News Cost of the war in Iraq: Democrat's analysis

[Ivan Seeking]

The United States has undertaken a vast commitment to rebuild the nation of Iraq, to create a representative government out of a country with no history of democracy, and a market economy out of a statist economy that has been grossly mismanaged for years. It is important that the Congress and the American people have a clear understanding of the commitment this effort requires.

This analysis concludes that if Congress approves the 2004 supplemental the President has submitted, and does not spend any new money on Iraq after 2004, the cost to the United States, including interest on the public debt, will reach $178 billion over the next decade. This includes only the cost of operations in Iraq, and excludes all estimated costs from the 2003 and 2004 supplementals related to Afghanistan.

Last fall, the Democratic staff of the House Budget Committee released an analysis concluding that the cost of a war in Iraq, including interest on the public debt, would probably reach $100 billion and could rise to $200 billion. This is likely to prove a conservative estimate of the total costs.

Under a reasonable set of assumptions, the cost of our operations in Iraq will reach $237 billion and could reach $418 billion over the next 10 years. Because there is no proposal to offset or pay for the war or the post-war effort, it has to be assumed that the cost will increase the deficit and the national debt.

The following table summarizes the potential cost of these scenarios: [continued]

http://www.house.gov/budget_democrats/analyses/iraq_cost_update.pdf

 

[wasteofo2]

You must hate America and not want Democracy to succede in Iraq to post such a thing.

The Congress is clearly a biased organization, show me a Drudge report on it and I'll consider it.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

You must hate America and not want Democracy to succede in Iraq to post such a thing.

are you serious?

 

[wasteofo2]

are you serious?

Yes, by posting something saying Iraq isn't going well is clearly just a partisan attempt to de-moralize the effort to Democratize Iraq by our brave, heroic, partiotic soldiers. Haven't you seen Bush's speeches? He clearly states that Iraq is on the right path and constantly getting better, and he's the President, he obviously knows more about it than anyone else would.

 

[Smurf]

oh good, for a minute I considered the possiblity that you weren't being sarcastic.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Yes, by posting something saying Iraq isn't going well is clearly just a partisan attempt to de-moralize the effort to Democratize Iraq by our brave, heroic, partiotic soldiers. Haven't you seen Bush's speeches? He clearly states that Iraq is on the right path and constantly getting better, and he's the President, he obviously knows more about it than anyone else would.

What you are saying is that Bush should never be questioned or challenged. This is not patriotic; this is cultish. It is called blind patriotism - one of the most dangerous things of all. Your attitude is exactly what scares me about the right in general. Bush is dangerous.

The war is not going well. Bush has mismanaged this entire affair beyond imagination - a greater disaster than 911 all considered. We must now carry the cost in money and lives, mostly alone, instead of in concert with many nations. He has lied from the start and he has squandered the greatest good will shown this nation in my lifetime.

 

[Smurf]

no really, he's being sarcastic... really.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I asked. Are we just playing games here or what?

Anyway, this just hit the wires:

CIA Pessimistic About Iraq
Situation Worse Than Portrayed, Analysts Say

People at the CIA "are mad at the policy in Iraq because it's a disaster, and they're digging the hole deeper and deeper and deeper," said one former intelligence officer who maintains contact with CIA officials. "There's no obvious way to fix it. The best we can hope for is a semi-failed state hobbling along with terrorists and a succession of weak governments."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58183-2004Sep28.html

 

[graphic7]

You must hate America and not want Democracy to succede in Iraq to post such a thing.

The Congress is clearly a biased organization, show me a Drudge report on it and I'll consider it.

Who are you to say that the Iraqis have a desire for democracy?

 

[russ_watters]

Who are you to say that the Iraqis have a desire for democracy?

That question implies to me that you don't understand what the word "democracy" means.

 

[graphic7]

I understand what "forcing" a democracy on a sovereign nation means.

Would you care to iteratate on how I fail to understand what the definition of "democracy" means, Russ?

To quote dictionary.com:

1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
2. A political or social unit that has such a government.
3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
Majority rule.
4. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.

All of which refer to some aspect of a government. I personally believe that if the Iraqi citizens truly desired a democracy, they would've done it on their own. The moment you force democracy on a group of people, it's no longer democracy.

Perhaps I'm the only one that again see the irony in this situation. The United States forces democracy on a nation via the *military*. Doesn't that just ridicule the whole democratic system?

It seems to me that you're the one that doesn't understand what democracy is, Russ.

 

[kat]

Graphic7-How many democracies do you think were formed "via" force by the military? A minority? a majority?

