How will McCain pay for all the war he's promising?

[#6]

What do you think he'll get for it?

don't remember who said it, but...

those who sell freedom to gain security willl get neither...(paraphrased)

[#6]

What do you base this on? Almost everyone on the front lines now say it is. Certainly not a lock but things are MUCH better since the surge, so much so that they have anounced a reduction in troops. If the military thinks a reduction is call for, thing are definately getting better. Almost all the stats bear this out as well.

 

 

this is an interesting question, and not a simplistic one either...

 

certainly US casualties have dropped...but conflict casualties in general have not...yesterday there were 50 deaths from bombings...

 

if the point of the surge was to protect us troops, then its working...if the point was to settle the general conflict, then its not...

[NeonVomit]

That's the point. when we started military bases in most of those other contries, they weren't exactly economic meccas either.

 

 

Oh come on. Please don't tell me you honestly believe Iraq will be anything more than a rock-strewn hellhole. Most Iraqis certainly don't believe that. Nor does anyone else who actually lives in this part of the world, and I meet and talk to people from everywhere around the area every day here (I work with shipping companies at the port in my part-time gig).

 

Saudi Arabia and Korea had the US come in as allies to fight off foreign agression, so US forces were welcomed at the time. Japan was already a world power before the US arrived, and so rebuilt itself with a similar (albiet pacifistic) model. Italy and Germany fall into the same category, they had proved themselves capable of achieving greathood as a nation (which was one of the reasons WWII broke out). There wasn't any interior conflict in these countries either during the occupation period.

[mmb]

Except in Iraq they'll still be getting blown up. Unless it experiences a period of phenomenal economic development like every other nation that troops have been stationed in (like Korea or Japan).

 

 

Who's to say that there won't be once the government stabilizes there? It's not like a nation can stabilize in 10 years or 20 years to the point that Japan and Korea have, that will take time.

 

Wasn't the best idea in the world to go into Iraq, but we can't pull out now just because it's not popular to be there. We, for better or worse, made a mess and need to clean it up.

 

You don't piss on someone's rug and not expect something to come of it.

 

Iraq really tied the Middle East together, Dude.

[picker13]

He won't have any trouble paying for it. Between the increased taxes and all the oil he'll "appropriate" from the Iragi people, no problemo!

[thelurker]

My favorite part of this whole debate is that among the presidents since I was 10 years old, the republicans (reagan, bush 1, bush 2) have been the ones to spend huge amounts and create massive deficits, which the democrat (clinton) has run balanced budgets...yet, people still have the impression of democrats being the big spenders... mccain will pay for it like all republicans have...by making the kids pay for it...later, when hes dead

 

 

Not exactly true. The President's budget is sent to congress, but is not necessarily (and usually not at all) the budget that is passed. Reagan's budgets were routinely declared DOA by the democratic house, who then passed their own budget. Reagan signed because a government shutdown was considered anathema, and without a line-item veto, vetoing the budget was considered bad form. The same issues faced Bush I. Clinton kept pushing out the timeline for a balanced budget, finally a Republican congress came in and enforced it on him. He, however, kept using military equipment and people in little "non-wars" like Haiti, Bosnia (still there, BTW), and shooting the occasional Cruise missle (actually lots of them, depleting our stockpiles), and kept his budget down by not replacing them.

 

Bush II has not been as good at reining in the budget, but also is fighting a real war, while re-stocking the military. This is much harder to do than leaving it to the next guy.

 

 

BTW, only last week, Howard Dean sent out the talking points, specifically including the "100 years of war" point, which has taken less than a week to come to fruition. Who are the independent thinkers, and who are the sheeple here?

 

 

Here's a dated link where the actual memo is posted...

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?oneday=2008-02-06

[thelurker]

He won't have any trouble paying for it. Between the increased taxes and all the oil he'll "appropriate" from the Iragi people, no problemo!

Right, like we have now? The price of oil is high because demand is up and supply is down. If we were getting so much "free oil" from Iraq, which incidentally just passed the monthly mark for pre-invasion output, that wouldn't be happening, and prices would be falling because of it.

