Deep thought

Filed in National by on August 6, 2009

Spending $100 Billion a year and running a trillion dollar deficit to kill muslims is ok. Spending $100 Billion a year to save Americans bad.

About the Author ()

hiding in the open

Comments (39)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Salisbury Sue says:
    August 6, 2009 at 7:56 pm

    DV stay away from the abacus.

  2. Delaware's Coolest Blogger says:
    August 6, 2009 at 7:59 pm

    ehhh, either way killin is good!

    saven is bad!

  3. delacrat says:
    August 6, 2009 at 8:02 pm

    doncoolviti,

    …why I am not proud to be an american, in a nutshell.

  4. Progressive Mom says:
    August 6, 2009 at 8:17 pm

    America has always supported the guns over the butter, unless the butter is being churned by big business…

  5. mike w. says:
    August 6, 2009 at 8:17 pm

    I see DV’s math skills are lacking….

  6. Tom S says:
    August 6, 2009 at 9:56 pm

    Actually around $500 billion to kill terrorists…the last $500 or so billion was the Bush non-stimulus bill…but who’s counting?

    We’re just looking for blame.

  7. Delaware's Coolest Blogger says:
    August 6, 2009 at 10:26 pm

    accountability Tom, Accountability.

    and that is 500,000,000,000 and counting

  8. Tom S says:
    August 6, 2009 at 10:45 pm

    Government accountability?…that’s an oxymoron

  9. Suzanne says:
    August 6, 2009 at 10:50 pm

    Actually, the cost of the war is:
    To date $895,000,000,000 AND COUNTING!!!!!!, and
    U.S. MILITARY DEATHS (IRAQ): 4330, and
    U.S. MILITARY WOUNDED (IRAQ): 31446, and
    IRAQI CIVILIAN DEATHS: 151000, and
    ‘EXCESS’ IRAQI DEATHS: 655000
    (by the way, excess deaths are deaths that would not have occured during nomal times, but are believed to be related to the war i.e. violence, disease, etc.)
    When all is said and done the war may hit the three trillion mark with aftercare for soldiers etc.

    IN comparison

    The cost of health-care for all in the US – about $1.6 trillion over the next 10 years (I believe that was the last number)

  10. Tom S says:
    August 6, 2009 at 10:53 pm

    Afghanistan deaths? We don’t we see the daily totals any longer?

  11. Delaware's Coolest Blogger says:
    August 6, 2009 at 10:57 pm

    ahhh there’s that good Catholic coming out of you again. Kill, Kill, kill…right tom!

  12. Tom S says:
    August 6, 2009 at 10:59 pm

    no way…both the wars we’re fighting right now are wrong…but keep stereotyping.

  13. Suzanne says:
    August 6, 2009 at 11:54 pm

    I am still trying to find the totals for the Afghanistan deaths. UNFORTUNATLY they don’t seem to be as important. I couldn’t disagree more.

    According to Yahoo, as of Thursday, Aug. 6, 2009, at least 693 members of the US military had died in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Uzbekistan as a result of the US invasion.

    CNN reports that the Human Rights Unit of the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan announced it recorded 1,013 civilian deaths in Afghanistan during the first six months of this year. That compares to 818 Afghan civilians who were killed during the same period in 2008, while 684 civilians were killed during the first half of 2007. Insurgent roadside bombs and suicide attacks, as well as air strikes conducted by U.S. and NATO forces, are the two deadliest tactics being used in Afghanistan. Fifty-nine percent of this year’s civilian casualties resulted from insurgent bombs. Western military airstrikes killed 30.5 percent of the civilians.

    icasualties.org shows the following:
    Coalition Fatalities
    Country Total
    Australia 11
    Canada 128
    Czech 3
    Denmark 24
    Estonia 4
    Finland 1
    France 28
    Germany 33
    Hungary 2
    Italy 15
    Latvia 3
    Lithuania 1
    Netherlands 19
    Norway 4
    Poland 9
    Portugal 2
    Romania 11
    South Korea 1
    Spain 25
    Sweden 2
    Turkey 2
    UK 192
    US 772
    Total 1292

  14. Delaware Republican says:
    August 7, 2009 at 9:02 am

    So why hasn’t Obama stopped the wars?

    So why has Obama expanded the War in Afghanistan?

    So why hasn’t Obama pulled out of Iraq?

    Your President doesn’t listen to you does he?

    Mike Protack

  15. Tom S says:
    August 7, 2009 at 9:05 am

    I guess BO “misread” the problems in Afghanistan & Iraq, like he “misread” the economy. He’ll send Fredo Biden out to let us know this soon.

  16. shortstuff says:
    August 7, 2009 at 11:21 am

    “So why hasn’t Obama stopped the wars?” – umm, he did, We’re vacating Iraq and we’re waging war on terror where it should’ve been waged in the first place, in the mountains of Afghanistan. If you recall, the justification for Iraq was WMD’s… And the imminent threat that those WMD’s and Saddam Hussein had on the United States which we now know was bs.

