Posted on 12/25/2002 12:05:09 AM PST by Stavka2
Why hasn't Congress done it's job on the war?
Once you start with two strawmen arguments in a row, you lost me for whatever else you may have written.
Congress Passes Iraq Use of Force Resolution
Joint Resolution 114 was debated and passed by the House by a vote of 296-133. Joint Resolution 114 was debated and passed by the Senate by a vote of 77-23.
Congress has debated the issue and passed an authorization of force. Citizens have debated the issue from coast to coast, for and against, in every venue from editorial pages to demonstrations and everybody from the Chinese to the French has debated the issue in the U.N.
Most wars start in relatively short order. This war has been debated ad nauseum to the point that each side has had the opportunity to memorize every argument the opposing side has.
If this does not meet your own personal criteria of a "public debate" or "Congress doing it's job", what does?
Did you expect the U.S. Congress to debate and vote on Joint Resolution 114 in your own living room while you personally chaired the debate and counted the votes?
3. What are the actual costs going to be to the taxpayers of this war, and I don't been some ball park figures but detailed cost estimates? Best/worst case scenarios?
What do you been by that?
The lips of the wise feed many, but fools die for want of understanding.
End of Story
Is this why our borders are still open? This is his method of defense?
Beginning of Story
I have to go to Christmas dinner so I won't have time to debate, but since when does congress make laws? Our laws are made by the courts and the bureaucrats with no public debate whatsoever. What's the difference?
Not as much as the French and Russian's will receive, truth is there is not much BUZZ in the oil patch about it.
Richard W.
You have your head firmly implanted in your own rear is my guess.
Richard W.
Prove that.
Richard W.
Richard W.
I don't know. The unit of largeness is the Nadler, so I'd guess about one milli-nadler of largeness.
--Boris
This is the REAL question you’re asking. Is an innocent American life worth . . . say $1000? $10,000? $100,000?
What is the price you’re willing to pay to protect American lives? Please include in your equation the numbers of American soldiers you’re willing to sacrifice. Should these costs be itemized? Projected and averaged to come down to a bottom-line figure? A figure that, once bridged, brings out the white flags?
If a budget-conscious, all-seeing War God said it would cost $1,000,000,000,000 (I hope that’s one trillion dollars) to completely rid the Earth of terrorists, would that be an acceptable figure? Divided by three hundred million Americans, that would be $3300 for every American. Would that be a good deal?
What if the War God said he could rid the Earth of 50% of the terrorists for the above figure, would it still be a good deal?
25%?
10%?
What is the going rate for freedom now days?
John Stuart Mill said . . . "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety and pocketbook, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." I added “and pocketbook” but, to me, Mill would have added monetary concerns had he thought they would’ve been important to his point.
Do any of us really disagree with Mill?
Unlike others, I don’t have a personal problem with your questions. It’s your right . . . hell, it’s your obligation as an American to ask these type questions. But force-feeding them to others and/or demeaning those who disagree with your questions and/or tactics does no good for your cause. The most altruistic message in the world is often-times camouflaged by the awkward delivery of its messenger.
Speaking only for myself . . . hell, I’m too dumb to answer your questions. I don’t have the time or the brain-power to even begin.
Call me naive. Call me clueless. Call me lazy. Call me a hopeless patriot. Even call me a “mindless bot.” But life’s just isn’t that damn complicated to me.
I rely on my faith to see me through.
I have faith in My God. I have faith in the United States of America. I have faith in George Bush. I have faith in our armed forces. I have faith in the goodness of the American spirit and system. I have faith in my fellow Americans and FReepers to hold the government accountable for every dime that’s spent, for every American life that’s lost, and for every single step that’s taken in this struggle. That’s the beauty of this American experiment of ours.
Alan Keyes said . . . "For some reason, we got the mentality along the way that conservatism was about leaders -- and it never was. It was always about the grass roots, about people who had decided to move for themselves and then created the leaders who corresponded to their needs."
Some say all politics is local. I think they’re wrong, especially when freedom and the safety of American lives are concerned. I believe there comes a time when we have to let the leaders we’ve chosen do just that . . . lead.
Excuse me for continuing to quote others but their words are so much more powerful than mine.
Eric Hoffer said . . . “There can be no real freedom without the freedom to fail.”
And this from St. Augustine of Hippo . . . "The natural order, which is suited to the peace of moral things, requires that the authority and deliberation for undertaking war be under the control of a leader."
George Bush is a leader. I’ve voted for him twice as Governor and once as President. I have faith in George Bush. Maybe you don’t, that’s your right.
Was Bill Clinton a leader? Not to me. While I disagreed with HIM leading us into the Bosnian Conflict, I had no choice under what I call my “Freedom credo” but to swallow my personal distaste of him and accept it. Not without protest, not without questioning the need and cost as you’re doing, and not without serious reservations about him leading us any-damn-where, but I knew then, just as I know now, that the American spirit and system and general goodness of our character would eventually hold him accountable for all the mis-steps he would take. Some say he got away with all his personal shenanigans. I laugh when I hear that. You, me, and millions and millions of others – both now and forever – will punish him every day. Maybe not enough for some, but can you imagine having to plan your itinerary around where you CAN’T go because of protestors? Can you imagine waking up every day KNOWING half your fellow Americans despise you and all you stand for?
Ahh yes, Pee Wee’s being punished. The American system works. Eventually.
Pre-judging this system, wanting ALL the answers to ALL the questions, or even wanting a public debate to be held about ALL the questions, before any action is taken to protect our freedom, perhaps even our very lives, is an admission, IMHO, that the questioner doesn’t truly believe in the system in the first place. That the questioner somehow wants the option to preempt the system. That the questioner is so cynical about his government and leaders that, regardless of the answers or the hours spent debating the questions, they will NEVER be satisfied. They can point out a thousand examples where the system was violated, where America failed, where our leaders let us down. I prefer to think the system worked in each and every case cited . . . because they have the freedom to cite them . . . because they have the opportunity to make things better . . . to make sure we learn from past mistakes. The system, IMHO, worked. The failures, the problems, and the scoundrels are out in the open . . . not hidden in history’s dust-bin.
Am I accusing you of this? No. I don’t know you. I'm saying that I'm personally in the "glass is half-full" crowd.
Okay . . . now . . . You say you want answers before we take any action. You say you want debates. You say you want . . . want, want, want. I say we elected folks to do that for us. I say we should give them our confident support. If not, why did we elect them in the first place?
If we valued our own intelligence so much, if we knew we could do the job better than our elected leaders, if we’re going to question every move they make – before they make them, why didn’t WE RUN FOR PUBLIC OFFICE? We elected them because, supposedly, we had confidence in their judgment. Even if someone is in office that you didn’t vote for, the American system allows you to do something about it. Elect someone else. Run for office yourself. Hell, dive in gasoline and light yourself with a match on MTV – and shout out your objections to anyone who’ll listen. There’s a million ways to have your voice heard.
But freedom can’t wait. Freedom is important enough where uncertainty can’t be a hindrance. “There can be no real freedom without the freedom to fail.”
I say there are no certainties in life. Not after a thousand debates. Not after spending a decade having military and accounting geniuses costing every conceivable option and scenario. There will never be any certainties.
It all, eventually, regardless of time and effort, boils down to one thing. We must have faith. Some think faith is a sign of weakness. I ask . . . “What are we if we’re not a country built on faith?”
Two more quotes and I’ll shut up.
Thomas Paine said . . . “Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must like men undergo the fatigue of supporting it.”
And I couldn’t end without a Ronald Reagan quote . . . "We are not a warlike people. Quite the opposite. We always seek to live in peace. We resort to force infrequently and with great reluctance, and only after we have determined that it is absolutely necessary. We are awed by the forces of destruction loose in the world in the nuclear era, but neither can we be naïve or foolish. Four times in my lifetime America has gone to war, bleeding the lives of its young men into the sands of beachheads, the fields of Europe, and the jungles and rice paddies of Asia. We know only too well that war comes not when the forces of freedom are strong, but when they are weak. It is then that tyrants are tempted."