[lug]

Oh come on. Please don't tell me you honestly believe Iraq will be anything more than a rock-strewn hellhole. Most Iraqis certainly don't believe that. Nor does anyone else who actually lives in this part of the world, and I meet and talk to people from everywhere around the area every day here (I work with shipping companies at the port in my part-time gig). Saudi Arabia and Korea had the US come in as allies to fight off foreign agression, so US forces were welcomed at the time. Japan was already a world power before the US arrived, and so rebuilt itself with a similar (albiet pacifistic) model. Italy and Germany fall into the same category, they had proved themselves capable of achieving greathood as a nation (which was one of the reasons WWII broke out). There wasn't any interior conflict in these countries either during the occupation period.

 

 

And you feel this will go on in Iraq for the next 100 years? Ecologically, there is very little difference between Saudi Arabia and Iraq, both having oil reserves to easyly fund their repective countries. The difference is one is stable and the other isn't. The goal is to make the other stable.

[lug]

this is an interesting question, and not a simplistic one either... certainly US casualties have dropped...but conflict casualties in general have not...yesterday there were 50 deaths from bombings... if the point of the surge was to protect us troops, then its working...if the point was to settle the general conflict, then its not...

 

 

Latest data of civilian deaths by month

 

Feb-08 325

Jan-08 554

Dec-07 548

Nov-07 560

Oct-07 679

Sep-07 848

Aug-07 1,674

Jul-07 1,690

Jun-07 1,345

May-07 1,980

Apr-07 1,821

Mar-07 2,977

Feb-07 3,014

Jan-07 1,802

Dec-06 1,752

Nov-06 1,864

Oct-06 1,539

Sep-06 3,539

Aug-06 2,966

Jul-06 1,280

Jun-06 870

May-06 1,119

Apr-06 1,009

Mar-06 1,092

Feb-06 846

Jan-06 779

 

Certainly going down.

[NeonVomit]

And you feel this will go on in Iraq for the next 100 years? Ecologically, there is very little difference between Saudi Arabia and Iraq, both having oil reserves to easily fund their repective countries. The difference is one is stable and the other isn't. The goal is to make the other stable.

*sigh* I said nothing about 100 years. I said that US troops will be there for a long, long while yet, but it certainly will not be anything peachy like the other places you mentioned...

As for Saudi Arabia... a true model of a nation, something the US can stand by and support

If that's the sort of stability the US hopes to implement...

[Craig Vecchione]

 

so, by the same logic, reagan gets no credit for any gains during the 80's? ok, i'll go with that...but.... the gop also claims its more fically responsible, on of its core planks...but that is plainly a lie...also, they claim to be in favor of small govt, but the of the 3 presidents who most expanded the federal govt (FDR, Reagan, Bush2) two are GOP. My point is not that the dems are great, its that the republicans say one thing, and do another, and are never called on it

 

 

 

Yes, Reagan gets no credit from me for the economy of the 80's. Not that it was really all that great anyway. It just seemed like Utopia compared with the 70's.

 

So the Reps say one thing, do another, but not the Dems? Please.....they all say whatever it'll take to get elected.

 

Regarding government expansion, let's not forget that once again, it's Congress, not the President, who have total say and control over this. And FDR, Reagan, and Bush's 2nd term have all been presidency's with Democratic, not Republican, majorities in Congress. So who expanded government?

[Craig Vecchione]

*sigh* I said nothing about 100 years. I said that US troops will be there for a long, long while yet, but it certainly will not be anything peachy like the other places you mentioned... As for Saudi Arabia... a true model of a nation, something the US can stand by and support If that's the sort of stability the US hopes to implement...

 

What does a cultural/religious issue like roses and Valentine's Day have to do with their stability? Are you implying that we should not respect their diversity?

[Jugghaid]

Yes, Reagan gets no credit from me for the economy of the 80's. Not that it was really all that great anyway. It just seemed like Utopia compared with the 70's. So the Reps say one thing, do another, but not the Dems? Please.....they all say whatever it'll take to get elected. Regarding government expansion, let's not forget that once again, it's Congress, not the President, who have total say and control over this. And FDR, Reagan, and Bush's 2nd term have all been presidency's with Democratic, not Republican, majorities in Congress. So who expanded government?

