The heart of the matter...

[Neuro Axis]

There are those that would say "Well, I would gladly have Bush spend another $87 billion to keep me safe". I would too, if it had any realy hope of keeping us safe.

Imagine if we were attacked right now, the largest budget deficit in American history (which was record-setting even before the extra $87 billion was requested), troops spread thin in a war bng fought on two different fronts - Afghanistan and Iraq. In the former, the US and British only have control over one city and the rest have fallen to the control of war-lords. On the latter, troops are bng attacked more than twelve times a day, and dying on a daily basis as a result.

The effects of an attack would be devastating, with no money and little troops to muster up a retaliation.

You can attribute it to the Clinton economy, or to the late-blooming windfall of Reaganomics, or to the man on the moon for all I care, but the fact is that there were $281 billion extra dollars in spending cash when Bush was inagurated 32 months ago, and he predicted a $5.6 trillion surplus by 2011 resulting from his economic plans. That figure was recently updated to a $3.2 trillion cumulative deficit by 2011 (according to the Congressional Budget Office). That's a difference of $8 trillion, as much revenue as the US government took in from 1789 to 1983.

Yes, I know that September 11th happened; none of us need any reminding that the 9/11 attacks changed the global theater forever. But we have been asked to accept massive enfringements on our civil liberties, supression of dissenting opinions, and the biggest budget deficit in US history as necessary adaptations to this new political theater. What we need, what we must demand now, are results that can justify these horrible things.

"It has really been a Miltonian experience, from the hghths to the depths." - Robert D. Rschauer, a former director of the Congressional Budget Office, invoking "Paradise Lost" as a metaphor for the budget's fall.

________
Bali Recipes (http://www.cooking-chef.com/bali/)

[SuffolkMD]

Neuro,

You think that if we are attacked, it would be devastating??? You sure don't have any faith in your countrymen, do you?

And your post is a little misleading. You must use the deficit in the sense of percentage of GDP to make sense out if it, since inflation is always going to make the dollar amount go higher. And if you use this standard, it is NOT the biggest deficit in the history of the US. This is also confirmed by the Congressional Budget office.

What is your solution to the problem? Should we not spend any money there? For that matter, should we not spend money anywhere?

I'm glad we spent money in Japan and Germany after WWII, I now get to drive Toyotas and Mercedes.

And guess what, we still have troops in Japan 60 years later, and look, the sky is not falling!!.

By the way, what dissenting opinions have been suppressed?

SuffolkMD
________
FORD XY FALCON PICTURE (http://www.ford-wiki.com/wiki/Ford_XY_Falcon)

[Neuro Axis]

Quote: You think that if we are attacked, it would be devastating??? You sure don't have any faith in your countrymen, do you?

It has nothing to do with my faith in the ability of our armed forces to effect a retaliation. It has everything to do with the fact that we are engaged in a two-front war, spread thin on both fronts, losing troops on both fronts on a daily basis, and have massive debt here at home.

Quote:And your post is a little misleading. You must use the deficit in the sense of percentage of GDP to make sense out if it, since inflation is always going to make the dollar amount go higher. And if you use this standard, it is NOT the biggest deficit in the history of the US. This is also confirmed by the Congressional Budget office.

Well, all distraction and linguistic gymnastics aside, the fact still remains that this is a huge debt that will have massive effects on the poor, the young, and the old.

Quote: What is your solution to the problem? Should we not spend any money there? For that matter, should we not spend money anywhere?

Just because I disagree with the methods and tactics of this war on terror doesn't mean that I think that we shouldn't spend money on defence, or that I think terrorism should not be opposed, or that I don't think money should be spent anywhere, don't know what dark crevace of your ass you pulled that one out of.

The reason I oppose the War on Terror and think it should be abandoned is that it has no potential of putting an end to terrorism, quite the contrary, it appears by all respect to be creating more terror. It's like your friend buying a car with no engine and then when he decided to get a new one you say "well, give it a chance, it could still start going, shouldn't you be loyal to your purchase?"

Quote: I'm glad we spent money in Japan and Germany after WWII, I now get to drive Toyotas and Mercedes.

Well that's really what matters isn't it?

Quote:And guess what, we still have troops in Japan 60 years later, and look, the sky is not falling!!.

If an A-bomb were dropped on Iraq I think it would change the mood of the people quite a bit.

Quote: By the way, what dissenting opinions have been suppressed?

Maybe I worded it wrong, what would make more sense would be to say that we were asked to supress our dissenting opinions in order to suport the troops. It's a really effective propaganda campaign-one of the most successful probably-that has been in place since World War II. The implication that it relies on is that anyone who opposes the war or that tactics of the war is against the troops. It's completley absurd, the idea that someone who opposes the war would wish death upon the troops. No serious commentator goes on some public forum and says "we are against the troops, we want them dead." No one who opposes the war holds this stance, yet people still get some holier-than-thou kick out of saying, "I support the troops (unlike you unpatriotic disloyal motherfuckers)."

The Dixie Chicks albums were burned in effigy in response to a comment made about Bush during a concert in England. You had commentators on radio and TV saying that they should be sent to the frontlines in Iraq, or thrown into the hands of the Taliban, it's really disgusting. The reaction would predictably have been much different if they had praised the war in face of English opposition on stage.

Micheal Moore was booed on the stage of the Academy Awards for stating a fact - that there was a period, brief as it was, when a majority of people in this country opposed the war. This is supposed to be a democracy, where the government acts as outlets and officers of the will of the people, not in spite of the will of the people. That sounds more like an imperial power or a dictatorship to me. But the fact that he was booed didn't really bother me. It would be hypocritical to say that he has the right to oppose the war but others do not have the right to disagree with him. The thing that bothered me was when you had all these commentators saying that he has a right to his opinion but it was on the wrong forum or all that other nonsense.

Scott Ritter is probably the best example. When the buildup to the Iraq war began, he became a minor celebrity again, that is until he expressed his well-informed view that Iraq does not, and probably will not be able to obtain or produce the technology required to produce weapons of mass destruction for at l another 70 years. From then on, he was cast out of the spotlight, denounced as a traitor by all the usual suspects - O'Rley, Hannity, Limbaugh, and others.










________
PISSING GAY (http://www.fucktube.com/categories/823/gay/videos/1)