RE: Troops Out of Iraq by August 2010? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


domiguy -> RE: Troops Out of Iraq by August 2010? (1/28/2010 4:43:36 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Maine and Rhode Island will not have the final say in these matters.

I have never read a blog in my life.


And I am also sure that, based on your posting history, you have never read a newspaper.

Ron


And Im sure from that statement that youre a fucking idiot. OF course that is merely confirmation of you complete history of posts.


quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

Since 65% of FNC viewers are either liberal or independent, the "what they want to hear" line is bullshit.



Hey Fucko....How about you explain this one.




luckydawg -> RE: Troops Out of Iraq by August 2010? (1/28/2010 5:06:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: AnimusRex


quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
My question was whether or not your were intentionally using hyperbole as a rhetorical technique, or if you actually thought you were being historically and factually accurate.

If you are intentionally using hyperbole, then fine.  If you think you are being accurate, then I have to disagree with most (if not all) of your assumptions, predicates and definitions.


The future estimates of the number of countries and bases was sarcastic conjecture;
the number of bases we have currently is accurate (about 1,000 scattered across the globe) Alternet, says 737, so you are overstating by 25% http://www.alternet.org/story/47998
The number of nations we currently are at war with is accurate (A-stan, P-Stan, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia) Actually we are not at war with any of these countries
The history of our battles with Muslims was exaggerated- we have fought minor skirmishes with them, but never allowed it to become an existential threat.

So overall, I stand by the post. But would be interested to hear any corrections. contrary to what all women say, I am not a God, I just act like one in bed.





FirmhandKY -> RE: Troops Out of Iraq by August 2010? (1/28/2010 6:41:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydawg

quote:

ORIGINAL: AnimusRex

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
My question was whether or not your were intentionally using hyperbole as a rhetorical technique, or if you actually thought you were being historically and factually accurate.

If you are intentionally using hyperbole, then fine.  If you think you are being accurate, then I have to disagree with most (if not all) of your assumptions, predicates and definitions.


The future estimates of the number of countries and bases was sarcastic conjecture;
the number of bases we have currently is accurate (about 1,000 scattered across the globe) Alternet, says 737, so you are overstating by 25% http://www.alternet.org/story/47998
The number of nations we currently are at war with is accurate (A-stan, P-Stan, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia) Actually we are not at war with any of these countries
The history of our battles with Muslims was exaggerated- we have fought minor skirmishes with them, but never allowed it to become an existential threat.

So overall, I stand by the post. But would be interested to hear any corrections. contrary to what all women say, I am not a God, I just act like one in bed.


quote:

Original: AnimusRex

Currently we spend almost a trillion dollars a year on defense and security, or 1/2 of our tax revenue.


2010 Military Budget: $685.1 billion (including wars in Iraq and Afghanistan)

2009 Military Budget: $494.3 billion (not including wars in Iraq and Afghanistan)

You can add a lot of different "things" to those numbers, if you want to get up to a trillion, but, again, my comments were that you weren't being precise in you comments.

2010 Military Budget as a percentage of Federal taxes collected: 28% (The U.S. Department of Defense budget accounted in fiscal year 2010 for about 19% of the United States federal budgeted expenditures and 28% of estimated tax revenues.)

quote:

Original: AnimusRex

At what point will the cost of feeding this Leviathan devour our Treasury and bankrupt us?


One view:
Expert opinion varies wildly on the relevance of U.S. war spending in Iraq and Afghanistan to the health of the U.S. economy. At the most basic level, economists disagree whether these wars will have a positive or negative long-term economic impact. Total military spending (including spending on support and operations inside Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as operations tied to the “Global War on Terrorism,” all of which are budgeted separately from the U.S. defense budget) remains relatively modest compared to historical levels. During World War II, defense spending rose to levels as high as 37.8 percent of U.S. gross domestic product (GDP). Even including war-spending supplements and terror-war expenditures on top of the normal defense budget, today that number comes to about 6.2 percent of GDP.