 

[graphic7]

Graphic7-How many democracies do you think were formed "via" force by the military? A minority? a majority?

Via the force of the miltary is relative, Kat. As far as I know the successful democracies of the world were actually formed by the citizens' desire, not by an outside invasion. Good try though, Kat.

 

[LURCH]

I would be somewhat skeptical of any figures being presented by either party. The topic of this thread shows that the source quoted in the original post is representing the Democratic party, so I would expect the estimate to be a little high, unless I see the same numbers from a representative of the Republican party. Likewise, I would expect any estimate from the Republican Party to be rather low. However, I do agree with the opening paragraph, and most especially this statement:

It is important that the Congress and the American people have a clear understanding of the commitment this effort requires.

As has been said since the beginning of this conflict, it's not going to be easy, and it's not going to happen quickly. The open war was the easy part; it is the restructuring of a country that has never known democracy, the liberating of a people who have never known freedom, and gaining the trust of people who have never seen anything but betrayal and brutality from those in power, these are the great challenges ahead.

I don't know if we outsiders can truly grasp what a total wreck Iraq was, or how utterly hopeless the life of the average citizen used to be. Such damage is not undone without great effort.

I don't know what the true cost of restructuring Iraq will turn out to be, but of this we can all be quite certain; the cost of leaving it the way it was would have been much higher.

 

[Locrian]

I could handle 400 billion for iraq if we didn't just hand 500 billion to pharmaceutical companies.

 

[russ_watters]

I understand what "forcing" a democracy on a sovereign nation means.

This statement also implies you don't know what a democracy is.

Would you care to iteratate on how I fail to understand what the definition of "democracy" means, Russ?

Sure: phrases like "forcing a democracy" are self-contradictory.

All of which refer [in the definition] to some aspect of a government. I personally believe that if the Iraqi citizens truly desired a democracy, they would've done it on their own. The moment you force democracy on a group of people, it's no longer democracy.

See, there's the key: you're mixing two completely different issues. The question of how the change is made to take place is completely different from what form the final government will be in. Certainly, we are forcing a change to take place. But we are not dictating the final form of the Iraqi government.

Further, the idea that people can easily revolt on a whim to change their form of government is pretty abusurd. Dictators tend to be highly successful in the short run. They rarely ever cede power except in death.

Perhaps I'm the only one that again see the irony in this situation. The United States forces democracy on a nation via the *military*. Doesn't that just ridicule the whole democratic system?

The situation certainly is ironic, but you're reading it backwards. Again, the phrase "forcing democracy" is an oxymoron. Democracy is a choice, by its very nature. It can't be forced on anyone.

The part you are missing is that the US is not imposing our form of government on Iraq. The US knocked off the government that existed (a government which did not have the support of the people) and is now allowing the people to create their own government. What we are doing is forcing the Iraqi government to give its people the choice.

Yes, it is true that the US is setting up some constraints on the structure of the government, but by and large, the people of Iraq are building their own government and once they have a stable government in place, we'll release complete control of it to them.

It seems like you are implying that there could be such a thing as a democratically elected dictator. Again, this is an oxymoron, but it certainly is theoretically possible that someone could propose an amendmen to the constitution (for example) to disband the legislative and judicial branches. But theoretically possible does not make it a historical reality. People don't do such things.

 

[omin]

Basic economic theory can prove the war was stupid.

Is it more efficient to kill people and take what they have or be diplomatic and trade with them fairly?

When you kill them, do you realize what power one human has at their disposal. One person alone can causes millions of dollars in damage. Murdering Iraqis and pissing off millions of them, was a stupid, uneconomic mistake all the way around.

When you are fair to people, do you know how much power there is in cooperation? Those who've given up on this superior ideal are in power in our country, with the support of petty-Nazi-Republican, religious nuts.

But in Bushspeak, one who defends Iraqi Homeland is a terrorist. As long as you don't get this, America goes further in debt. Now go out and beat someone up and see how economic that is. We'll put you in jail and it will cost the tax payers idiot!

 

[omin]

graphic7,

I agree with you somewhat, but I believe all circumstances are Demcracys, even in situations where people are fighting a dictator or accept laws that would seem unjust to another types of Democracys.

Democracy is a principle in human circumstances rather than a perfect entity.

If the people aren't killing those in the regime that control the functions of government, they accept the government by demonstrating a peacefull attitude. This is Democracy.

If the people are killing those in the regime who controls the functions of government, this too is Democracy.

