Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder >><This is the plain and simple truth.> No, it's not. It's just a pessimistic opinion. <It's became painfully obvious to everyone except those with arrogant fantasies of supremacy.> The people with "fantasies of supremacy" are those who believe the Iraqi are incapable of creating a prosperous, free democracy.<< Got any proof what we're doing is working? Can you answer the question mrichmondj poses, which is if they've ratified a Constitution, had elections, and have a prospering economy, then why are we still there? "I've read columns by people who have been there that are more optimistic than your opinion, and you haven't been there. So how can you think you know what's best?" Very easy. I was never sold on us going in there in the first place. Far be it from me to presume I can change hundreds, if not thousands of years of religious strife with free K-rations. THAT'S arrogancy beyond the pale.
Originally Posted By imadisneygal "The people with "fantasies of supremacy" are those who believe the Iraqi are incapable of creating a prosperous, free democracy" Who the heck do we think we are to force a "democracy" on another country?! It has nothing to do with the Iraqis being incapable. They're different than we are. Accept it. They're not the United States. They're not going to be the United States. Ever. Really. Concerning the statement that it's just an "opinion" that the Middle East problem is too deeply rooted in religion and faith to be fized through military force...it's not simply an opinion. it's obviously not a fact, either, but it's been proven over and over during the course of the past several thousand years that the region is deeply rooted in its religion and faith. And no amount of power has changed it yet. What makes us think, or what gives us the chutzpah to think, that we can go in and change thousands of years of history in an entire region? Or that we should?? Removing Saddam aside...I agree that was a great thing. But that aside, why can't we leave the region alone or try to assimilate their history with our own? Why must we try to rewrite their history to match ours? Is it that threatening to us to have other countries do things differently?
Originally Posted By mrichmondj I read your article on war vs. containment, Doug. Quite frankly, I'm not buying what this one-sided think tank is selling. Lots of what-ifs and rosy projections on the economic prospects for post-war Iraq -- none of which have come to fruition in the past 3 years. Why we think some miracle is going to suddenly happen and the Iraqi people will all get along and prosper is beyond me. That would be a wonderful outcome, but not in the least bit realistic based upon everything we know up to this point.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <You managed to contradict yourself within one sentence. Pretty funny.> You should probably look up "contradict" in the dictionary. There's nothing contradictory in my sentence.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I think it's definitely one of the best uses of the federal government to take care of its citizens.> Most of the Founding Fathers would disagree with you. And having the federal government take care of its citizens hasn't worked so well where it's been tried.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Got any proof what we're doing is working?> Proof? No. Foreign policy is not a geometric equation which can be "proved". I have presented a lot of evidence that what we're doing is working however. Articles about the increased prosperity in Iraq, how we're receiving an increased amount of information about the terrorists from ordinary Iraqi, how our military is slowly constricting the territory the terrorists are working in, and stopping their supply lines. And then there are the facts of the elections and the government forming. The evidence is there if you're willing to look.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "You should probably look up "contradict" in the dictionary. There's nothing contradictory in my sentence." Quite a juvenile remark, Doug. Let's take a cursory glance at your statement. "We didn't go into Iraq to police the world or to tell them how to run their own country. We went into Iraq because making Iraq a free and prosperous place will make us safer and more prosperous." If we didn't go into Iraq to tell them how to run their country, how else are we going to make Iraq safer and more prosperous for US???? It's clearly impossible to have one without the other.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Who the heck do we think we are to force a "democracy" on another country?!> I don't believe we are "forcing" democracy on Iraq. I think most people want to have a say in how they live their lives, and want to live in freedom and prosperity, not fear and poverty. We're not trying to make them into the United States. We'd just like them not to be a place that breeds terrorists who will attack us.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 >>Exactly. Which is why you can't "understand" that 2+2=5. Math is math. You seem to once again have missed the point.<< <This makes absolutely no sense. I missed nothing substantial.> You missed the point that math is math. It is not conservative nor liberal. It is not concerned with how you "understand" our economy or how I understand it. It is numbers. It is neutral. And to argue that demographic shifts mean NOTHING at all flies in the face of both logic and all economic experts, both liberal and conservative. They all acknowlege that demographics are hugely important - they differ only in to what to do about it. But none of them argue that demographic shifts count for nothing at all. You would be alone in that. >>Nowhere in there does he say that the demographic shift is fully responsible. At most he implies it's largely responsible. But nowhere does he say it's fully responsible. YOU read that in.<< <The argument he made was clear. You read more into it to fit your hypothesis that you have yet to support.