...

Even considering the military budget and war spending together, however, total U.S. expenditures remain modest compared to historical levels in wartime. Shortly before the Vietnam War, in 1962, defense spending alone tallied 9.3 percent of GDP. During World War II expenditures were higher still; in 1944 the defense budget peaked at 37.8 percent of GDP. Even after recent increases, defense spending today comes to about 3.7 percent of GDP—and the combined total, even after including both war-spending supplements and “Global War on Terror” expenditures, comes to 6.2 percent of GDP. Still, today’s spending represents an increase since before the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, when defense spending tallied roughly 3 percent of GDP.

Graphically:

[image]http://img44.imageshack.us/img44/6100/federalspending12850.jpg[/image]


[image]http://img192.imageshack.us/img192/111/defensegdp.gif[/image]

It's not Defense spending that will kill our economy.

Firm




MzMia -> RE: Troops Out of Iraq by August 2010? (1/28/2010 7:27:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

the full withdrawl by the agreement is for end of 2011, and by the way, Bush would not have signed the status of forces agreement had McCain won. It was not signed until after the elections when it was clear that Obama was the next president.




These are President Obama's exact words last night, taken from his speech.

"As we take the fight to al Qaeda, we are responsibly leaving Iraq to its people.  As a candidate, I promised that I would end this war, and that is what I am doing as President.  We will have all of our combat troops out of Iraq by the end of this August.  (Applause.)  We will support the Iraqi government -- we will support the Iraqi government as they hold elections, and we will continue to partner with the Iraqi people to promote regional peace and prosperity.  But make no mistake:  This war is ending, and all of our troops are coming home.  (Applause.)"  
 
Here is the entire speech
 
Remarks by the President in State of the Union Address | The White House
 
I am sure we will still have SOME troops there after August, but President Obama did state we would have our combat troops out of Iraq by the end of August.




AnimusRex -> RE: Troops Out of Iraq by August 2010? (1/28/2010 9:57:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydawg
The future estimates of the number of countries and bases was sarcastic conjecture;
the number of bases we have currently is accurate (about 1,000 scattered across the globe) Alternet, says 737, so you are overstating by 25% http://www.alternet.org/story/47998
The number of nations we currently are at war with is accurate (A-stan, P-Stan, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia) Actually we are not at war with any of these countries


I am using the base estimates here: Money quote-
"TheBulletin.org - Before reading this article, try to answer this question: How many military bases does the United States have in other countries: a) 100; b) 300; c) 700; or d) 1,000. According to the Pentagon's own list, the answer is around 865, but if you include the new bases in Iraq and Afghanistan it is over a thousand. "
But since I haven't personally counted, and the Pentagon isn't the most reliable source of information, there may be no reliable number, other than A SHITLOAD that we shouldn't have. Can anyone honestly tell me that we need bases in Japan and Germany?

And we are not at war with these nations? Hmm, those families holding folded flags must be mistaken then. Oh, you mean we are not in a DECLARED war with these countries. Then yes, you are correct.

But let me ask you this; if Yemen were to launch missiles into New York, and kill dozens of people in Times Square, would we consider that an act of war?

I would. Bet Dick Cheney would scurry into his bunker and call it an act of war as well.




luckydawg -> RE: Troops Out of Iraq by August 2010? (1/29/2010 12:53:16 AM)

IF the government of Yemen did that. OR if the Government of Yemen, aided or was sheltering the org that did launch missles at us, yes we would certainly declare war on Yemen. Not applicable to what is going on today. At all...

Every nation on your list is an Ally of ours.

We are not at war with any of them. At all.

We are in a common fight with those countries against extremist radical Muslims.


So you are using some sort of number that every operating station or bunker In Iraq is a "base". Ok, I guess if you want to weasle the definition so much you win that point. So one out of 4 has any validity.


