Exactly.doublem wrote:Well that depends, doesn't it? Every day isn't a gift to a person that doesn't have to suffer with pain and a incurable disease. For some people sure life is a gift for others it's a nightmare. It should be left up to them on how they want to live it or if at all.and i patently disagree with the idea that prolonging life is a waste. every day you have is a gift.
Agreed on both counts.bh wrote:Great post. At this point I think bankrupcy is inevitable.GaryRissling wrote:Obama set to announce a troop surge of at least 25k for Afghanistan next week:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 929794.ece" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I have a question, though, regarding Afghanistan: from a national security perspective, I can't quite figure out what a "victory" in Afghanistan would actually look like. If we take Sec Hillary's word, victory is making sure Afghanistan is no longer a staging point for terrorists; yet, given that we are dealing with a narco-state and currently allied forces are paying the hostiles not to shoot at them, it would seem to me that this simple-to-understand goal would take decades and probably trillions of dollars to accomplish. But even assuming that this can be done, and we can afford to do it, what happens when the very transient terrorists move to destabilize nuclear-armed Pakistan (which is already happening)? This doesn't seem like a very good trade-off IMO. But let's say that we are able to contain Afghanistan and Pakistan - what are we going to do when the terrorists move to another 3rd-world country? Are we going to nation-build every 3rd world country to a point where they are no longer corrupt and are willing an able to police themselves for our national security? If I were a terrorist and was serious about bringing down the US, I'd play this cat-and-mouse game until the US went bankrupt - which really may not take very long.
On what?Guinness wrote:Exactly.doublem wrote:Well that depends, doesn't it? Every day isn't a gift to a person that doesn't have to suffer with pain and a incurable disease. For some people sure life is a gift for others it's a nightmare. It should be left up to them on how they want to live it or if at all.and i patently disagree with the idea that prolonging life is a waste. every day you have is a gift.
Wait. What?
Sure you don't want to restate your comment?
A person is going to be entitled to decide for themselves how long they hang on to life when their insurance is tied to "the greater good"?doublem wrote:
On what?
That's not what I was referring to. I'm talking about the romantic/poetic idea that all life is a gift despite whatever horrible ailment destroys your body and life. The idea that you should just be happy to be alive even when all hope is gone of ever getting better is let's just say IMO upsetting.Guinness wrote:A person is going to be entitled to decide for themselves how long they hang on to life when their insurance is tied to "the greater good"?doublem wrote:
On what?
The fact is, giving in to bullying by Kirk, CNBC's Larry Kudlow, New Hampshire's Judd Gregg and the rest of what some have rightly called "the pain caucus" would only further deepen the economic misery in the United States and sour the US-China relationship. "In short term we are very worried about the domestic politics of the United States," says Zha Xiaogang, a fellow at the Institute for Economic Comparative Studies, who focuses on US-China relations. "We can expect the US unemployment rate will stay high, and will possibly cause US domestic political pressure" for what Zha calls "protectionist" measures.
doublem wrote:It should be left up to them on how they want to live it or if at all.
Right, so I guess you'd want to restate that then.doublem wrote: That's not what I was referring to. I'm talking about the romantic/poetic idea that all life is a gift despite whatever horrible ailment destroys your body and life. The idea that you should just be happy to be alive even when all hope is gone of ever getting better is let's just say IMO upsetting.
These are excellent points.GaryRissling wrote:Are we going to nation-build every 3rd world country to a point where they are no longer corrupt and are willing an able to police themselves for our national security? If I were a terrorist and was serious about bringing down the US, I'd play this cat-and-mouse game until the US went bankrupt - which really may not take very long.
I believe my criticism is clearly directed at both parties, and nearly all pundits so there's no real need to take up the official WH defense position. Not trying to wind you up here, but I'm seriously wondering if, after January these guys are going to be able to stop using the phrase "for the past eight years" to explain their lack of progress.HomerPenguin wrote:These are excellent points.GaryRissling wrote:Are we going to nation-build every 3rd world country to a point where they are no longer corrupt and are willing an able to police themselves for our national security? If I were a terrorist and was serious about bringing down the US, I'd play this cat-and-mouse game until the US went bankrupt - which really may not take very long.
And you were where, again, when Junior decided to take us all on his excellent adventure to Baghdad?
It seems to me we are a nation fighting endless wars and accomplishing nothing. Actaully, its hurting American troops more then anything.Sarcastic wrote:So apparently we're sending +/- 35,000 more soldiers to Afghanistan. Well, duh. I knew he was going to from the start. Maybe he hesitated because he said he would end the war. Now he's going to have to explain it to people. I'm actually for taking out the Taliban, but at what cost and is that even possible?
We're already out of money. I can't believe how many years we've been over there already when I really think about it sometimes.
Whatever happened to that show Over There? That was so good.
I'm not asking where your criticism is being directed now. I'm asking where your criticism was seven years ago, six years ago, five years ago.GaryRissling wrote:I believe my criticism is clearly directed at both parties,
I haven't said a word about Obama's lack of progress. But did Junior's G.I. Joe adventure to Iraq not cost money, money that added to our deficits, deficits that added to the national debt, the massive debt that we're now wrestling with? As far as I'm concerned, and this has absolutely nothing to do with Obama, but every pundit and private citizen who voted and/or called on people to re-elect GWB in 2004, and is now complaining about deficits, is a raging hypocrite. And really, really not worth listening to on matters political.and nearly all pundits so there's no real need to take up the official WH defense position. Not trying to wind you up here, but I'm seriously wondering if, after January these guys are going to be able to stop using the phrase "for the past eight years" to explain their lack of progress.