 

 

Actually, when the economy is good, I think the credit should go to the hard working people who actually create and support the economy. Not politicians. Same for when it's bad.

 

 

But hey......what do I know?

[thelurker]

Italy and Germany fall into the same category, they had proved themselves capable of achieving greathood as a nation (which was one of the reasons WWII broke out). There wasn't any interior conflict in these countries either during the occupation period.

 

 

Actually Germany was quite tumultuous after WWII. The New York Times was publishing articles in 1947 and 48 about haow the U.S. had "Won the war and lost the peace". Sound familiar? There were "wolfpacks", groups of insurgents (true insurgents, German nationals, not foreign nationals) committing terrorist style attacks in the post-war period.

[BassMaster General]

What do you base this on? Almost everyone on the front lines now say it is. Certainly not a lock but things are MUCH better since the surge, so much so that they have anounced a reduction in troops. If the military thinks a reduction is call for, thing are definately getting better. Almost all the stats bear this out as well.

 

 

As long as the "truce" remains with al-Sadr. The death toll begins to drop last Aug. when the truce went into effect, and has certainly helped keep things more stable lately. But if that gives out....?

[lug]

As long as the "truce" remains with al-Sadr. The death toll begins to drop last Aug. when the truce went into effect, and has certainly helped keep things more stable lately. But if that gives out....?

We will all just get drunk.

[jackcheez]

Regarding government expansion, let's not forget that once again, it's Congress, not the President, who have total say and control over this. And FDR, Reagan, and Bush's 2nd term have all been presidency's with Democratic, not Republican, majorities in Congress. So who expanded government?

Correction. Half of Bush's second term. There were six years of Republican majority in the Senate and House with Bush as President. Six years where he NEVER used the veto once. Now he doesn't hesitate.

Six years where the debt grew like never before.

That's right, a President can veto a budget.

[jackcheez]

We will all just get drunk.

In that case I'm ahead of the game.

[Craig Vecchione]

Correction. Half of Bush's second term. There were six years of Republican majority in the Senate and House with Bush as President. Six years where he NEVER used the veto once. Now he doesn't hesitate. Six years where the debt grew like never before. That's right, a President can veto a budget.

 

And if Congress wants the bill badly enough, they can override.

 

And his veto is, of course the final word on the matter, right?

[jackcheez]

And his veto is, of course the final word on the matter, right?

Just funny how Bush never used it once during the greatest debt run up in history.

[burdizzos]

Damn Craig, step away from the right wing kool-aid.

 

 

Bush and a republican controlled house and senate had the opportunity to cut spending and streamline govt. They didn't even come close. The usual pork suspects are still getting ramrodded through every year, i.e. Trans and Ag bills.

 

Bush said he would not support the campaign finance reform bill, he did.

 

 

The only conservative thing he and the republican controlled house and senate did was cut taxes. This gave him a slight boost because it resulted in more income to the gov't due to a stimulated economy. Albeit an artificially stimulated economy resulting in a devalued dollar and record setting foreclosure rate.

 

Honestly, why should anyone who believes in fiscal conservatism vote for any republican who has voted for all all of this crap?

[lug]

If Just funny how Bush never used it once during the greatest debt run up in history.

Congress and Executive same party = agreeing on spending priorities = spend mo' money

Congress and Executive different parties disagree on spending priorities = spend less money.

In other words, vote McCain!

[jackcheez]

Congress and Executive same party = agreeing on spending priorities = spend mo' money Congress and Executive different parties disagree on spending priorities = spend less money. In other words, vote McCain!

Vote McCain and pray the Dems keep congress ?

hold me.

[thelurker]

As long as the "truce" remains with al-Sadr. The death toll begins to drop last Aug. when the truce went into effect, and has certainly helped keep things more stable lately. But if that gives out....?

 

 

 

al-Sadr is hardly the issue. al-Queda in Iraq is losing steam because the people are tired of them They admit it themselves. The self-styled militias are having the same problems. Try reading Michael Yon. He's a blogger going there regularly (on his own nickel), he's really got his finger on the pulse of events there, and is fully independent.

[thelurker]

Vote McCain and pray the Dems keep congress ? hold me.

With that whopping 22% approval, they can HAVE congress.