Democracy is only the relative expression of the people in terms of the existing government.

Where there is killing on the side of the people against the governing regime is less a Democracy though.

Where killing on the side of the governing regime against the people is less a demcracy also.

But the killing on the side of an invading governing regime against the people is the least type of Demcracy that can exist.

A regime that attempts to govern a people who were at peace with one another not killing each other in a huge political magnitude sense, who enters their sovereighn territory, and begins murdering innocent civilians and destroying their property is hardly a Democracy, but still is somewhat.

Democracy is of the people. Which means it comes from the people. The people are responsible to make their own revolutions. Dictators who invade and call an invasion and occupation Democracy while killing mostly civilians-the people, is the lowest, vilest, filthiest Democracy that can exist, and is criminal in nature. Democracy has criminal forms. The invasion of Iraq is a prime example. American citizens democratically approved, by direct support, or by inactive default, by allowing Bush act as president.

 

[kat]

When you are fair to people, do you know how much power there is in cooperation? Those who've given up on this superior ideal are in power in our country, with the support of petty-Nazi-Republican, religious nuts.

I don't know what the **** your idea of fair is, but leaving people at the mercy of brutal, genocidal dictators doesn't come under the heading of "fair" in any manner that I know of. Maybe if you compassionate *******s had gotten on your band wagon years ago and taken care of Saddam when he first started going screwy you could talk "fair", or maybe if you had screamed to continue and remove him over Gulf War 1 you might have the right to say anything about "Fair" but **** you if you think "fair" is being left to live under the brutality of a man like that.

 

[Mercator]

I don't know what the **** your idea of fair is, but leaving people at the mercy of brutal, genocidal dictators doesn't come under the heading of "fair" in any manner that I know of. Maybe if you compassionate *******s had gotten on your band wagon years ago and taken care of Saddam when he first started going screwy you could talk "fair", or maybe if you had screamed to continue and remove him over Gulf War 1 you might have the right to say anything about "Fair" but **** you if you think "fair" is being left to live under the brutality of a man like that.

I think it is not fair that Rumsfeld went to shake hands with Saddam during the conflict with Iran, while he was actively using chemical agents against the Iranians, and encouraged him to use all means. It is not fair that American companies like Dupont consequently delivered the chemicals. I think it is not fair that the Anthrax strains available in Iraq where developed in the US. I think it is not fair that Rumsfeld then abused the 911 events to excuse an invasion in Iraq. I think it is unfair that people like you are really lowering themselves by finding any excuse for a war that deep down they KNOW is disastrous and unjust , but will defend even with lies just for the sake of not losing the argument. It is unfair that every day scores of people die because they refuse to accept foreign dominance AND because the occupying forces are uncapable of restoring sufficient conditions. I think it's unfair that people have to live in conditions that are worse than during the period of sanctions. I think it's unfair that neocons and their supporters not only did not consider the alternatives (presuming that they were genuinly interested in the wellbeing of the Iraqi people) but now that their actions prove to be disastrous close their eyes and stubbornly continue to bang their head agaisnt the wall and try to bully the world into doing the same.

 

[vanesch]

But we are not dictating the final form of the Iraqi government.

We all know what will be the final form: an islamic republic!

 

[Smurf]

Or an American Puppet

 

[Gokul43201]

Basic economic theory can prove the war was stupid.

And basic physics can prove that computers shouldn't work.

That's why the sciences (including economics) have evolved from basic models to ones that are more capable of working in the real world, and as a result, are more complex.

 

[Gokul43201]

I don't know what the **** your idea of fair is, but leaving people at the mercy of brutal, genocidal dictators doesn't come under the heading of "fair" in any manner that I know of. Maybe if you compassionate *******s had gotten on your band wagon years ago and taken care of Saddam when he first started going screwy you could talk "fair", or maybe if you had screamed to continue and remove him over Gulf War 1 you might have the right to say anything about "Fair" but **** you if you think "fair" is being left to live under the brutality of a man like that.

Ha ha. Perhaps, Bush should have used this line when he went to war. He should have told America and Congress that Saddam is a genocidal maniac who tortures and kills his people. And that it's only fair to liberate them from him. (But for the longest time, everyone's known that...and no one - especially, the conservatives - gave a rat's a$$)

Like that would have rallied support for the war...

And now, the supporters of the War can't say enough (I'm not referring to you, Kat) about how Saddam was a brutal dictator, and it was the right thing to liberate the people of Iraq (now that there's no WMDs or al Qaeda link to talk of).

To them, I like to say **** *** !

