Kelly the Dog Posted March 11, 2009 Share Posted March 11, 2009 The key words being "for no friggin' reason". Invading Iraq was unreasonable on it's face. 4000 people dying in an unreasonable war is an unreasonable casualty rate. However, 4000 combat deaths over six years of war in a deployed force of 135k-150k is half a percent annual. That is an extraordinarily low rate of loss for a war (Vietnam, a "low intensity" conflict, was twice that at a minimum. WWII, twice that again). If you want to use the ridiculousness of the war as criticism for the casualty rate, fine with me. I can agree with that. Trying to use the casualty rate as a demonstration of the uselessness of the war, however, is a logical non-starter. I wasn't. I was just comparing 4000 to zero. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted March 11, 2009 Share Posted March 11, 2009 Actually, you kind of inferred that incorrectly, but I can see your line of thinking. It wasn't just the Iraq war. It was everything, with particular emphasis on the recent election. It didn't matter whose head popped up in the news, if they had any inclination toward the right, the left would attack and ridicule, the latter of which I detested the most. Whether it was the war in Iraq, Joe the Plumber, Sarah Palin's daughter, etc., it was attack and ridicule of the highest order at multiple angles. To your credit, it landed your party the House, the Senate and the White House. But after reading and listening to the left's crap for eight years, you can bet your ass that some of us on the right absolutely relish the fact that your party is about to prove that it is as dysfunctionally ridiculous...if not MORESO...than the right could ever be. The fact that the new administration thinks spending its way out of this economic mess -- a mess created by BOTH sides -- at a precedent-setting rate just fuels the fire, even without the constant stumbling of badly chosen cabinet appointees, or the push for a universal health care program that has absolutely NO map to it beyond the fact that we simply must have it or the world will collapse at our feet. Regardless of what side of the fence you're on, you'd have to be a completely blind homer to not realize that the ONLY way to pay for all of this spending is to lower the income requirements for tax increases. And when that happens, the hardcore right won't be the only ones yelling and screaming at this administration. The people were sold a bill of goods, and Obama has proven that he is not above breaking promises early and often, as is evident by his signing a bill full of pork when he previously said he would not. Once you start breaking promises, it's a slippery slope. Piss off the wrong people -- the people who put you in office -- and they'll be more than happy to push you down the slope without any time to strap on your skis. 1] I did misinterpret somewhat because I didn't count the sideline stuff like Joe the Plumber Sarah Palin, which I consider the same kind of complaints that both sides pull on each other all day every day. I thought you were referring to all the crap the "Bush Bad" administration received from the left, and to me, 90% of it stems from the war. Fair enough. 2] The earmark/pork thing is just stupid. You know how much a 410 billion dollar budget costs with all the earmarks in it? 410 billion. You know how much it costs with every single earmark taken out of it? The exact same 410 billion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 11, 2009 Share Posted March 11, 2009 2] The earmark/pork thing is just stupid. You know how much a 410 billion dollar budget costs with all the earmarks in it? 410 billion. You know how much it costs with every single earmark taken out of it? The exact same 410 billion. Unfortunately, in my world, if a person makes a promise, I somehow expect them to keep it. I wouldn't call that stupid. Alternately, if someone breaks a promise and there are no repercussions, the door has been swung opened for more broken promises. Is the next one lowering the amount of income you must have before you have to pay higher taxes? Like I said...slippery slope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted March 11, 2009 Share Posted March 11, 2009 Unfortunately, in my world, if a person makes a promise, I somehow expect them to keep it. I wouldn't call that stupid. Alternately, if someone breaks a promise and there are no repercussions, the door has been swung opened for more broken promises. Is the next one lowering the amount of income you must have before you have to pay higher taxes? Like I said...slippery slope. The point is 90% of the country doesn't even know what an earmark is, and think it's waste of money and added on to the bill in additional costs when it's not. And the amount of time arguing about them is stupid when there are a lot of very important things to argue about that actually do cost or waste money. Not to mention that the congress is made up of approximately 60% democrats and 40% republicans and the bill in question has 60% democrat earmarks and 40% republican earmarks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 11, 2009 Share Posted March 11, 2009 I wasn't. I was just comparing 4000 to zero. Show me the war that has been fought with zero casualties, then. (And don't say Denmark, 1940. They had two killed.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted March 11, 2009 Share Posted March 11, 2009 Show me the war that has been fought with zero casualties, then. (And don't say Denmark, 1940. They had two killed.) I don't have to, because I was never ever comparing it in any way to other wars. You were. Since it was a complete war of choice, it was either going in and having some die (in this case 4000) or not going in and having none die. Cue Wacka to come in and stupidly say more soldiers die in accidents at home and abroad per year than in Iraq, all the while forgetting the fact that they are still dying in accidents at home and abroad, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 11, 2009 Share Posted March 11, 2009 The point is 90% of the country doesn't even know what an earmark is, and think it's waste of money and added on to the bill in additional costs when it's not. And the amount of time arguing about them is stupid when there are a lot of very important things to argue about that actually do cost or waste money. Not to mention that the congress is made up of approximately 60% democrats and 40% republicans and the bill in question has 60% democrat earmarks and 40% republican earmarks. I appreciate the sweeping generalization, but if 90% of the country really doesn't know what an earmark is, why make a promise to ban them? I mean, what's the upside to making a promise like that, especially when you don't intend to honor the promise, when only 10% of Americans know what the hell he's talking about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted March 11, 2009 Share Posted March 11, 2009 I appreciate the sweeping generalization, but if 90% of the country really doesn't know what an earmark is, why make a promise to ban them? I mean, what's the upside to making a promise like that, especially when you don't intend to honor the promise, when