Yet you are yammering about scurrying.


and, Yes having safe forward operating Bases like in Japan and Germany are incredibly usefull and contribute immensley to world stability.




mnottertail -> RE: Troops Out of Iraq by August 2010? (1/29/2010 7:27:50 AM)

I don't buy the numbers Firm, no more than I bought the tripe about the recruiting goals being exceeded and the plenty of troops to rotate by the pentagon website some years ago.

There is still a great deal of DoD and related that is still off budget, the most visible example is 'emergency' spending.

and your links even said $825-1025 making a trill quite possible.

A billion here a billion there and pretty soon you are talking some real money.

Everett Dirksen

Ron




FirmhandKY -> RE: Troops Out of Iraq by August 2010? (1/29/2010 10:33:22 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

I don't buy the numbers Firm, no more than I bought the tripe about the recruiting goals being exceeded and the plenty of troops to rotate by the pentagon website some years ago.

There is still a great deal of DoD and related that is still off budget, the most visible example is 'emergency' spending.

and your links even said $825-1025 making a trill quite possible.

A billion here a billion there and pretty soon you are talking some real money.

Everett Dirksen

Ron


You don't have to "buy" any figures.  Just state your case, your sources, and your definitions.  Then we can have a good discussion. 

If you go back and read, I specifically asked Animus a couple of times, whether he was just using hyperbole, or he was ready to defend his claims.  He answered quite clearly, and clarified some of his positions as admitted hyperbole, so I'm not arguing with those points.

And I even say in my post under discussion that - depending on how you want to parse it - those numbers can change.

One could claim that 100% of the US budget goes toward "National Defense", depending on how he defines and justifies his definition. Someone else can disagree and then there can be a discussion about the point.

When someone makes a argument, and all of 6 or 7 or 8 different points are all based on the largest outlier of reality, then we are getting into exaggeration and hyperbole in order to win a point.  I just wanted to make that plain that I wasn't going to allow those to go unchallenged.

Firm




AnimusRex -> RE: Troops Out of Iraq by August 2010? (1/29/2010 2:11:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydawg
... having safe forward operating Bases like in Japan and Germany are incredibly usefull and contribute immensley to world stability.


Well, that is exactly my point. We concluded WWII over 60 years ago, and we still have bases there, and will probably have bases there for eternity.

So isn't it reasonable to expect that 60 years after we conclude the wars - err- fights- in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia, that people will continue to demand that we keep bases in all of there, to "contribute immensley to world stability"?

Which means we will never leave anywhere, but just continue to add more and more bases, in more and more countries, until we are so completely overextended we go bankrupt.

This is NOT what the Founders wished for our nation; this is NOT an American vision that they would recognize. This is an Imperial vision, a perversion of what America stands for.




Slavehandsome -> RE: Troops Out of Iraq by August 2010? (1/29/2010 2:21:16 PM)

Hey could somebody put a U.S. dollar value graph imposed behind that to show the correlation?




AnimusRex -> RE: Troops Out of Iraq by August 2010? (1/29/2010 2:22:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
One view:
Expert opinion varies wildly on the relevance of U.S. war spending in Iraq and Afghanistan to the health of the U.S. economy. At the most basic level, economists disagree whether these wars will have a positive or negative long-term economic impact. Total military spending (including spending on support and operations inside Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as operations tied to the “Global War on Terrorism,” all of which are budgeted separately from the U.S. defense budget) remains relatively modest compared to historical levels. During World War II, defense spending rose to levels as high as 37.8 percent of U.S. gross domestic product (GDP). Even including war-spending supplements and terror-war expenditures on top of the normal defense budget, today that number comes to about 6.2 percent of GDP.
It's not Defense spending that will kill our economy.

Firm


You are correct in your figures, but incorrect in your conclusions. Here is my source www.wallstats.com

The fact that spending was higher as a percentage of gdp during WWII and parts of Vietnam is correct, but should lead to the exact opposite of your conclusions.

