Dollars for dictators

superdave · Feb 19, 2003

I've noticed in the last few days here, that the drones have received their orders from the Queen, and now this war is all about saving the poor people of Iraq from the clutches of the Wicked Witch of the East. OK.

And I noticed that one of the little stories out there is how we offered $26B to Turkey, but they want more. So that got me to thinking....

Since it's all about freedom for poor suckers who weren't smart enough to be born in the US, it follows that there's no difference between poor oppressed Iraqis and poor oppressed Libyans, or Zimbabweans, or....

So here's what I propose...we take all of the money we're planning to spend on this war and the occupation (the highest estimate I've seen is a trillion, but generally it's about half that.) And then we count up the cruel oppressors around the world. And start the bidding....offer them each half the Pot O' Money, divided by the number of dictators. And keep upping the bidding, until the money runs out.

On a semi-serious note...that's one of my problems with this war. It's ludicrous on its face for us to spend a half trillion dollars for Iraqi freedom when the US budget is a sinkhole of red ink and there are 40 Million + Americans without health insurance. (Or if you're on the other end of the political spectrum, while some millionaires still can't afford a 3rd home.) Anyone who thinks that it's about freeing the poor Iraqis hasn't really thought this through, or they're like alot of Americans I run into, in that they don't understand numbers if there are enough zeroes attached. (Have you ever seen those local TV news exposes of horrible waste in state gvt., and it'll be something like $100,000, and there's the implication that that's why the states have budget deficits? Yeah, that's why NC is facing a $2B hole. But I digress.)

OK, so I've established in my own mind that this is NOT about the Iraqi people, because the cost/benefit is moronically wrong. It's about Saddam's weapons. And I'm nowhere near being at the point where I think that he could destablize the region despite the inspections.

So, why are we fighting this war again?

irishFS1921 · Feb 19, 2003

the "we've got our own concerns at home we should spend our money here" arguement is as constructive as smacking yourself in the face over and over again.

superdave · Feb 19, 2003

Originally posted by Mannyfreshtunna
the "we've got our own concerns at home we should spend our money here" arguement is as constructive as smacking yourself in the face over and over again.
Click to expand...

How did you find out how constructive it is to smack yourself?

Also, I, personally, think it's very uncool to use your own quote in your sig.

GringoTex · Feb 19, 2003

Originally posted by irishFS1921
the "we've got our own concerns at home we should spend our money here" arguement is as constructive as smacking yourself in the face over and over again.
Click to expand...

Let's see: yesterday, the Bush admin said they didn't need Turkey to launch an attack on Iraq. But they still want to pay Turkey $26 billion to do so. Where did the Bushies learn their sense of fiscal responsibilty -- in the Reagan administration?

irishFS1921 · Feb 19, 2003

Originally posted by superdave
Also, I, personally, think it's very uncool to use your own quote in your sig.
Click to expand...

not quite as uncool as acting like a five year old and beating a dead horse.

but i'll let you pretend like you're the bigger man.

irishFS1921 · Feb 19, 2003

do you know what an IP address is? because if you check them they're different.

mine is 10.15.65.206

if you don't believe me again i believe the mods can verify. thanks for playing.

edit- mannyfreshstunna: 131.156.156.184

obie · Feb 19, 2003

This is the future of American foreign policy, and thank North Korea for this. Kim Jong Il saw the movie "The Mouse That Roared" and thought it was a documentary.

And whether the US likes it or not, it's a brilliant strategy for any developing-country leader to follow. For all the talk about how the US won't give in to dictators or "terrorists" like Saddam or Castro, there are a lot more people like Kim Jong Il, Pervez Musharraf and Recep Tayyip Erdogan who have realized that the US checkbook is open for the taking. Just say that (like Pakistan) you'll be an ally, or (like NK) drop your weapons program, or (like Turkey) allow the US to station troops there, and we'll pay you billions.

If the US wants to be the sole military superpower and continues to fear smallish "rogue states" like NK, we have little choice but to keep paying. Besides, it's likely cheaper than building enough bombs to keep attacking them, and if there's a way to circumvent corrupt beauracracies and get the money into the local GDP, we can improve the local populace's quality of life.

Elder Statesman · Feb 19, 2003

Originally posted by superdave

So here's what I propose...we take all of the money we're planning to spend on this war and the occupation (the highest estimate I've seen is a trillion, but generally it's about half that.) And then we count up the cruel oppressors around the world. And start the bidding....offer them each half the Pot O' Money, divided by the number of dictators. And keep upping the bidding, until the money runs out.

On a semi-serious note...that's one of my problems with this war. It's ludicrous on its face for us to spend a half trillion dollars for Iraqi freedom when the US budget is a sinkhole of red ink and there are 40 Million + Americans without health insurance. (Or if you're on the other end of the political spectrum, while some millionaires still can't afford a 3rd home.) Anyone who thinks that it's about freeing the poor Iraqis hasn't really thought this through, or they're like alot of Americans I run into, in that they don't understand numbers if there are enough zeroes attached. (Have you ever seen those local TV news exposes of horrible waste in state gvt., and it'll be something like $100,000, and there's the implication that that's why the states have budget deficits? Yeah, that's why NC is facing a $2B hole. But I digress.)

Click to expand...

We had 40 million Americans without health insurance when Clinton sent troops to Kosovo, Somalia and Haiti. Wouldn't that money be better spent on health insurance for Americans?

superdave · Feb 19, 2003

I see your point, but the cost of those operations were teeny teeny tiny in comparison.

TheWakeUpBomb · Feb 19, 2003

Originally posted by superdave
Also, I, personally, think it's very uncool to use your own quote in your sig.
Click to expand...

Um, didn't you have your own quote about a $25,000 grocery bill in your sig for several months?

Dan Loney · Feb 19, 2003

Re: Re: Dollars for dictators

Originally posted by Elder Statesman
We had 40 million Americans without health insurance when Clinton sent troops to Kosovo, Somalia and Haiti. Wouldn't that money be better spent on health insurance for Americans?
Click to expand...

Yeah, this is fair, considering how Bill and Hillary fought so hard against national health care *head explodes*

superdave · Feb 19, 2003

TWUB...that was different.

Give me some time to figure out how.

Elder Statesman · Feb 19, 2003

Re: Re: Re: Dollars for dictators

Originally posted by Dan Loney
Yeah, this is fair, considering how Bill and Hillary fought so hard against national health care *head explodes*
Click to expand...

Not the point. Liberals often make the case when Conservatives want to go to war that we should spend the money on some social program. Yet when Clinton decided to send troops to various contries I didn't hear these same liberals complaining. If Clinton couldn't spend the money on healthcare, he could have used the money he didn't spend on wars for some other social purpose.
Then again you only like to criticize one side regardless of who's right or wrong.

Dan Loney · Feb 19, 2003

Re: Re: Re: Re: Dollars for dictators

Originally posted by Elder Statesman
Liberals often make the case when Conservatives want to go to war that we should spend the money on some social program. Yet when Clinton decided to send troops to various contries I didn't hear these same liberals complaining.
Click to expand...

Kosovo and Haiti weren't full-on invasions, and were done without any significant world opposition. In the case of Haiti, without even any casualties.

I'm sure there were liberals who did oppose the Balkans intervention - Christopher Hitchens, back when he used to be a liberal. I'd think of others, but hell, that's one more name than you're able to come up with.

Oh, and Somalia was authorized by George Herbert Walker Bush.

Nice try, though.

Elder Statesman · Feb 19, 2003

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dollars for dictators

Originally posted by Dan Loney
Kosovo and Haiti weren't full-on invasions, and were done without any significant world opposition. In the case of Haiti, without even any casualties.

I'm sure there were liberals who did oppose the Balkans intervention - Christopher Hitchens, back when he used to be a liberal. I'd think of others, but hell, that's one more name than you're able to come up with.

Oh, and Somalia was authorized by George Herbert Walker Bush.

Nice try, though.
Click to expand...

Were you responding to my post or were you trying to start a new thread about a different argument in the wrong thread?

Dan Loney · Feb 19, 2003

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dollars for dictators

Originally posted by Elder Statesman
Were you responding to my post or were you trying to start a new thread about a different argument in the wrong thread?
Click to expand...

Posted by Elder Statesman, before he forgot about it
We had 40 million Americans without health insurance when Clinton sent troops to KOSOVO, SOMALIA AND HAITI.
Click to expand...

Elder Statesman, free from the burden of short-term memory.

Elder Statesman · Feb 19, 2003

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dollars for dictators

Originally posted by Dan Loney
Elder Statesman, free from the burden of short-term memory.
Click to expand...

I know that you've weaseled your way out of many threads by switching the subject but you're not going to weasel your way out of this one. Superdave originally posted that we are better off spending money on social programs than the war. I responded that liberals didn't make this argument when Clinton sent troops to Kosovo, Haiti or Somalia. You started complaining about the loss of life, opposition in Europe. None of this has to do with the original argument $$$ for war could be better spent on social programs.

Nice try though.

superdave · Feb 19, 2003

Elder, if Dan will allow me to speak for him, it's called cost-benefit analysis.

If I have to explain further than that, let me know.

Dan Loney · Feb 19, 2003

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dollars for dictators

Originally posted by Elder Statesman
I know that you've weaseled your way out of many threads by switching the subject but you're not going to weasel your way out of this one.
Click to expand...

Ha! If I can fool Hans Blix, I can fool you easily!

Superdave originally posted that we are better off spending money on social programs than the war.
Click to expand...

Right.

I responded that liberals didn't make this argument when Clinton sent troops to Kosovo, Haiti or Somalia.
Click to expand...

Yes. I remember. It was a stupid response.

You started complaining about the loss of life, opposition in Europe. None of this has to do with the original argument $$$ for war could be better spent on social programs.
Click to expand...

You asserted that because liberals did not oppose Clinton's military interventions, that they should not oppose Bush's military intervention.

It was a stupid assertion, because - and I'll try to type slow, so it sinks in:

(1) Liberals did oppose Clinton's military interventions. Not all of them, and not as one voice. But some did, and you were the one who wanted to play Generality Ball.

(2) Somalia wasn't a Clinton military intervention, it was a GHWB military intervention.

(3) The military interventions in question aren't remotely comparable in scale, cost, usefulness or international opposition.

(4) While we're on the topic, what about conservatives who opposed Clinton's military interventions in the 1990's, but who are sporting some serious wood for Dubya's?

In short, I wasn't addressing Dave's point. Which I agree with. In fact, I would go further - the money for the Iraq invasion would be better spent on lap dances or government-sponsored lacrosse teams.

What I was addressing was your stupid, silly response.

Nice try though.
Click to expand...

I rather thought so.

superdave · Feb 20, 2003

specifics on the negotiations

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/20/international/middleeast/20IRAQ.html

In private, though, administration officials were fuming, with one senior official calling the Turkish efforts to hold out for more aid — and perhaps access to oil from the Kirkuk region of Iraq — as "extortion in the name of alliance." Another said that despite a stream of aid from the United States, "the Turks seem to think that we'll keep the bazaar open all night."
Click to expand...

and

"The Turks want to control the operation at Kirkuk, at a minimum through a pipeline," the official said. "That's in a way a better deal for them than American aid."

But Mr. Bush and his aides have often said Iraq's oil is for the benefit of the Iraqi people, and they realize that any discussion of guaranteeing access to the oil to Turkey — or any other nation — would make it appear that the war is about oil rights, not weapons of mass destruction.
Click to expand...

Yeah, God forbid anyone thinks this is about oil.

