At Ask Me Help Desk you can ask questions in any topic and have them
answered for free by our experts. To ask questions or participate in
answering them you must register for a free account. By registering you
will be able to:
Get free answers from experts in any of our 300+
topics.
Speaking of politics and what we can only hope they can do:
Truman (dem),
Ike (gop),
Kennedy (dem),
Johnson (dem),
Nixon (gop), and
Carter (dem)....wiped out most of the World War II debt.
Now, alas, we are going to hit a 50-year high for debt as a percent of the economy (GDP).
The eye-popping $9 trillion gross national debt is owed by the "General Fund." That's the part funded by our income taxes. Half of that goes for the military and to pay interest on the debt.
But we do have Social Security and Medicare still with surpluses.
China among others hold our debt....And Iraq is costing us major bucks we could use on infrastructure as I speak. IF it was better conceived, it would have been a good investment -- but it was based on misdirection and speculation and that is killing us. We are on our own because Iraq was not a threat and we couldn't gather allies without any real proof of a threat....
I am not sure how to get out now, other than to declare 3 religions rulers and hope they don't create a smoking crater on their own.....That, or get some allies with multilarteral talks in the region....
And thus ends this epistle.....
Fingers crossed for all of us and all parties as we get a new wiser government one day soon.
Speaking of politics and what we can only hope they can do:
Truman (dem), Ike (gop), Kennedy (dem), Johnson (dem), Nixon (gop), and Carter (dem)....wiped out most of the World War II debt.
Now, alas, we are going to hit a 50-year high for debt as a percent of the economy (GDP).
Ash, do you have any idea what that "50-year high" is as a percentage of GDP? Or are you just talking the liberal talking points without having done the research. What percentage of GDP is national debt?
Quote:
The eye-popping $9 trillion gross national debt is owed by the "General Fund." That's the part funded by our income taxes. Half of that goes for the military and to pay interest on the debt.
According to the national budget for 2007, only 1/3 goes to military funding, not 1/2. And that has been the amount that has gone to the military under EVERY PRESIDENT since Truman. Bush didn't significantly change anything in that regard.
Quote:
But we do have Social Security and Medicare still with surpluses.
Really? For how long? Till 2012 at the earliest, 2040 at the latest. After that, Medicare and Social Security go bankrupt.
Quote:
China among others hold our debt....
And we hold most of theirs... fair trade.
Quote:
And Iraq is costing us major bucks we could use on infrastructure as I speak.
Do tell. Which parts of infrastructure are you speaking of? You mean the oil refineries that the Dems keep blocking? The wind farms they keep blocking? The new oil sources in ANWR that the Dems keep blocking? The improvements to our national security infrastructure that the Dems keep blocking? The improvements to border security that the Dems keep blocking? Is that the infrastructure you are talking about?
Quote:
IF it was better conceived, it would have been a good investment -- but it was based on misdirection and speculation and that is killing us. We are on our own because Iraq was not a threat and we couldn't gather allies without any real proof of a threat....
WE ARE NOT, AND HAVE NEVER BEEN ON OUR OWN IN IRAQ. Your basic premise is false.
Quote:
I am not sure how to get out now, other than to declare 3 religions rulers and hope they don't create a smoking crater on their own.....That, or get some allies with multilarteral talks in the region....
Oh... that's easy. We DON'T get out. Not until the Iraqi government can handle matters on their own.
Just as a side note, never has there been a suessful counter-insurgency that has taken less than 10 years. Generally speaking, such counter-insurgency operations take 30 years to come to a successful conclusion. We are barely half way into year 5 of operations in Iraq. Calling for any sort of pullout now is rather rediculous... it would be like declaring defeat in the 1st quarter of the superbowl, while up by 7 and with the other team's head coach ejected from the game.
Quote:
And thus ends this epistle.....
Is that what it was? I thought it was a diatribe. But what do I know?
Quote:
Fingers crossed for all of us and all parties as we get a new wiser government one day soon.
Oh man....I just laughed out loud.
I like you ET (And you don't even have to phone home...)
The troop talk always gets me giggling. it's so impoossibly silly - but you must know that.
you are a smart guy i'd reckon. i hear you though. you want this iraq thing to be worthy of something and so do i.
the thing is when people try to talk of allies in this war - like we might have in the Gulf War or say WWII, it's so...well sad/absurd. pick your adjective.
I mean the only people we could get on board were those that we could leverage politically. our traditional allies wavered because Iraq was contained and no -threat. corrupt and evil at the worst - but no threat....so off we went - and we tied it to 911.