The debt we incurred in WWII took about 20 years to pay off. The massive military spending (combined with the Great Society programs and the moon race) helped cause the wild inflation of the 1970's.

The bottom line here is that deficit spending is a bad thing, and should only be done as a last recourse, a dire emergency.
Deficit spending on war is doubly harmful because it pumps money into the economy, adds debt, and yet produces nothing of value.

If the government spent a trillion dollars building roads and rail lines, we would still be in debt, but at least we would have a good transportation system; right now we are spending a trillion dollars on things that get blown up, and has no value to anyone.

Again, 1/2 of every dollar you send to Washington goes towards Defense and Homeland Security. If we really had to do this to survive, it might be arguable.
But to claim that Yemen poses so existantial a threat to us that we must bankrupt ourselves, is absurd.




mnottertail -> RE: Troops Out of Iraq by August 2010? (1/29/2010 2:25:57 PM)

also, ARex weren't we given some war reparations and lendlease paybacks in climbing out of WW2 debt (cuz otherwise the brits got fucked and lied to about where some big money was going)?

Ron




NorthernGent -> RE: Troops Out of Iraq by August 2010? (1/29/2010 3:16:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: FelineFae

* sigh *

The U.S. will be there for a good long time.




The objective really should be everything.......but I'm just scratching my head here and thinking what the fuck is the objective......it's become a face saving exercise......can't be seen to pull out with next to nothing having been achieved.




jlf1961 -> RE: Troops Out of Iraq by August 2010? (1/29/2010 3:23:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent


quote:

ORIGINAL: FelineFae

* sigh *

The U.S. will be there for a good long time.




The objective really should be everything.......but I'm just scratching my head here and thinking what the fuck is the objective......it's become a face saving exercise......can't be seen to pull out with next to nothing having been achieved.



Why not, Nixon pulled us out of Vietnam without nothing being achieved... except high casualties.




truckinslave -> RE: Troops Out of Iraq by August 2010? (1/29/2010 3:24:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

In fact its more likely that there will be an increase in our presence in Iraq by mid 2011 than being even close to "fully withdrawn".


Obama is going to raise troop levels in Iraq?
George Soros would NEVER let him do that.




Musicmystery -> RE: Troops Out of Iraq by August 2010? (1/29/2010 3:40:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

Why not, Nixon pulled us out of Vietnam without nothing being achieved... except high casualties.


No, he didn't---Congress cut the funding.




Musicmystery -> RE: Troops Out of Iraq by August 2010? (1/29/2010 3:43:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

In fact its more likely that there will be an increase in our presence in Iraq by mid 2011 than being even close to "fully withdrawn".


Why? Troop levels are already down significantly. I agree we aren't going to withdraw. What would make them go up with such certainty?




willbeurdaddy -> RE: Troops Out of Iraq by August 2010? (1/29/2010 3:49:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

In fact its more likely that there will be an increase in our presence in Iraq by mid 2011 than being even close to "fully withdrawn".


Why? Troop levels are already down significantly. I agree we aren't going to withdraw. What would make them go up with such certainty?


"more likely" isnt "such certainty"

What makes it more likely is that as Obama tries to draw down, the insurgents and the Sunni, who got fucked by the Shiites and Kurds in November, will escalate things toward chaos again. By that time the futility of Afghanistan will be recognized, and a redeployment back into Iraq feasible.




Musicmystery -> RE: Troops Out of Iraq by August 2010? (1/29/2010 3:51:15 PM)

We've already drawn down, though, and those things haven't happened.

Why would they in 2011?




willbeurdaddy -> RE: Troops Out of Iraq by August 2010? (1/29/2010 5:07:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

We've already drawn down, though, and those things haven't happened.

Why would they in 2011?


Actually violence have picked up somewhat, but there is still critical mass in our presence. Drop below that level and all hell breaks loose again.




Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875