While we're in the business of saving people from crazy despots, why stop with Saddam ? Let's get Kim Jong Il, and King Fahd and Crown Prince Abdulla. (Along with Charles Taylor, these people were rated as worse dictators than Saddam, as published by Parade Magazine upon consultation with Freedom House, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch) Let's take out Than Shwe and Teodoro Nguema. Let's topple Mugabe and the Sudanese regime.

Now, that would be fair, wouldn't it ?

 

[russ_watters]

Or an American Puppet

What from American history would lead you to that conclusion? Ask Germany and Japan if we turned them into american puppets after WWII...

People say that sort of thing all the time. I guess they don't trust us - but that sentiment has no basis in reality.

Basic economic theory can prove the war was stupid.

Really? Economics is numbers. The law of supply and demand and so forth. Can you prove mathematically that something is "stupid"? Ie, 1+1="stupid"...

Really, omin, if you want to be taken seriously, stop with the meaningless rhetoric.

 

[russ_watters]

We all know what will be the final form: an islamic republic!

I'm not sure if you're being serious (because a a theocracy is one form we will not allow) or if that's a multi-layered irony, but I'll answer it either way: "Islamic republic" is an oxymoron, kinda like "People's Republic of China." Its a name that doesn't mean what the words in the name imply it means. Its an autocratic form of government and one which is not considered legitimate by the international community. Only governments formed by a mandate from the people are legitimate forms of government.

 

[Gokul43201]

But we are not dictating the final form of the Iraqi government.

because a a theocracy is one form we will not allow

Now, I'm confused

 

[omin]

I don't know what the **** your idea of fair is, but leaving people at the mercy of brutal, genocidal dictators doesn't come under the heading of "fair" in any manner that I know of. Maybe if you compassionate *******s had gotten on your band wagon years ago and taken care of Saddam when he first started going screwy you could talk "fair", or maybe if you had screamed to continue and remove him over Gulf War 1 you might have the right to say anything about "Fair" but **** you if you think "fair" is being left to live under the brutality of a man like that.

Leaving them to handle their own internal affairs unfair? America did America it's own revolution. Now, if any state let's things go bad internally, that's there problem.

I'm sorry to say you are convinced it was internal in Iraq. Iraq's problem were significantly created by a world that turned against it and pressured it into circumstances that were very difficult to respond to. But this takes research that goes deeper than the mainstream America press. To print the significant facts would be a conflict of interst of those who are responsibe in American leadership of murdering 500,000 Iraqi children. Saddam never came close to that.

BTW, the collateral damage was the only damage to Iraqis. 90% civilians. Wanna know the other ten percent? The other ten percent are called civlians who turn the gun on the murders who are invading their country. Bush calls them terrorists. So does that idiot Kerry, even though he's better for the presidency, because we have no other choice.

russ_watters,

The basic idea is cooperative trade versus murder and theft. Very simple. The basic economy is cooperative in all societies. This war is murder and theft. It's inferior theory, literallly.

Would you like to rhetort again?

 

[Smurf]

I'm not sure if you're being serious (because a a theocracy is one form we will not allow) or if that's a multi-layered irony, but I'll answer it either way: "Islamic republic" is an oxymoron, kinda like "People's Republic of China." Its a name that doesn't mean what the words in the name imply it means. Its an autocratic form of government and one which is not considered legitimate by the international community. Only governments formed by a mandate from the people are legitimate forms of government.

Oxymoron, n. pl. ox·y·mo·ra (-môr, -mr) or ox·y·mo·rons
A rhetorical figure in which incongruous or contradictory terms are combined.
Islamic Republic is not an oxymoron. It's a noun with a condition. Theocracy is a society in which the Clergy of a Religion(s) rule over the state, Thats neither here nor there. To me it seems unreasonable for Iraq not to ultimatly end up with an Islamist Republic, 90% of the country is Islamist. It will simply be a republic based on the traditions or rules of Islam.

 

[kat]

Ha ha. Perhaps, Bush should have used this line when he went to war. He should have told America and Congress that Saddam is a genocidal maniac who tortures and kills his people. And that it's only fair to liberate them from him. (But for the longest time, everyone's known that...and no one - especially, the conservatives - gave a rat's a$$)

Like that would have rallied support for the war...

And now, the supporters of the War can't say enough (I'm not referring to you, Kat) about how Saddam was a brutal dictator, and it was the right thing to liberate the people of Iraq (now that there's no WMDs or al Qaeda link to talk of).

To them, I like to say **** *** !