Elder Statesman · Feb 20, 2003

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dollars for dictators

Originally posted by Dan Loney
Ha! If I can fool Hans Blix, I can fool you easily!

Right.

Yes. I remember. It was a stupid response.

You asserted that because liberals did not oppose Clinton's military interventions, that they should not oppose Bush's military intervention.

It was a stupid assertion, because - and I'll try to type slow, so it sinks in:

(1) Liberals did oppose Clinton's military interventions. Not all of them, and not as one voice. But some did, and you were the one who wanted to play Generality Ball.

(2) Somalia wasn't a Clinton military intervention, it was a GHWB military intervention.

(3) The military interventions in question aren't remotely comparable in scale, cost, usefulness or international opposition.

(4) While we're on the topic, what about conservatives who opposed Clinton's military interventions in the 1990's, but who are sporting some serious wood for Dubya's?

In short, I wasn't addressing Dave's point. Which I agree with. In fact, I would go further - the money for the Iraq invasion would be better spent on lap dances or government-sponsored lacrosse teams.

What I was addressing was your stupid, silly response.

I rather thought so.
Click to expand...

Here you go again. You get b*tch slapped and you try to save face by confusing the issue. It reminds me of the time you claimed that when many members of Al Queda were killed, and Bush said they were no longer a threat, you tried to make it seem like Bush said Al Queda as a whole was no longer a threat. You got b*tch slapped on that one and you still tried to confuse the issue and save face.

Now you're trying to claim that I asserted that because liberals did not oppose Clinton's military interventions, that they should not oppose Bush's military intervention. I NEVER SAID THAT, LEARN HOW TO READ AND STOP MAKING UP LIES. The only thing I criticized was the double standard of $$$ for war.

Dan Loney · Feb 20, 2003

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dollars for dictators

Originally posted by Elder Statesman
Here you go again. You get b*tch slapped and you try to save face by confusing the issue. It reminds me of the time you claimed that when many members of Al Queda were killed, and Bush said they were no longer a threat, you tried to make it seem like Bush said Al Queda as a whole was no longer a threat. You got b*tch slapped on that one and you still tried to confuse the issue and save face.
Click to expand...

Thread's still around. Probably on page three by now, but it's there. Do I have to put "I stand by every word" on a macro? If you've got an argument to make, go to the thread and make it.

Now you're trying to claim that I asserted that because liberals did not oppose Clinton's military interventions, that they should not oppose Bush's military intervention. I NEVER SAID THAT, LEARN HOW TO READ AND STOP MAKING UP LIES. The only thing I criticized was the double standard of $$$ for war.
Click to expand...

Okay, pumpkin, Superdave said:

On a semi-serious note...that's one of my problems with this war. It's ludicrous on its face for us to spend a half trillion dollars for Iraqi freedom when the US budget is a sinkhole of red ink and there are 40 Million + Americans without health insurance. (Or if you're on the other end of the political spectrum, while some millionaires still can't afford a 3rd home.)

In other words, this military intervention. And why he's opposing it. Your response, lame though it was:

We had 40 million Americans without health insurance when Clinton sent troops to Kosovo, Somalia and Haiti. Wouldn't that money be better spent on health insurance for Americans?

When I pointed out that Clinton tried to spend money on health insurance, you replied:

Not the point. Liberals often make the case when Conservatives want to go to war that we should spend the money on some social program. Yet when Clinton decided to send troops to various contries I didn't hear these same liberals complaining.

And then I corrected the rest of your mistakes. Well, most of them. Jesus, there were so many - it was like the snakes in "Indiana Jones" there for a while....

But let's talk about this new thing you're saying. How is "Liberals often make the case when Conservatives want to go to war that we should spend the money on some social program. Yet when Clinton decided to send troops to various contries I didn't hear these same liberals complaining" qualitatively different from "because liberals did not oppose Clinton's military interventions, ... they should not oppose Bush's military intervention"? Especially in response to a statement specifically and directly about Bush's military intervention.