    “So why has Obama expanded the War in Afghanistan?” See my answer above. It’s where it should’ve been waged to begin with. If you don’t agree with it then find an alternative in fighting Terrorism. I’d more than welcome less of my brothers and sisters dying on a battlefield.

    “So why hasn’t Obama pulled out of Iraq?”- Responsibly is the question. Or do you suggest since Bush and Co. got their vendetta taken care of now that Saddam is dead, that we should just leave them for dead… I mean, that is the American way right, take what we want, kill em’ all and claim their land as our own? Sounds reasonable to me…

    “Your President doesn’t listen to you does he?”- On the contrary, the vast majority of people that I know including family would love to have a universal healthcare system or something along those lines. Even a stubborn step dad who loves to watch the Fox Network for 23 hours a day finally aggreed after shelling out over 10k for his gall bladder removal which was covered by Blue Cross and Blue SHield but apparently not enough is demanding a change! The problem is not the issue with Universal Healthcare being bad, the problem is that this country hates change, hates something different.

    I’m all for making it on your own… I’m not ok for people who’ve worked all their lives and now have reached their “lifetime” limit on their policy and can’t get treatment for something that is curable. That is a sin and even God would agree with the fact that none should suffer in that way.

  17. mike w. says:
    August 7, 2009 at 12:07 pm

    We’re vacating Iraq? Really. Last I heard he’s leaving tens of thousands of troops there.

    I have serious doubts as to whether we can “win” in Iraq or Afghanistan militarily.

  18. Geezer says:
    August 7, 2009 at 12:14 pm

    “I have serious doubts as to whether we can “win” in Iraq or Afghanistan militarily.”

    We are not in either place to “win.” We’re in Iraq to protect Saudi Arabia and our oil supply, and we’re in Afghanistan to try to prop up a (barely) pro-US government in a nuke-possessing country that’s ripe for a radical-Islamist takeover.

    Many of us noted before the election that, promises aside, Bush got us into a position we couldn’t abandon easily, and might not be able to abandon at all. It hardly makes Obama as culpable as Bush-Cheney.

  19. delacrat says:
    August 7, 2009 at 3:14 pm

    So why hasn’t Obama stopped the wars?

    So why has Obama expanded the War in Afghanistan?

    So why hasn’t Obama pulled out of Iraq?

    Your President doesn’t listen to you does he?

    Mike Protack

    Mike, You love the wars. So stop complaining.

  20. liberalgeek says:
    August 7, 2009 at 3:21 pm

    Mike – I know it must be lonely in that tower of Babel that you must live in. But really, must you be so childish and stupid? I have endured your stupidity for a long time on these pages, and honestly, I was holding out hope that you would just go away.

    Sadly, you just keep repeating the same semi-literate dribble over and over. I keep thinking that you are going to get smarter, but perhaps it is not to be.

  21. Dorian Gray says:
    August 7, 2009 at 3:26 pm

    I really, really hate to say this. And I’ll certainly regret it straightaway… but Protack is right. These wars are miserable mistakes. We are gettign no where slowly (and expensively). What was there 4 bombings in Iraq yesteday? Violence ramped up in Afghanistan… and we have to have the CIA kill AQ dudes in Pakistan.

    Based on the premise Tom offered above we could “kill terrorists” (whoever they are) just about anywhere. That’s hardly a reason get spend this type of dough and get so many kids slaughtered. Face it children, on this score Obama is part of the military industrial complex just like nearly every other pol.

  22. Dorian Gray says:
    August 7, 2009 at 3:27 pm

    I feel like I need a hot shower.

  23. anon says:
    August 7, 2009 at 3:33 pm

    A. Iraq is a quagmire because we shouldn’t have gone there.

    B. Afghanistan is a quagmire because we diverted to Iraq.

    Both now require diplomacy as well as some military presence to exit.

    It is going to take some time now, because of A and B.

    Got it?

  24. liberalgeek says:
    August 7, 2009 at 3:42 pm

    Well said, anon. Although Afghanistan may very well have been a quagmire no matter what. Sadly, we have a tiger by the tail and we can’t let go until it is safe.

  25. Dorian Gray says:
    August 7, 2009 at 3:45 pm

    Oh I comprehend it more than you know. “Diplomacy”, eh? Is that what this is? Keep making fucking excuses and you get what you deserve. That’s the most wishy-washy load bullshit… But I understand the party line needs to be towed. Zeus know I’m not going to do it, that’s for god damn sure.

  26. mike w. says:
    August 7, 2009 at 3:47 pm

    You can kill as many terrorists as you want, but if the environment & ideology that breeds them is firmly entrenched within certain segments of society you can’t rectify the situtation with guns. For every one you kill they’ll simply brainwash another to take his place.

  27. Dorian Gray says:
    August 7, 2009 at 3:48 pm

    LG – I like you man, but it is sickeningly ironic that someone who uses HST as an avatar would write those three sentences. Your copy of Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail should be revoked. Maybe someone more like Tom Friedman or something…

  28. Dorian Gray says:
    August 7, 2009 at 3:49 pm

    I don’t know how I find myself on the side of Protack and Mike W, but it certainly reinforces my independent bona fides.