only 10% of Americans know what the hell he's talking about? Because John McCain and the Republicans make such big deal about them and have been for years? I will admit myself that until a few weeks ago, I thought most of them were added onto bills just before the bill was passed and not money that was already allotted and will be there and spent anyway, just not in the specific arena the congressman or senator picked out for a portion of it. I thought they were bigger wastes than they actually are, too. (Not that a lot of this money isn't going to be wasted, earmarked or not, but that's a different argument). Go on, admit it, you thought that, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 11, 2009 Share Posted March 11, 2009 Because John McCain and the Republicans make such big deal about them and have been for years? I will admit myself that until a few weeks ago, I thought most of them were added onto bills just before the bill was passed and not money that was already allotted and will be there and spent anyway, just not in the specific arena the congressman or senator picked out for a portion of it. I thought they were bigger wastes than they actually are, too. (Not that a lot of this money isn't going to be wasted, earmarked or not, but that's a different argument). Go on, admit it, you thought that, too. Which is why some people, including me, bust your nuts for always blindly coming to the defense of Obama. You could define earmarks as "a green, leafy vegetable typically chopped up and used as a garnish on creamy soups" and to me, at least, it wouldn't make the promise any less broken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted March 11, 2009 Share Posted March 11, 2009 Which is why some people, including me, bust your nuts for always blindly coming to the defense of Obama. You could define earmarks as "a green, leafy vegetable typically chopped up and used as a garnish on creamy soups" and to me, at least, it wouldn't make the promise any less broken. Which is why I, over and over and over and over, show how wrong you are about me when I am not always blindly coming to the defense of Obama. I think he should veto the bill and shut up the democrats and the republicans on this issue. Even though I think it's a stupid issue. Just end the nonsense. In this case, I think he is wrong and he should eliminate the earmarks from the bill. It maybe not worth it to him, but it seems to me like he should show his power more over Pelosi than he is doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 11, 2009 Share Posted March 11, 2009 Which is why I, over and over and over and over, show how wrong you are about me when I am not always blindly coming to the defense of Obama. I think he should veto the bill and shut up the democrats and the republicans on this issue. Even though I think it's a stupid issue. Just end the nonsense. In this case, I think he is wrong and he should eliminate the earmarks from the bill. It maybe not worth it to him, but it seems to me like he should show his power more over Pelosi than he is doing. Right on. Totally agree. In fact, vetoing it would endear a shitload of fence sitters. Dog and cats. Living together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted March 11, 2009 Share Posted March 11, 2009 1] I did misinterpret somewhat because I didn't count the sideline stuff like Joe the Plumber Sarah Palin, which I consider the same kind of complaints that both sides pull on each other all day every day. I thought you were referring to all the crap the "Bush Bad" administration received from the left, and to me, 90% of it stems from the war. Fair enough. 2] The earmark/pork thing is just stupid. You know how much a 410 billion dollar budget costs with all the earmarks in it? 410 billion. You know how much it costs with every single earmark taken out of it? The exact same 410 billion. Forget the percentages- we are talking about billions of dollars. It will add up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 I don't have to, because I was never ever comparing it in any way to other wars. You were. Since it was a complete war of choice, it was either going in and having some die (in this case 4000) or not going in and having none die. Cue Wacka to come in and stupidly say more soldiers die in accidents at home and abroad per year than in Iraq, all the while forgetting the fact that they are still dying in accidents at home and abroad, too. What would you say if those 4,000 died preventing 40,000 from dying here? Would that of made it worth it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 What would you say if those 4,000 died preventing 40,000 from dying here? Would that of made it worth it? While we're at it, let's assume no one died in the war, and a million people were saved by it. Would it be worth it then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 What would you say if those 4,000 died preventing 40,000 from dying here? Would that of made it worth it? One month in San Francisco and you're already a gay retard? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 One month in San Francisco and you're already a gay retard? So you don't answer hypothetic questions? You just throw out insults? Nice tactic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 So you don't answer hypothetic questions? You just throw out insults? Nice tactic. It's a ridiculous hypothetical. There would be no way of knowing if the 40,000 would have been saved or not by the invasion of Iraq. Would you suck a dick on TV if it meant that 113 people, 2 of which you know well, might not get cancer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 It's a ridiculous hypothetical. There would be no way of knowing if the 40,000 would have been saved or not by the invasion of Iraq. Would you suck a dick on TV if it meant that 113 people, 2 of which you know well, might not get cancer? Is it possible that by having your troops in Iraq could have distracted al queda, and other terrorists groups enough to the point that they were not able to carry out a larger scale operation here? And before you start typing away like a crazed maniac that is a yes or no question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 Is it possible that by having your troops in Iraq could have distracted al queda, and other terrorists groups enough to the point that they were not able to carry out a larger scale operation here? And before you start typing away like a crazed maniac that is a yes or no question. No. Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq to be planning larger scale operations until we asked them there. Besides, that's precisely why they didnt carry out any larger scale operations here, they could kill a ton of Americans there without having to come here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 No. Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq to be planning larger scale operations until we asked them there. I never said they were there before the war. However could the whole reason for the war of been to draw them there and once there keep them occupied and too disjointed to plan further operations here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts