One point - this budget has the possibility to lower the deficit, but does so by cutting to the bone social programs such as HUD, education, environmental protections, etc… I am dead certain that any further cuts required to fund the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan won’t come out of the DOD’s budget and don’t look likely to come out of oilfield profits from the region either considering that the last time I looked we were still importing gas and oil into Iraq for vital services.
Not that this budget is likely to pass - I can’t imagine even the notoriously short-sighted Republicans supporting this farce.
The budget is a big shell game. That’s all. There will be no decrease in national debt, no balancing of the books, just poorly planned chaos accompanied by jingoistic hogwash. In one thing, I agree with Ryan_Liam. We started a war, we brought down their govenment. Now we have to make sure the Iraqis get a fair chance to get things organized - after all, if we bail out right now, there will be a power vacuum and possibly civil war. We can’t set an arbitrary timetable for withdrawal because that would only cause the troublemakers to start watching the calendar. I was against the war, I still am. But if we leave the place the way it is, it could be even worse than before.
I don’t think we will ever get a balanced budget or even ay straight answers from the administration in the near future. Last night, there was a reporter/news analyst on TV. He said some (to me) very chilling things. He said the administration et al have their own personal crusade, to spread their view of “freedom” throughout the world. It is their Prime Directive, and takes priority over everything. It takes priority over the budget, public welfare, everything. He said that according to Wolfowitz (I didn’t verify), the reason Bush kept harping on WMD was because it would be easier to sell to us than the “freedom thing”.
Finally, he claims that the Social Security “reforms” are a sham. Our SS tax money will go into “private” accounts OK, but at the end we will not get any windfalls, and will not get what we paid in; we will get an annuity, even smaller than we get now. I have no cites, other than these claims, and have not had time to verify. But it all has the ring of truth.
Right, because it is impossible for ethnic majorities, let alone minorities, to govern without the consent of other ethnic groups. The history of African political stability is a testament to this iron law of governance.
Excuse me? The point of this thread is that the US seems to be reaching it’s breaking limit. We’re in some pretty bad shape financially if we don’t make some tough decisions now. I say start cutting foreign aid first, then cut our services second.
Well according to OBL it was for meddling in the affairs of other countries. Looks like my idea of telling countries they’re on their own would solve two problems.
As we’ve seen, I don’t think the Sunnis let alone Kurds will take it lying down, will they?
I thought it was more of our bias towards the Israeli Palestine situation, where it appeared we didn’t give two shits about them.
Yes, of course you are. :rolleyes:
Chavs? I was quoting an excellent insult from the legend that was Peter Cook of his Derek and Clive recordings
And we all know Chavs are anti war
This is hillarious, so I should shut up because you don’t like my opinion? Man, free speech is a kick in the balls isn’t it?
Yet the Sunnis have respected the choice the electorate chosen, and want to take part in the drafting of the constitution. Of course the Kurds are advocating an independent state, but they’re not stupid. They won’t throw away all they’ve gained in the coming months on a declaration of independence, they’ll get what they want eventually, but this will be in generations to come. They are fully advocating a federalised Iraqi state, which will guarantee their self governing status.
Yes, 99% of the Sunni population are in a war against the rest of them? Are you blind to the fact people accomodate such assholes so they won’t get killed? Or how if they speak out, they get killed? Are you blind to the fact that even when Sunni turnout was low, it was to a large part of the violence and not the boycott? Trying to portray Iraq as a disaster is ludicrous.
Oh look, Baghdad, a Sunni and Shia split city, turnout was at 95%
Iraq is not a disaster. I’ll support the newly formed government as much as the interim one that was before it. Instead of attacking Iraqis for electing who they want, and deciding their own choices, we should rally around them.
I’m not here to make you laugh, or to entertain you, I’m giving you my opinion. If you don’t like it, don’t read it and fuck off.
You: Everything will be fine, minority X will get along with majority Y no prob. Us: Well there are plenty of examples were this isn’t the case You: you think Arabs are too violent and can’t be democratic
WTF?
Can you even see that HISTORICALLY, there is a good chance these people will not get along?
Ryan: *Oh look, Baghdad, a Sunni and Shia split city, turnout was at 95% *
Do you have a cite for that? My understanding was that turnout in Baghdad was lower than average, particularly due to low turnout in the Sunni-majority districts like al-Yarmuk and al-Amariya. Maybe you were referring specifically to some Shia-majority districts of Baghdad?
I understand. When I refer to, say, the failures of representative government in Ghana due to tribal rivalry, I am really saying that Arabs are too violent for democracy.
Perhaps you can correct my misunderstandings regarding the collapse of cocoa production in Ghana and the concomitant persecution of the Ashanti. Thanks in advance.
We can’t pay our full rent and bills, yet we’re giving away piles of money to charity. All I’m suggesting is put the charity on hold, and take care of our responsibilities first.
I’m sorry, but, what has this got to do with Iraq?
Exactly. I don’t share your view of Arabs not being able to attain representative government just because you don’t approve of the methods.
Yep, but one can see such examples in Europe itself, the unification of Scots and English peoples, two groups of people who were constantly at war with the other, yet remain unified in a single state. Strange no?
Yes, I do see the dangers, the ways in which Iraq can Yugoslav itself easily, but I also see the average Iraqis desire to see the country stay together, to not break apart, for things to improve without genocide being committed in the same of having a seperate identity.
Yes, charity, except if you don’t keep giving and helping the Iraqis to learn themselves how to defend their people against terror, then it’s all for nothing. Pulling out will signal exactly that, it was for nothing. I however disagree.
How and where do you see the “average” Iraqis desire for their country to stay together? Do you live in Bagdad?
Dude, I didn’t even mention Iraq. I’m saying this country is living beyond our means, and I drew up an example that even a 5-year old could understand.
Stop applying everything we say to Iraq, ok?
Callous? Exchanging the suffering of one set of people for an unrelated set of people? I should say we’re calloous because more people are dying in Sudan then ever will in Iraq, yet we don’t lift a finger. If I had a choice where the money went, it would go to Sudan before Iraq.
What people, apart from Kurds, have wanted to see Iraq fracture?
Yes, the old ‘you’re childish’ method. I knew what you said, and I know that a large proportion of aid is going to the country I specified, thats why I mentioned it.