  29. liberalgeek says:
    August 7, 2009 at 3:53 pm

    It’s not excuses. Jesus. It’s logistics and it’s transition (at least in Iraq). In Afghanistan, I would have rathered not attack, but there seemed to be few other ways to deal with the Taliban. It is sad that we have let them reconstitute while we were replenishing Haliburton’s coffers for 5 years in Iraq, but we have what we have. The Taliban is a bunch of thugs that really must be destroyed. Some of that is by the sword, and some is by the dove. But to ignore them is to ask for genocide and more.

  30. mike w. says:
    August 7, 2009 at 3:56 pm

    Well considering I often vote for Libertarians (and even Dems sometimes) it’s really not surprising DG. Now if only we could get you on the pro-liberty side with regards to gun rights.

  31. Dorian Gray says:
    August 7, 2009 at 3:56 pm

    I understand the reality of the thing… pragmatism and all that. I just don’t feel the need to accept right this second. 🙂

  32. liberalgeek says:
    August 7, 2009 at 3:57 pm

    And even HST knew when you have to do shit that sucks. It’s like the chapter about how to play a cop that is trying to pull you over and forgetting to put the drink away.

    And honestly, none of this woulda happened if HST had just flicked the cigarette toward the fuel vehicle on the tarmac. 🙂

  33. Dorian Gray says:
    August 7, 2009 at 4:01 pm

    Actually I see your point on the gun thing actually. I disagree with it and would never own one… but I see the point. It’s in the constitution. Plus, as an example, it would be cool to see what the story would be in Iran if some of the dissidents and students could defend themselves.

    But, you have to recognize that there is a huge downside. Guys like that fucking asshole in Pittsburgh who couldn’t get laid is only the most recent example. Plus you’ll never convince me those gun owners aren’t compensating for smaller that average penises. Just saying.

  34. mike w. says:
    August 7, 2009 at 4:05 pm

    “The Taliban is a bunch of thugs that really must be destroyed”

    Oh I absolutely agree, but we could stay there for years fighting a bunch of rag-tag Mushadeen up in the mountains and never really win that right. The only people who can successfully drive them out (and keep them out) in the long run are the Afghani people. And as you said, it has to be done through both force and through changing the culture to the point that the Taliban is sufficiently marginalized and hold no real power or influence.

    The problem is that accomplishing that is far more difficult and complex than simply saying “Let’s go in and kill every terrorist” which is a strategy doomed to fail.

  35. mike w. says:
    August 7, 2009 at 4:13 pm

    “you have to recognize that there is a huge downside. Guys like that fucking asshole in Pittsburgh who couldn’t get laid is only the most recent example”

    +1 Absolutely. All of our liberties carry with them inherent risks. Why? Because though the large majority are responsible, it’s a statistical certainty that some people will abuse/misuse their rights. That’s why the 2A doesn’t mean I have the right to use my weapon to rob, rape, assault, murder, or otherwise cause direct harm to others through my actions. Of course the same is true of the 1st Amendment, which is why we have laws punishing the criminal misuse of free speech (libel, slander etc.) and those folks can’t hide behind the 1st because the criminal misuse of their ability to speak out has consequences and is not Constitutionally protected. The difference is that we don’t muzzle the majority because of the criminal misuse of a few. Instead we punish those who act criminally after the fact.

  36. mike w. says:
    August 7, 2009 at 4:24 pm

    Dorian – Meant to add that I also respect you decision not to own guns. That’s an individual choice, and despite what some here might claim, we don’t want to arm everyone or even push guns on anyone. It’s those on the other side of that issue that are profoundly anti-choice. Ironically many of them are liberals.

    Of course you could certainly say that Liberal and Conservatives alike are only pro individual choice on certain pet issues, respectively and both sides are authoritarian statists on other issues.

    *But now we are off-topic.

  37. Suzanne says:
    August 7, 2009 at 9:23 pm

    I am waiting for Mike P to blaim 9-11, Kathrina, and wildfires on Obama, too.

  38. Dorian Gray says:
    August 8, 2009 at 1:43 pm

    Sorry for carrying this over to the next day but I don’t see how you can compare the 1st amendment misuse of libel with the 2nd amendment misuse of murder and the countless slaughter of human beings. This is when you stat to look very silly.

  39. mike w. says:
    August 10, 2009 at 1:00 pm

    No it’s a perfectly apt comparison. Both are a criminal misuse of a right and are thus not protected under either Amendment because they inflict direct harm upon another person. We don’t restrict everyone under the premise that they *might* engage in speech that is criminal, we punish those that do so after the fact.

    Just because you don’t like Libel/Slander being compared to murder (or any other violent crime (rape, robbery, burglary etc.) doesn’t make what I said any less true.

    Now if you have an actual counterpoint to make then by all means do so, but saying “you’re wrong, you look silly” is a really weak, childish retort that shows me you can’t offer a substantive refutation of my position.

«
»