You mean you actually want credit because you phrased your initial argument - which was all about a response to Bush's military intervention - in a vague and general way? Give me a seahorse-raping break.

By the way, you're still an idiot about saying Clinton didn't care about health insurance, that liberals never opposed Clinton's military interventions, and by saying that Somalia was a Clinton intervention. Your logical mistakes are even more idiotic. Were you trying for some prize, or something?

TheWakeUpBomb · Feb 20, 2003

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dollars for dictators

Originally posted by Dan Loney
Thread's still around. Probably on page three by now, but it's there. Do I have to put "I stand by every word" on a macro? If you've got an argument to make, go to the thread and make it.
Click to expand...

How about "Everyone makes mistakes, even me" on a macro?

superdave · Feb 20, 2003

Dan...I think you may have been too kind.

Because another little problem with ES' contribution to this thread is that he equates the cost of something like Haiti, or even the various bombings of Serbia, in a time of surpluses, to the cost of invading and occupying Iraq, in a time of massive budget deficits.

Elder Statesman · Feb 20, 2003

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dollars for dictators

Originally posted by Dan Loney
Thread's still around. Probably on page three by now, but it's there. Do I have to put "I stand by every word" on a macro? If you've got an argument to make, go to the thread and make it.

Okay, pumpkin, Superdave said:

On a semi-serious note...that's one of my problems with this war. It's ludicrous on its face for us to spend a half trillion dollars for Iraqi freedom when the US budget is a sinkhole of red ink and there are 40 Million + Americans without health insurance. (Or if you're on the other end of the political spectrum, while some millionaires still can't afford a 3rd home.)

In other words, this military intervention. And why he's opposing it. Your response, lame though it was:

We had 40 million Americans without health insurance when Clinton sent troops to Kosovo, Somalia and Haiti. Wouldn't that money be better spent on health insurance for Americans?

When I pointed out that Clinton tried to spend money on health insurance, you replied:

Not the point. Liberals often make the case when Conservatives want to go to war that we should spend the money on some social program. Yet when Clinton decided to send troops to various contries I didn't hear these same liberals complaining.

And then I corrected the rest of your mistakes. Well, most of them. Jesus, there were so many - it was like the snakes in "Indiana Jones" there for a while....

But let's talk about this new thing you're saying. How is "Liberals often make the case when Conservatives want to go to war that we should spend the money on some social program. Yet when Clinton decided to send troops to various contries I didn't hear these same liberals complaining" qualitatively different from "because liberals did not oppose Clinton's military interventions, ... they should not oppose Bush's military intervention"? Especially in response to a statement specifically and directly about Bush's military intervention.

You mean you actually want credit because you phrased your initial argument - which was all about a response to Bush's military intervention - in a vague and general way? Give me a seahorse-raping break.

By the way, you're still an idiot about saying Clinton didn't care about health insurance, that liberals never opposed Clinton's military interventions, and by saying that Somalia was a Clinton intervention. Your logical mistakes are even more idiotic. Were you trying for some prize, or something?
Click to expand...

Clinton sends troops into Somalia
http://www.efreedomnews.com/News Archive/Somalia/ClintonsBlackhawkHx.htm

Also, you're still a lying weasel. My initial argument hasn't change that liberals attack conservatives for spending $$$ on war when there are problems at home. If you want to be extremely petty and annoying (which you are), I will agree that Clinton cared about healthcare, but he still used money for military action when there were social problems at home.

I remember Al Sharpton expressing on a television show why do we spend so much money on sending people up to space when we have starving people at home. The problem with people like you and Sharpton is that we'll always have starving people, healthcare shortages and other social problems. Does that mean that we should not spend any money on military, peacekeeping and war? A more appropriate argument would be: should we spend money on a particular war or peacekeeping mission. Then again, you're so partisan its coming out of your ears, therefore you must throw everything in the book against your opponents.