I mean people get pissed at France for not joining?! WHy would they? They fought with us in the Gulf War and made our own AMERICAN LIBERTY possible by fighting against the British with us - but this time, a war beyond the Afghan theater was....nuts.
Our "Allies" in this Iraq business number basically three main countries actively - and they are drawing down:
- Our biggest ALLY The UK and Tony Blair - (Blair is now out of a job)
New Prime Minister Gordon Brown said British troop levels will be cut in half, to just 2,500.
- POLAND: 900 troops - SOON TO BE WITHDRAWN -
"Polish troops should withdraw from Iraq in 2008 because our mission has already been fulfilled," Bogdan Zdrojewski, the head of the party's parliamentary caucus, said.
- AUSTRALIA - 2,000 invasion--820 current
This is OUR war...plain and simple. And we are not winning because it was too personal. pre-emptive. and fought on a lot of false assumptions unfortunately....
Yeah, and the USA had 250,000 during the invasion, came down to 130,000 and now are at 160,000 or so.
I guess the fact that we decreased our troop strength there over time means that we aren't really supporting the war either. That's the logic you are using to claim that we are really all alone in Iraq.
39 countries have been involved on the ground in Iraq, either during the invasion or during its aftermath. Even if some of those have pulled out since then, we are hardly there alone.
Are we doing most of the heavy lifting? Certainly. We are, of course, the most powerful country in the world. We ALWAYS do most of the heavy lifting. That doesn't mean that nobody else is involved.
If that were the case, the UN would be essentially just one nation, the USA, since we foot the majority of the expenses for the UN, do most of the military work, and handle most humanitarian aid of the UN. Do you think that we are alone in the UN? Again, that is the logic you are using.
As for Tony Blair, the guy came to an end of his tenure. What does that mean regarding the war in Iraq? Does it suddenly indicate that the UK no longer supports the war in Iraq? Not if the words and actions of Gordon Brown are to be believed. He hasn't pulled out any troops yet, has he. He hasn't indicated that he's going to precipitously abandon Iraq. He hasn't even criticized the war or how it is being handled, as far as I have seen. So don't jump with glee over the fact that the USA is "all alone in Iraq" just yet.
40 countries does not constitute "going at it alone".
To this date, the UK, Gorgia, Australia and South Korea each have more than 1,000 troops in Iraq. Poland has 900. Romania has about 500. El Salvadore has about 400. Etc. There are roughly 20 countries that are current members of the Multi-National Force in Iraq.
Then there's the members of the NATO Training Mission to Iraq (training of military and police forces in Iraq). These include the USA (of course), Poland, Denmark, Netherlands, Hungary, UK, Portugal, Norway, Italy, Czech Republic, Slovenia, Bulgaria, Turkey, Lithuania, Romania, Iceland and Estonia.
I've been busy today, but a few thoughs on...Semantics.
See also the white House's classic new chestnut to repackage the war:
"A New Way Forward"
--I LOVED THAT ONE, by the way. Reminded me of a grandmother trying some words to convince her rogue grand-kids to get back in the car.
So again, I must take exception on how you seem, as well, to be parsing reality with euphemisms. But, I like you, and I think you mean well. So, maybe you are just talking this out yourself...And why not?! It is a nightmare.
As for some of your euphemisms:
1) Tony Blair coming to the "end of his tenure" (sounds like how one might describe the family rabbit dying to young Timmy) Anyway, Blair was actually stepping down.
His successor (Gordon Brown) has quickly made it clear that a draw down is a priority.
WHY?
Well, it's not because the country has faith in the war!
2) Any mention of the UN in regard to this administration now - is convenient at best.
But I admire your spunk. We ignore them until they do what we like :-)
In fact we mounted troops regardless at the start of this war because a scary man was gonna get us (yeah, right) whether thre UN backed it or not...And Bush simply said the UN risked being "Irrelevant" if they did not back going into the war. Ahem.
They are simply used when convenient to this white house and now, apparently, you.
3) "Heavy Lifting" - uhh, yeah. Without us, there would be no lifting at all. This is OUR war...like it or not. and it was fought on false pretenses and that is why it is such a quagmire - and why our traditional allies cannot all stand with us. It's not even CLOSE enough to say we even have a country standing beside us now. Would you really say it is the UK or...Australia? I can punch up those numbers again for you.
4) Troop Reductions....Yes, we had a lot more. And other countries did too. But it is not a draw down after a victory or an establishment of stability. It is a slow retreat. With no plan for how to end a thousands yer old religios war. NAIVE many may have been. SUICIDAL they are not...and so they will continue to leave.
5) "NATO Training Mission to Iraq" - oh man. This is the same euphemism as "advisors" in Vietnam. Their job is to "train, advise and mentor..." Oh man. With a mentor like that - I would have been a crack addict by 16 :-) Is it working?? No. In fact our own US military commander had this to say:
As for other milirary men: Retired Lt. General Ricardo Sanchez, coalition commander in 2003 and 2004, called the Iraq war "a nightmare with no end in sight," for which he said the Bush administration, the State Department and Congress all share blame.
Some wars you don't win: Vietnam, Korea...
Some invasions don't work: Cuba is one that many stil wince about.
AND WHAT DO OTHER MILITARY MEN SAY:
Retired Marine General Anthony C. Zinni, former U.S. commander in the Middle East, said that "everybody in the military knew" that the Bush administration's plan for Iraq consisted of only half the troops that were needed, and says that country is now "a powder keg" that could break apart into warring regions.
And most ironically perhaps.....Norman Schwarzkopf (Mr. Gulf War) is among the naysayers for this ill-conceived war.
We are not alone if you want to count advisors and countries on paper....but without us, there is nothing....and that is the problem here.
General Petraeus' speech was supposed to bolster the white house, but even he could not point to any good that the war was doing and even if it was "making us more safe" in his September testimony on Iraq.
I am not sure what you are fighting for. I am not sure they know either. democracy would be super...but it was so naively planned with such little regard for facts and enemies and yes, even our own allies...I think the brave thing to do is admit:
this was a naive disaster of a war
(Bush Sr. even said NO to a pre-emptive strike on Iraq)
I support the troops, but I don't support using them indiscriminately for an experiment
(use - as in for self-serving purposes.. not use - as in employ).
And clearly a mission this ill-conceived was not fair to many young men and women.
And I have to add - we have killed more CIVILIANS in Iraq than at Hiroshima. Really.
And the war is still not over.
How would you like it another country was at war with us and you lost your whole neighborhood, friends and familly, by accident? And that happened daily? seems like we might have a few diplomatic issues? All's fair in love and war right? Well, WE are not fighting very
well - and it's not 40 nations that are battling with us....
We need bright guys like you "E" to help us find some new leadership.
This administration is not working...
Anyway, I am just trying to share some thoughts - as i think anyone - even cheney, is at a loss at this point as to what the heck to do...and when i watch him get caught in refutations on tim russert that are refuted by his own video statements it's just so...tragic.
Just to set the record straight, Ash123
South Korea had one of the fastest economic development in the world since the 1960s and is now the 3rd largest economy in Asia and the 11th largest economy in the world. Up until the 1990s, South Korea has been part of the Four Asian Tigers and a Newly-industrialized country but upon entering the 21st century, South Korea gained developed status and is defined as a High Income Nation according to the World Bank. The United Nation rates South Korea as a Prosperous Economy and the country is both part of the CIA and IMF list of advanced economies. South Korea is a Next Eleven country and also part of the G20 Industrial Nations. South Korea's HDI is rated at High with 0.912 by the Human Development Index and the country joined the OECD in 1996, an organization for developed nations only.
South Korea is one of the world's most technologically and scientifically advanced countries; it has the fourth highest number and proportion of broadband Internet users among the OECD countries[2] and is a global leader in electronics, digital displays, semiconductor devices, mobile phones and hightech gadgets, headed by the two chaebols, Samsung and LG. South Korea also has the world's 3rd biggest steel producer, POSCO and is the 5th largest car manufacturing nation, headed by Hyundai Kia Automotive Group. South Korea is the world's largest shipbuilder, lead by several multinational corporations such as Hyundai Heavy Industries and Samsung Heavy Industries. Other important industries of South Korea include robotics and biotechnology, with the world's second humanoid robot, EveR-1 and the world's first cloned dog, Snuppy.
The Republic of South Vietnam (Vietnamese: Cộng Hòa Miền Nam Việt Nam) was the provisional government of South Vietnam following the final military defeat of the Army of the Republic of Vietnam, on April 28, 1975. The Republic of South Vietnam existed for 15 months. On July 2, 1976, the Republic of South Vietnam and the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (North Vietnam) were officially reunified as the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.
Yes, that was a failure.
The truth of the matter is that we don’t know yet whether Iraq will go the way of South Korea or South Vietnam. But one thing for sure is that we have afforded them an opportunity…something they did not have under the “Butcher of Baghdad”.
As for Cuba, we never invaded the country and to this day I don’t know why.
Linear Mode