> No, you read into it that he said it was solely responsible, where he didn't say that. My hypothesis is only that demographics can't count for nothing. Which is correct. >>It's akin to someone saying "DCA's attendance went up last year. Not hard to do when you offer so many discounts." That implies discounts were largely responsible, but doesn't say they fully were. Someone else could say "not hard to do when DL's 50th is on and so many people are coming to the DLR in general." Same thing. So which is it? No doubt those two plus other factors. But no one with a brain would attribute it to any one thing, and neither did mrichmondj. He pointed out one component, which you continue to deny has ANY effect, strangely.<< <If someone made that claim, I would ask for backup for precisely that claim. Otherwise, I'll argue that it is wrong. If someone made an argument based on DL's 50th, then that argument counters the argument about the discounts.> Not at all. Here we see how you don't apply logic. Why couldn't the 50th AND the discounts have both counted towards DCA's attendance increase? Both could have contributed; the question then becomes how much. But you seem to see things in an all-or-nothing, black or white world. But that's not the real world. <I would not join the two arguments together and say both are responsible unless one or the other decided to conceded the argument or came to an agreement.> That makes no sense whatsoever. Person A could argue reason X was comletely responsible, and person B could argue reason Y was completely responsible. If it later came out definitely that both were responsible in part, that would simply be the truth - whether person A and B conceded anything or agreed to anything at the time OR NOT. <I haven't conceded the argument and mrichmondj hasn't altered his premise.> See above. <You're rather disingenuous in trying to change the subject.> Okay, now I have to ask if you know what "disingenuous" means. >>An incoming worker doesn't have to take the job of the retiring worker (others in between in the workforce will do that) for the math to hold.<< <You haven't proved anything. You haven't made the link between how unemployment rates are precisely linked to the number of people retiring.> That was never my argument. Only that demographic shifts can't count for nothing. >> bluff their way through.<< <You bluffed your way through your new math and 2+2=5. Time to re-learn algebra.> And the cluelessness continues. <I believe the demographic shift has NO effect on low unemployment due its mitigating factors (that Dabob ignored).> This further shows your lack of understanding. In this case, the demographic shift would STILL not count for nothing, it would only be countered (or enhanced) by other factors. But that still doesn't mean it had no effect. <Economic decline due to... Economic decline due to... 1. Less consumption. 2. Higher taxes. 3. Social Security benefits. 4. Smaller workforce.> And here you start arguing with yourself. We were talking about the year 2004 or 2005 (in other words, a year that has happened), in which you were claiming low unemployment due to a GOOD (not declining) economy - not a speculative future year with anything to do with the things you mention there. Your arguments keep jumping all over the place. <Back to school.> Indeed. As for 228, it's pure speculation based on facts not in evidence. JeffG tried to explain it to you... he guessed from the get-go it would be fruitless, and it seems he was right.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "Proof? No." Then you should stop there. Care to answer why we're still there?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Why we think some miracle is going to suddenly happen and the Iraqi people will all get along and prosper is beyond me.> I don't think anyone is expecting a miracle.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj Doug, I don't doubt that we have the ability to make things "work" in Iraq. If you throw enough money, people, and other resources at a problem, you are bound to solve it eventually. My opinion is based on the idea that we don't have an infinite pot of money and resources to solve this problem and the other issues we face in the future. I don't like to think about what my tax rate will be 10 years from now just to pay for the all the debts we've racked up and bills yet to pay. We have a crumbling transportation infrastructure that hasn't been re-thought in 40 years, looming energy shortages due to no investment in future energy resources, a burgeoning population of old and unhealthy people that gets very expensive very quickly, plus our obligations that will persist throughout the world (even outside of Iraq). We were on the right track with Afghanistan. Iraq was never on the right track, and it's simply a perversion of our national priorities.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "I don't think anyone is expecting a miracle." You are, and that's the problem. You and yours either don't realize it or won't 'fess up to it. It will take nothing short of one to accomplish all of what you think will happen.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Quite a juvenile remark, Doug.> It was an appropriate remark. <If we didn't go into Iraq to tell them how to run their country, how else are we going to make Iraq safer and more prosperous for US????> By removing the obstacles that were preventing them from living in peace and prosperity.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Care to answer why we're still there?> Because we haven't removed all the obstacles to peace and prosperity for Iraqis yet.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <We were on the right track with Afghanistan. Iraq was never on the right track, and it's simply a perversion of our national priorities.> I disagree.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <You are, and that's the problem.> No, I'm not. The problem is that some people want to quit before the job is done.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj <<< Because we haven't removed all the obstacles to peace and prosperity for Iraqis yet. >>> For example, the Iraqi people who insist on fighting amongst themselves to sabotage their own government. Maybe we shoul just ship out all the Iraqis to Guantanamo Bay and then populate the country with people who are more likely to get along.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <For example, the Iraqi people who insist on fighting amongst themselves to sabotage their own government.> Them, and the foreigners that are there trying to foment a civil war. Luckily, they are a minority whose numbers are shrinking.
