Through parts of Sunday and yesterday, there were headlines in the news in regard to Obama calling for government agency heads to come together and cut $100 million.
Can you imagine? I think he's asking for a little too much. $100 million is an awful lot of money for government to cut. American citizens NEED the government to spend that money, because otherwise, who would???
Also, it would seem to have a negative effect to Obama's economic strategy of creating aggregate demand in order to keep prices up and keep people employed. Less money spent equals less demand and less jobs, supposedly. Didn't he say the other day that because individuals are saving money, the government needs to spend?
Instead of pulling all of these agency heads away from their day-to-day work of screwing the taxpayer, Obama could simply put the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan on hold for 12 hours. This way he'd save more than $100 million; maybe a few lives too.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
Yes, Iraq needs to be stopped, but not at the expense of the Iraqis, and the same with Afghanistan. All they need to do there is stay there.
Yes, why let the Iraqi's and Afghani's govern themselves?
While we're at it, we should occupy Pakistan, Columbia, Greece, Iceland, and the entire continent of Africa because people cannot figure out how live without our soldiers shoving a gun up their noses.
I suppose that's the only way Korea, Japan, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Hungary, and Turkey all manage to be so civilized.
Otherwise the Koreans would be just a bunch of wild animals killing each other off.
The left's solution: THROW MONEY AT PEOPLE AND THEN POINT GUNS AT THEM.
That's why you don't understand Iraq. Korea is a mono-cultural country, while Iraq contains three competing cultures that were forced together by the Brits.
I suppose that's why there's a big ass split between the north and the south...mono-culture right?
No, that is because of international politics, obviously. The split was forced upon the Koreans from outside Korea, not from within.
I'm sure the US government had the best intentions, just as they do in Iraq.
Hmmm, I'm pretty sure they didn't. In Iraq they were interested in oil. In Korea they "defending the Free World from communism".
And in Iraq they are "promoting democracy" and "fighting terrorism".
Was there oil in Korea that I was not aware of? I mean, really, if the US wanted to go completely imperialist, I don't think they would leave a few armies in South Korea. LOL. No, the debates leading up to the Korean war and the discourse during the Cold War proves that most of the post-WWII moves were made out of fear of communism.
The original intent doesn't matter. In fact, "intent" never matters.
American troops are still there today. I suppose if they pulled out the entire country would break down?
"The original intent doesn't matter. In fact, "intent" never matters."
In fact, yes it does, because it is cause and the action the effect. Get your head out of your ass, Josh.
"American troops are still there today. I suppose if they pulled out the entire country would break down?"
Probably not. The South has a standing army and can defend itself against the North. However, they don't have nukes.
Sorry, Josh, your point was refuted. There is nothing else you can say. The two examples are not the same.
"In fact, yes it does, because it is cause and the action the effect. Get your head out of your ass, Josh."
No it doesn't. Murder is murder. Stealing is stealing. Cheating is cheating. Torture is torture. Intent is not relevant.
You can't refute a point that goes completely over your head.
"No it doesn't. Murder is murder. Stealing is stealing. Cheating is cheating. Torture is torture. Intent is not relevant.
You can't refute a point that goes completely over your head.""
Ah, but without understanding itent, first-degree murder can not be distinguished from second or third.
Perhaps a local government wishes to punish different based on intent. Perhaps those courts that should be prosecuting George Bush may punish him different based on his intent. It does not change that wrong occurred.
I don't know why we're arguing about this here.
The point is that the intent to maintain civility in a war torn country is ok, but the action of occupying their territory with a standing arming is criminal. Its a crime against the American people, against the Iraqi people. And if you say the Iraqi people are OK with it, than they would be OK if the troops left, they'd have no reason to fight because their government is legit enough to allow foreign troops on their territory. If the country falls into anarchy when the troops leave, then we know the government of Iraq was not legit enough to allow such permission.
Post a Comment