So ask your questions . . . it’s your duty. But please don’t begrudge me for disagreeing with them or your methods. I’ve seen where dissenters have been called “mindless little bots” and compared to “equally brainwashed democrats.” I’ve see it written that the “hypocracy of the conservatives is staggering” and “I'm sick and tired of these so called "conservatives" who are no better then their leftest counter parts.” Your supporters have been, were it possible, even worse. “Thought police” and “heads implanted in rear ends” aren’t phrases that’ll elicit any debating from reasonable folks.
But tar me as you will . . . and invite your supporters to join in. I have no ego, I just ignore taunts – I’m here to learn something, to see if I can somehow make a positive difference in this screwed up world of ours. But this is your thread, weave it as you will.
I purposefully try not to pre-judge others and I’ve earned the right to expect the same . . . and so have your fellow FReepers. My opinion is just as passionate and powerful and valuable as yours . . . depending on who is doing the grading. You ask for a debate, then get defensive when you’re given one. Were you and those who agree with you goaded into taking the debate to the gutter? Perhaps, but that still doesn’t make it right and, to me, might show some that mud-slinging might’ve been the original intent and the debate angle was used as the carrot.
I prefer to believe your intent was honorable.
You asked . . .
What price freedom?
I ain’t got a clue. But there is NO price I’m personally not willing to pay.
Merry Christmas.
Perhaps you haven't noticed, but debating it is practically all we do. We are locked--Hamlet-like--into a crisis of indecision, waiting for 'permission' from the UN.
"Why hasn't Congress done it's job on the war?"
Which job? Oh, declaring war. Well, probably because the President never asked them to declare war.
"What are the actual costs going to be to the taxpayers of this war, and I don't been some ball park figures but detailed cost estimates? Best/worst case scenarios?"
I dunno. Best case: we nuke all the islamists to hell and go about our business. Say, 100 million bucks for the warheads. Worst-case: we do nothing and an American city turns to dust, smallpox is released in Seattle...a few trillion, I guess.
"Where is the money coming from?"
If you seriously are asking where the money comes from to run the U.S. military, I cannot help you.
How much largeness will the US oil companies and defense industries receive from this war?"
Covered above.
"What happens if the Iraqi oil fields are destroyed and what will be the cost of reopenning them?"
Maybe we'll get over our antipathy to nuclear power. Perhaps we'll have a crash program to exploit methane hydrates. Or maybe we'll just put out the fires like we did last time, move in and own and operate them ourselves.
"What will be the cost of rebuilding Iraq and what is/if there is the plan for this?"
Who cares? That is a problem for Iraq--not us.
"What exact form of government will replace Iraqi Saddam/Batha rule?"
Who cares? That is a problem for Iraq--not us.
"Why is the US negotiating with Iranian mullahs for the government, members of the very organization it opposes in Iran?"
Could you please provide citations? Also it would be helpful if you put your question in English.
"Why is the US negotiating with exiled Iraqi generals who have human rights records worse then Saddam, to include "The Chemist"?"
Could you please provide citations? Also it would be helpful if you put your question in English.
"What happens if Kurdistan declares independence...will this be supported?"
Who cares? That is a problem for Kurdistan--not us.
"What happens if Turkey invades Kurdistan and begins a whole sale slaughter?"
There's a sale?!? I love sales. Anyway, who cares? That is a problem for Kurdistan--not us.
"What happens if Iran invades southern Iraq?"
Who cares? That is a problem for Iraq--not us.
"Since Saddam is such a mad dog and has had chemical weapons for over twenty years, why hasn't he launched them on Israel?"
He is deterred by the thought of Israeli retaliation.
"How will taking out Saddam, a socialist, make the US safer from Islamic terrorists financed by Saudi Arabia and various other emerites?"
I dunno. Myself, I find it strange that Iraq bubbled to the top of the list. Personally, I'd like to see Saudi Arabia nuked, Mecca and Medina reduced to powder, then move on to Iran, Iraq, Libya, Egypt, Pakistan, et al.
"Why have the Saudies been allowed to amass WMD and over 100 missiles?"
Who are the "Saudies"?
"What is the end state in Afghanistan?"
Primitive, smelly nomads, wandering around in a wasteland--just like they were before.
"What happens if Taliban launches offensives during Iraqi war? Where will reinforcements come from since all three participating divisions will also be in Iraq?"
