If we pull out now, Iraq will make the ruwanda genocide look good.
**Steps up onto soapbox**
I don't know, I feel that's a fact we need to face. Frankly, I think the chances of us ever putting a stable government in place over there are rather slim. What we have now is a civil war of Al Qaeda-in-Iraq vs. anti-AQiI, and our troops are caught in the middle of it. They're taking flak from AQiI for the usual 'infidel' bullshit and flak from ordinary citizens who are fighting against AQiI for not getting out of the way and letting the inevitable happen.
We've spent a ton of money over there - hundreds of billions, in fact. Those billions of dollars could've been spent actually improving security here at home, but instead they had to go into funding a quagmire of a war that I fear has actually made us less secure overall. Airport security staff insist on taking your nailclippers and shampoo away, but probably couldn't recognize a real weapon if it hit them in the face. Our borders are still as porous as an NMU chick. Our immigration and naturalization services are a joke. We've alienated many other important powers worldwide.
On top of it all, where is Osama? Seriously WTF has happened to the asshat? The administration never mentions him at all these days, yet he was the initial target of our efforts in this "War on Terror" (if you want to call it that anymore) over five years ago. Is he alive? Dead? Taking a shit and laughing about how the US hasn't found him yet? I'd like to see some closure here, but it's impossible to get a straight answer out of anyone in Washington these days.
Now, as anyone who paid attention in Accounting 2 even half the time could tell you, sunk costs are irrelevant to decision analysis. Those billions of dollars we've blown in Iraq are gone and aren't coming back. While this is true, future & variable costs are highly relevant, and as long as we are in Iraq, I'm forecasting several hundred billion dollars worth of additional appropriations for war funding well into the future. As far as I'm concerned, that's too big of an investment for what will likely be minuscule (if any) returns.
Sometimes I wish our international policies could be as easy as the 20s - free trade and isolationism FTW. Unfortunately those days are over. It's time for some serious housecleaning in Washington D.C., but sadly I don't think any of the current major candidates have the balls to do it. Let's run down the list of reasons why none of these people are electable...
Reps
McCain - Too old, too much of a fence-rider for the Rep base, already a reject from 2000 Romney - Mainstream Reps are starting to get disenchanted with the religious right
Dems
Hitlery - Bitchy man-woman? No freakin' way. Obama - A young, tax-and-spend ideologue.
We've got over a year and a half yet. Someone else previously seen as a dark horse is going to emerge as the frontrunner on at least one side of the aisle, a la 2000 (Reps rejected McCain in favor of Bush) and 2004 (Dems rejected Screaming Dean in favor of Kerry). Let's hope, for the sake of the nation, they are better than the current "options". Excuse me while I go puke.
Actually Romney is by no means a mainstream Republican. Not many have the record he does with getting a state out of a 3 billion dollar deficit. I would suggest you watch the MSNBC debate and it will give you a much better picture. Romney has the ideas, McCain to be mas just been a pain in the ass to Bush. he voted against the tax cuts, claimns the war was handeled wrong, hwoever always was seen as a strong supporter of the current war, he also stated he wouldnt overturn Roe V Wade if he had the choice, then said he would with no backing as to why he changed his mind, he is also old at 72, and his entire focus is on the military when economic growth is at is lowest point ever (the stock marlet is way overinflated).
**Steps up onto soapbox**
I don't know, I feel that's a fact we need to face. Frankly, I think the chances of us ever putting a stable government in place over there are rather slim. What we have now is a civil war of Al Qaeda-in-Iraq vs. anti-AQiI, and our troops are caught in the middle of it. They're taking flak from AQiI for the usual 'infidel' bullshit and flak from ordinary citizens who are fighting against AQiI for not getting out of the way and letting the inevitable happen.
We've spent a ton of money over there - hundreds of billions, in fact. Those billions of dollars could've been spent actually improving security here at home, but instead they had to go into funding a quagmire of a war that I fear has actually made us less secure overall. Airport security staff insist on taking your nailclippers and shampoo away, but probably couldn't recognize a real weapon if it hit them in the face. Our borders are still as porous as an NMU chick. Our immigration and naturalization services are a joke. We've alienated many other important powers worldwide.
On top of it all, where is Osama? Seriously WTF has happened to the asshat? The administration never mentions him at all these days, yet he was the initial target of our efforts in this "War on Terror" (if you want to call it that anymore) over five years ago. Is he alive? Dead? Taking a shit and laughing about how the US hasn't found him yet? I'd like to see some closure here, but it's impossible to get a straight answer out of anyone in Washington these days.
Now, as anyone who paid attention in Accounting 2 even half the time could tell you, sunk costs are irrelevant to decision analysis. Those billions of dollars we've blown in Iraq are gone and aren't coming back. While this is true, future & variable costs are highly relevant, and as long as we are in Iraq, I'm forecasting several hundred billion dollars worth of additional appropriations for war funding well into the future. As far as I'm concerned, that's too big of an investment for what will likely be minuscule (if any) returns.
Sometimes I wish our international policies could be as easy as the 20s - free trade and isolationism FTW. Unfortunately those days are over. It's time for some serious housecleaning in Washington D.C., but sadly I don't think any of the current major candidates have the balls to do it. Let's run down the list of reasons why none of these people are electable...
Reps
McCain - Too old, too much of a fence-rider for the Rep base, already a reject from 2000
Romney - Mainstream Reps are starting to get disenchanted with the religious right
Dems
Hitlery - Bitchy man-woman? No freakin' way.
Obama - A young, tax-and-spend ideologue.
We've got over a year and a half yet. Someone else previously seen as a dark horse is going to emerge as the frontrunner on at least one side of the aisle, a la 2000 (Reps rejected McCain in favor of Bush) and 2004 (Dems rejected Screaming Dean in favor of Kerry). Let's hope, for the sake of the nation, they are better than the current "options". Excuse me while I go puke.
**Steps down from soapbox**
-TK
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
Leave a comment