That was actually Iraq that he promised to end and then didn't. In Afghanistan he promised to refocus on getting al-Qaeda and then didn't. Sticking to nation-building in a place where no nation exists and the "elected" government is basically an opium cartel, that's what he'll have to explain.Sarcastic wrote:So apparently we're sending +/- 35,000 more soldiers to Afghanistan. Well, duh. I knew he was going to from the start. Maybe he hesitated because he said he would end the war. Now he's going to have to explain it to people.
I think there is a thing called, "realizing one was wrong and changing their mind" which I view as a good thing.HomerPenguin wrote:I haven't said a word about Obama's lack of progress. But did Junior's G.I. Joe adventure to Iraq not cost money, money that added to our deficits, deficits that added to the national debt, the massive debt that we're now wrestling with? As far as I'm concerned, and this has absolutely nothing to do with Obama, but every pundit and private citizen who voted and/or called on people to re-elect GWB in 2004, and is now complaining about deficits, is a raging hypocrite. And really, really not worth listening to on matters political.
Given Obama's campaign promises regarding closing Gitmo and bringing troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan, and the subsequent reality; what on god's green (and cooling) earth makes you believe that Kerry would have done anything different? Especially considering Kerry is Obama's advisor on Afghanistan. Can you honestly tell me things would have been different? Afghanistan, Iraq, Gitmo, Patriot Act, TARP, etc. It would have been exactly the same.HomerPenguin wrote:I'm not asking where your criticism is being directed now. I'm asking where your criticism was seven years ago, six years ago, five years ago.GaryRissling wrote:I believe my criticism is clearly directed at both parties,
I haven't said a word about Obama's lack of progress. But did Junior's G.I. Joe adventure to Iraq not cost money, money that added to our deficits, deficits that added to the national debt, the massive debt that we're now wrestling with? As far as I'm concerned, and this has absolutely nothing to do with Obama, but every pundit and private citizen who voted and/or called on people to re-elect GWB in 2004, and is now complaining about deficits, is a raging hypocrite. And really, really not worth listening to on matters political.and nearly all pundits so there's no real need to take up the official WH defense position. Not trying to wind you up here, but I'm seriously wondering if, after January these guys are going to be able to stop using the phrase "for the past eight years" to explain their lack of progress.
I can't honestly tell you anything about a hypothetical. That's a gift you apparently have, but I don't. But "anybody else would have been just as bad" is a novel conception of the Bush presidency. I can't share it, but again that's because I'm so limited on the topic of things that never happened.GaryRissling wrote:Given Obama's campaign promises regarding closing Gitmo and bringing troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan, and the subsequent reality; what on god's green (and cooling) earth makes you believe that Kerry would have done anything different? Especially considering Kerry is Obama's advisor on Afghanistan. Can you honestly tell me things would have been different? Afghanistan, Iraq, Gitmo, Patriot Act, TARP, etc. It would have been exactly the same.
Yeah, I suppose. There's also a thing called, "I don't care what they do when it's my party (or my guy) doing it, but I'll scream like a banshee when the other party does it." We've got some of both going on right now, but in what proportion I can't say.bh wrote:I think there is a thing called, "realizing one was wrong and changing their mind" which I view as a good thing.HomerPenguin wrote:I haven't said a word about Obama's lack of progress. But did Junior's G.I. Joe adventure to Iraq not cost money, money that added to our deficits, deficits that added to the national debt, the massive debt that we're now wrestling with? As far as I'm concerned, and this has absolutely nothing to do with Obama, but every pundit and private citizen who voted and/or called on people to re-elect GWB in 2004, and is now complaining about deficits, is a raging hypocrite. And really, really not worth listening to on matters political.
As I said in another thread, the lack of critical thinking in this country is a serious problem.HomerPenguin wrote:I can't honestly tell you anything about a hypothetical. That's a gift you apparently have, but I don't. But "anybody else would have been just as bad" is a novel conception of the Bush presidency. I can't share it, but again that's because I'm so limited on the topic of things that never happened.GaryRissling wrote:Given Obama's campaign promises regarding closing Gitmo and bringing troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan, and the subsequent reality; what on god's green (and cooling) earth makes you believe that Kerry would have done anything different? Especially considering Kerry is Obama's advisor on Afghanistan. Can you honestly tell me things would have been different? Afghanistan, Iraq, Gitmo, Patriot Act, TARP, etc. It would have been exactly the same.
There's also such a thing as, "de-legitimize everything someone has to say based upon one position they may or may not have taken for whatever reason half-a-decade ago". That's pretty much the standard tactic in political discourse; especially the MO of the political media.HomerPenguin wrote: Yeah, I suppose. There's also a thing called, "I don't care what they do when it's my party (or my guy) doing it, but I'll scream like a banshee when the other party does it." We've got some of both going on right now, but in what proportion I can't say.
Well, hopefully it is a lot more of the former and much less of the latter. I understand your frustration though. I personally know a bunch of people that fit your description.HomerPenguin wrote:Yeah, I suppose. There's also a thing called, "I don't care what they do when it's my party (or my guy) doing it, but I'll scream like a banshee when the other party does it." We've got some of both going on right now, but in what proportion I can't say.bh wrote:I think there is a thing called, "realizing one was wrong and changing their mind" which I view as a good thing.HomerPenguin wrote:I haven't said a word about Obama's lack of progress. But did Junior's G.I. Joe adventure to Iraq not cost money, money that added to our deficits, deficits that added to the national debt, the massive debt that we're now wrestling with? As far as I'm concerned, and this has absolutely nothing to do with Obama, but every pundit and private citizen who voted and/or called on people to re-elect GWB in 2004, and is now complaining about deficits, is a raging hypocrite. And really, really not worth listening to on matters political.