In case you missed it, friend, there is no more Taliban.
"How much is the US willing to spend to rebuild Afghanistan? "
Well, personally I don't make these decisions, but if I did, I'd say "ZERO" would make a real good estimate.
"What happens if Pakistan goes rouge and has nukes?"
As opposed...precisely...to what? They have nukes now. If they start firing them (presumably at India) we drop a warhead on Islamabad.
"Why have oil prices been allowed to climb up to the highest point in 2 years and retail had its worst season in 30 years."
If economists understand the economy, why aren't they all millionaires?
"Why are foreign software engineers still being hired and imported at autrocious rates while domestic workers sit in unemployement?"
Ask Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton.
"Why are Mexicans still being supported as illegals in the US?"
Ask Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton.
"Why is the federal government still pushing for billingual services to these illegals?"
Please provide citations.
"Why was NATO enlargement not even debated seriously, when this causes the US to willingly go to nuclear war for countries such as Romania. When this will cost the tax payer twice as much as last time, to the tune of $65 billion dollars, to subsidize the US military industry in selling systems to poor countries."
Listen, bunky; nobody goes 'willingly to nuclear war' for a rotten pest-hole like Romania.
"Why are US troops still in the Balkins and the US is still backing the KLA?"
I dunno. You tell me.
"Why is the US still giving money to Arafat?"
Because our State Department is still full of Neville Chamberlain wannabes, having been stuffed to the gills by the Clinton Administration and not having been cleaned out by the Bush people.
"Why is the US still spending globs of money, around $10 billion/year, defending Saudi Arabia when it refuses to cooperate with the US?"
I have no idea. Personally I think we should stand aside, let Saddam have their sorry asses, and then nuke the whole works.
"Why are anti Chavez, pro democracy demonstrators not receiving any help?"
Why should we help every Jose, Jorge, and Tomaso who calls himself 'pro-democracy' and arrives with his hand out?
"Why is the Zimbabwean anti Communist opposition not receiving any help?"
Cause we got bigger fish to fry just now.
"Why did the Rumsfield inquiry into waste, fraud and abuse in the US military and National Guard come to such a sudden halt?"
Ran out of money due to waste, fraud and abuse.
"Why is air safety in US airports just as much of a joke still as it was before?"
I don't know. When they shoot down a fully-loaded 757 with an SA-7, maybe it'll improve.
--Boris
American imperialism to support economic excesses in out own country will not be tolerated by the world community. It is the one sure way to assure more terrorism.
Richard W.
These people were flea-bitten nomads, wandering around on top of huge wealth--and completely oblivious until we showed up, gave them the technology to access it, and made them zillionaires. Imperialism, eh? We made them hugely wealthy (at least the rulers, who only rarely seem to give a rat's a$$ about the 'common man') and have trillion-dollar Swiss bank accounts.
We've been paying them handsomely for the oil they could not use; what have we got?...terrorism. Now you suggest that taking the oil will cause terrorism.
If as I suggest we go to nuclear power and learn to exploit methane hydrates, we can kiss them a fond farewell and let them return to the 7th century. Of course, this might anger them and cause terrorism, eh?
Fact: these people understand only power, force, and fear. They respond only to those proven to be stronger and more ruthless. They hate our culture because we are clearly superior and they can't stand the humiliation.
As I have pointed out ('WE' being Western Culture):
• WE can send people to space and the moon, they cannot.
• WE can fly people and goods around the planet; they cannot.
• WE produce medical miracles that heal plagues that have tormented humanity for thousands of years; THEY can only use medical technology as an instrument of terror.
• WE invented computers, electric motors, AC current, the internal combustion engine, communications satellites, robots, miraculous chemicals, steel, composites, superconductors, semiconductors, television, radio, etc....THEY did not.
• The last contribution of the Islamic world to humanity was "Arabic numerals".
This causes an intolerable sense of humiliation to a backward culture which holds itself superior to all others.
This is not about Israel or "imperialism". It is part of a multi-century clash of cultures. Islam is expansionist; its clearly stated aim is to literally convert the entire world to its point of view. A free Western culture must eventually deal with such a threat. We may as well get it over with now, when there are only one billion of them.
--Boris
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.