I've always said Saddam should be removed becuase he's a genocidal maniac, you can check my early posts. What I'm referring to is the "lefts" silence on the matter. I cannot believe that so many can rise up and argue against a war to remove Saddam and not have so very many of the same people who are supposedly the peacemakers...rising up and demanding genocide to stop in countries that it occurs in. THAT is the left I would like to see, It's the left that probably never really existed but the left that I did romaticize as existing. It's the LEFT that stands for SOLIDARITY and for human rights FOR ALL. Maybe, during my college years I was living in an illusion while screaming for an end to Aparthied, maybe there was never the unity in ending unfair domination of other human beings EVERYWHERE. But the left I believed in was that which believed humans are together and equal as a universal concept! NOT only for the white Western world! Not only for the WOMEN of the white western world.
The left I believed I knew, brought into actuality the human rights of the first generation, the right to remain alive, right to liberties and right to access to justice FOR ALL, not just those who the despotic rulers deign to grant them to! The security in the social solidarity safety net that is present in developed democracies, is an achievement of the left! It was the lefts innovation which was unique, that for any of those rights was their universality based on the equality of ALL men in dignity and rights. NOT just men of the WESTERN world!
So, I'm going to ask WHERE THE HECK WAS THE LEFT?!
It should not have been left to the "right" Where the heck was the left?! and now the "left" is screaming about invading Iraq yet they were quiet during Saddams brutal reign. IMO you've lost your right to speak for the Iraqi people, because quite frankly I don't think this pretend "left" that is so vocal gives 2 ****s for the Iraqi people, either then or now! This "left" (which is no left that I was ever famliar with) is as big of a hypocrit as the RIGHT who now wants to pretend they cared about those "po' li'l Iraqi's). Give me a break!

While we're in the business of saving people from crazy despots, why stop with Saddam ? Let's get Kim Jong Il, and King Fahd and Crown Prince Abdulla. (Along with Charles Taylor, these people were rated as worse dictators than Saddam, as published by Parade Magazine upon consultation with Freedom House, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch) Let's take out Than Shwe and Teodoro Nguema. Let's topple Mugabe and the Sudanese regime.

Now, that would be fair, wouldn't it ?

That sure the hell would be EQUAL and FAIR and if the worlds "Left" rose up like it did to try and stop the removal of Saddam...Maybe things would be a little different and less hypocritical.

 

[Gokul43201]

kat, are you suggesting that there is nothing two-faced about the right wing argument that the War is justified because is removed Saddam, even though they were at least as silent as the left about Saddam's atrocities ?

 

[kat]

kat, are you suggesting that there is nothing two-faced about the right wing argument that the War is justified because is removed Saddam, even though they were at least as silent as the left about Saddam's atrocities ?

I'M saying that the war is justified because it has removed a genocidal dictator.
I'm also saying that the so called "left" which is no left that I'm familiar with has NO moral high ground and in fact has blood on it's hands because of it's silence.
As for the right, I don't think I NEED to make any remarks relevant to what they are or are not, those of the so called "left" which is again, no left that I'm familiar with are very well occupied with commentary on the right, so well occupied that they've become hypocrits and much like the little monkey covering it's eyes, mouth and ears when the evil is effected by anything other then white and western (oh yes, and the juuuuuuesss). Where are the millions in the streets protesting genocide in Sudan?!

Is the cry of "NO CHANGE" "NO CHANGE" conservatism? Is the cry of "NO INTERVENTION"? Conservatism? Is the cry that protects the TRADITIONAL VALUES of SHaria law conservatism?! Yes it IS, and by GOD this so called "left" isn't so freakin left at all...YOU"VE been usurped! by the god awful no-change conservatives and people all over the world are dying while this so called "left", which AGAIN, is no left that I"M familiar with, is busy undermining anything that MIGHT bring change. WHERE are your constructive alternatives? WHERE were your constructive alternatives? WHERE were your demonstrations?! Where is/was and will be your outrage on anything other then Bush while people are being subjected to such HUGE human rights violations ALL OVER the world?! Give me a break, this left of today is nothing but a bunch of hypocrits.

 

[Gokul43201]

I'M saying that the war is justified because it has removed a genocidal dictator.

And the protesters believe that you don't remove a genocidal dictator through more genocide.

I'm also saying that the so called "left" which is no left that I'm familiar with has NO moral high ground and in fact has blood on it's hands because of it's silence.

