feel good about.

And I have to admit that my own faith in the enterprise flagged during that long couple of years, especially when the kid was in Afghanistan and we didn't hear from him for long periods of time. I had lots of visions of that plain sedan pulling into the driveway. It was like Vietnam all over again; the news was just an endless litany of bad news and body counts, always body counts. Those of you who aren't old enough to remember the mid to late Sixties through the early Seventies cannot imagine what the day after day grind of the news always starting with the latest bad news and ending with the day, week, or month's casualty count was like. No matter what your view of the Vietnam War was, you just wanted that to end! It got that way with Iraq over the last couple of years, is only recently improving, and the People still aren't hearing much about how it has improved.

In Vino Veritas

The above was intended for that cutie-pie smokinjs1, who can't find any soldiers in favor of the mission in Iraq.

It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?