Letters to the Editor
-
GOT NEWS FOR YOU, BUCKO
Americans started checking their wallets a few years ago and the only ones who have yet to "get it" is the Congress. I demand that Bush's presidential pension be garnished to help pay for this mistake. And just because HE won't admit it was a mistake, doesn't mean he doesn't OWE IT BACK TO US!
-
Bull. Shit.
"the "sticking up for them" consists mostly of sticking up for having more of them, with more costly health care" -- Elephantman
I smell sneering condenscension for those who actually put on a uniform and stand in the ranks. The kind of sneering that comes through when George Will explains why he claimed whe wanted to go to divinity school only until his chances of being drafted diminished. The arrogance of somebody like Jonah "my mom got me this job at NR" Goldberg toward those who did not choose to hang around the cocktail-party circuit of Washington to assert what masculine warriors they are.
Yes, Elephantman, the troops are really just a bunch of recipients of care from a nanny state to you. Why, they actually expect to be PAID instead of going over there to kill Iraqis for free, as the free marketplace would expect them to do!
When I was much younger, those of us sleeping on the roof of an armored vehicle, stoically ignoring the rain, warming ourselves by standing behind the idling engines of a Chinook, eating crap out of cans and otherwise doing our best all knew that people like you sneered down your noses at us when.
Do you have to make it so obvious?
-- MAV in Florida
If you ever heard an extended monologue from Secretary Rumsfeld, you know that he never tired of praising the enormous talents and the unbelievable courage and conviction of the troops.
But of course, he had to oversee writing the checks, too.
Rumsfeld didn't want a lesser Army, just a smaller one, that could do more with fewer people. Rumsfeld's critics, like Gen. Barry McCaffrey, are in the business of doing more with more.
Remember it is nutballs like Charlie Rangel who proposed a new draft in the 21st century. Rumsfeld, on the other hand, derided the notion. Rumsfeld wanted an army of intelligent, motivated volunteers. Rangel apparently wants an army of people who hate the military.
-
The most interesting part of the game is..
The most interesting part of the game is the fact that the USA has lost, as the result of this war, its influence in the region. The price of incometent president and the heavily corrupted congress is calculated in trillions of dollars. But Hillary Clinton, another perfect example of incompetence, high handedness and corruption, is still in the presidential race. Americans never learn, do they not?
-
@bird94
"The constant repitition of "here's how the Iraq war was a bad thing now that we have the advantage of hindsight, and by the way, Bush sucks" articles makes me wonder, why does no one ever bring up the cost, in dollars or lives, of World War II?"
Comparing the Iraq war and WWII is like comparing apples and oranges.
I think, if I remember correctly, WWII was great for the economy. One could even make the argument that it wasn't FDR's social programs that finally got the United States out of its depression, but the massive mobilization of American industry. It's the reason why conventional wisdom has said that wars are good for the economy. Out of the horror of that time period, America emerged a stronger country because of WWII. Unfortunately, the Iraq war may very well prove the exception to the rule. There's been no massive mobilization of american industry. How many new jobs has the war created? And how many Americans are willing to risk life and limb to travel to Iraq to work at those new jobs? I almost wish that we were real imperial overlords and just took over the country so we the American people could get something out of it. At least we should be getting cheaper oil. Security is all well and good, but we're Americans; we need cash, too.
I know that history will tell whether or not it was a good idea to invade Iraq, but at this point, with us plunking down 3 trillion mostly borrowed dollars, an imploding housing market, rising oil prices (which of course benefit big business so may have been the point all along) the outlook doesn't look too good.
-
the cold price of hot blood
On one screen I have the interview done on democracy now with the authors of this book. On the other I have a recent interview of Bush. Bush is asked if he thinks the war is effecting the economy. He says "No I don't think so, in fact it could even be good. The problem we are having is because we built too many houses."
-
Question
Does the $3 trillion include what it would have cost to run all our armed forces for the same time period if there had not been a war, or is the amount over and above that? I've never been quite clear on that.
-
Rumsfeld?
Why are you bringing up Rumseld? Like just about every other chickenshit bastard associated with this debacle, he has cut his losses and resigned. Yeah, good old Rumsfeld didn't have the balls to see it through, did he?
The facts are what they are. Three fucking TRILLION dollars. Close to 4,000 soldiers dead (at least that's the "official" number), hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, and countless numbers of severely disabled veterans.
You own it, Elephantman. I hope you all rot in hell.
-
@stackey-dackey
In some ways, the Iraq war and WWII are very different, but my point in comparing them was to illustrate the underlying reasons for fighting, which go beyond money.
There seems to be a belief held by some that others, like myself, only believe that the Iraq war was the right thing to do because we either don't know that bad things happen in war, or don't realize how much money it's costing us. That's why filmmakers like Brian dePalma accuse "the media" of not promoting his movie enough, because he believes that if we see that people are getting killed in Iraq, we'll instantly change our minds and demand a retreat. Or people write books like this one because they believe that if we see that the war costs a lot of money, we'll tell the Iraqi people, "Whoa. We care, but not THAT much," and go home. That's not why we fought in the past, and that's not why we're fighting now.
I don't believe that war is good or cheap, or that injury or death aren't bad, but I do believe that war is sometimes the only way to solve a problem. We live in a world where a few people with suitcases can kill thousands, and we can't afford to wait for them to attack anymore.
You also raise a great point about the post-war economy. We'd all do well to remember that it was industry, and not massive social programs, that got us out of the Depression.