So the left has blood on it's hands if it didn't rile up against Saddam, but the right gets a free pass ? I'd say that the right has all the blood, because it was the left that has been calling for sanctions against dictators, while the right, while having no qualms with starting a war, didn't raise a finger. When they did chose to, you can bet you @$$, it wasn't to save the Iraqis from a dictator.

As for the right, I don't think I NEED to make any remarks relevant to what they are or are not, those of the so called "left" which is again, no left that I'm familiar with are very well occupied with commentary on the right,

But, of course, the right doesn't take any time out to bash liberals ! Tell me where you find more rhetoric, on CBS or Fox ?

so well occupied that they've become hypocrits and much like the little monkey covering it's eyes, mouth and ears when the evil is effected by anything other then white and western (oh yes, and the juuuuuuesss). Where are the millions in the streets protesting genocide in Sudan?!

Twice during this summer, I've seen groups standing (along High Street) just outside my University, protesting the Sudan genocide. That's twice that I saw - there may have been more. One of the posters read " If we weren't too busy murdering Iraqis, we would stop the murders in Sudan" or something to that effect. On July 14, Charles Rangel and Walter Fauntroy (D, DC) were arrested in front of the Sudanese Embassy leading a protest by hundreds. On Aug 26, Danny Glover was arrested, leading another similar protest in DC. And these are the ones the news will report because of the arrests of liberal big-wigs.

Now where's that compassion in them conservatives ? The last time I remember the conservatives protesting something, it was the Kosovo war.

For every liberal protesting the Sudan genocide, are there a hundred, protesting the Iraq War ? Certainly.

Would you be able to tell your neighbour to stop yelling at his kids if your husband was giving yours a hiding everyday ? I think not. And who would you try to stop ?

Surely the people have a greter effect on the actions of their own government than on the actions of the UN, or the Sudanese Govt, or the US working through the UN, with the Sudanese.

Is the cry of "NO CHANGE" "NO CHANGE" conservatism? Is the cry of "NO INTERVENTION"? Conservatism? Is the cry that protects the TRADITIONAL VALUES of SHaria law conservatism?!

And there's a word for the the cry that goes : "We need to change the world. We can stop the Arab world from treating women like dogs. We can root out evil, wherever it exists in the world." I call it the cry of STUPID.

Yes it IS, and by GOD this so called "left" isn't so freakin left at all...YOU"VE been usurped! by the god awful no-change conservatives and people all over the world are dying while this so called "left", which AGAIN, is no left that I"M familiar with, is busy undermining anything that MIGHT bring change.

Maybe the concept of bringing about change in a sovereign, foreign nation by imposing your will over it is cut and dried to you. To a lot of thinking people in the world, it's not that straightforward. There are several "primitive societies" all around the world that have not evolved at the pace of the west. Trying to force an overnight evolution is playing with fire.

The left is not against change. It's against stupidity.To bring about change, you need to understand the people that you're trying to change. The left is against putting a bunch of self-centered, isolationist, nutjobs in chanrge of bringing about change.

WHERE are your constructive alternatives? WHERE were your constructive alternatives?

If you pulled those tomohawks out of your ears, you might hear them.

WHERE were your demonstrations?! Where is/was and will be your outrage on anything other then Bush while people are being subjected to such HUGE human rights violations ALL OVER the world?!

I've covered this already.

Give me a break, this left of today is nothing but a bunch of hypocrits.

The left, the whole left, and no one but the left...so help us, God. Tut tut !

I don't claim that the left is not becoming more apathetic; that there is no hypocrisy or ulterior motive to the protests; that they are what they used to be in the 60s and 70s. I just disagree with the way you see things.

 

[kat]

And the protesters believe that you don't remove a genocidal dictator through more genocide.

Either you are ignorant of the meaning of the term genocide or you are purposely convoluting the discussion. Which imo is extremely dishonest. It's impossible to have good dialogue with someone who wants to convolute terms to fit their agenda.
I have to log. (disgusted)

 

[Gokul43201]

Either you are ignorant of the meaning of the term genocide or you are purposely convoluting the discussion. Which imo is extremely dishonest. It's impossible to have good dialogue with someone who wants to convolute terms to fit their agenda.
I have to log. (disgusted)

I didn't say that I was calling this genocide. But there are tons of people that believe it is. I've seen enough of them here on PF, and I know there ore several more out there.

I don't have an agenda. Nor am I being dishonest. And if you read your post again...it didn't seem to me like one that was attempting to engage in "good dialogue". I guess you didn't bother reading past the first line of my post.

kat, I respect your views, and more. Please, stop calling me a liar.