Why can't people realize how much we can't afford these wars right now?

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Why can't people realize how much we can't afford these wars right now?

hmmmm... (talk)18:32, 23 March 2010

Some basic bias and excess metaphor aside, I've always found that George Lakoff's "Moral Politics" is the only book that properly explains why conservatives and progressives think the way they do, and why both systems of thought are coherent within their own internal logic. If you're wondering why on Earth conservatives don't mind the cost of wars but do mind the cost of healthcare (or vice versa), give the book a read. It's very insightful. Conservatives aren't dumb, they just use a different form of political reasoning that makes sense in its own right, insofar as any political reasoning can make sense. For a liberal, wars are about murdering foreigners and getting your sons killed, and healthcare about helping people; but for a conservative, wars are about protecting people (and the country) and healthcare is about coddling the weakest with money stolen from the best. (talk)05:47, 24 March 2010

Alas, a Social darwinist show's his true colours! Hitler is not Dead! Fascism lives on!

I suppose we could just solve the problem with Forced sterilisation, Then "the weak" wouldn't be able to reproduce and proliferate their heinous genes, Or Better yet we could just euthanise them all, for their own good, so that they no longer suffer, and we live in a world of, by and for "the best"! T-4 anyone?

This poster reads: "60,000 Reichsmarks is what this person suffering from hereditary defects costs the People's community during his lifetime. Comrade, that is your money too. Read '[A] New People', the monthly magazine of the Bureau for Race Politics of the NSDAP." (about 1938) (talk)14:58, 24 March 2010

Are you referring to me, second poster? I am not a conservative, not in the least. I'm just repeating Lakoff's theory on why conservatives support things like expensive wars while refusing to accept health care bills that might even lower costs (such as the one voted down in California). The point is, conservatives are misguided and ill informed about human nature; they aren't evil or stupid. (talk)05:24, 25 March 2010

Seeing the rich as "the best" and the poor as "the coddled weakest" seems like a pretty evil political philosophy at work. and as for the wars, Does anyone seriously believe that attacking and invading other nations (e.g. Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen) protects the United States form terrorism? It fuels more terrorism because it simply validates the arguments of those who would seek to harm the US. Terrorism is at its very nature, ideological, not military. Killing and wounding "suspected terrorists", (in effect often civilians) simply alienates the remainder of the population and provides them the moral (and emotional) justification to retaliate in desperate ways. Granted there may be a few (ignorant) conservatives who believe these wars about protecting the country, but most understand the real reason for the recent wars is geopolitics - the U.S. is highly reliant on foreign fossil fuels (which are rapidly dwindling, and needs to assure its control of these resources as they start to run out. Fossil fuel security is vital to U.S. National Security (i.e.The US, can has a military larger than the next 17 nations combined, but it is quickly rendered useless if there is nothing to fuel it), and to preserving the American way of life and high standard of living. (talk)15:13, 26 March 2010

Ahh, the ancient "war for oil" garbage again. I can remember all the times I heard THAT load of bull in college...

No, these wars are NOT for oil. Not now, and they never were. If we wanted oil, we would NOT need war for it- despite the huge debate over it, surely drilling in ANWR would be a much better alternative. It's on land we own- no conquest required. It's close, so the shipping costs would be much cheaper. No need for expensive military equipment nor massive loss of life, either, so surely it'd be much more popular.

Out of all the complaints that are thrown at these wars, the "War for Oil" claim is easily the least logical, and the most annoying. It has no basis whatsoever in reality.

As for your claims about "the best" and "the coddled weakest", that hasn't got SQUAT to do with rich VS poor. It's more a matter of those who work for a living (or, in these economic times, those who WANT to work for a living but can't) VS those who'd rather have welfare provide everything for them. (talk)00:56, 27 March 2010

And there always are the neighbors to the north and Alaska.

Mikemoral♪♫00:59, 27 March 2010

Um... yes, the earth is flat, The Holocaust never happened, and global warming is a massive hoax. The war isn't for oil LMAO!!! ANWR as an alternative to Iraq? you could't fill a bathtub with the dribble of oil up in that seal infested swamp. Iraq has the second largest reserves left on the planet, after Saudi Arabia. If i'm not mistaken, the 15 of the 19 9/11 highjackers were from that country, why didn't we invade them? Oh that's right those Monarchists have given us cheap oil since Truman made a deal with them back In the 50's, so we didn't need to. Iraq on the other hand. Saddam was our buddy keeping the Ayatollahs in Iran at bay, until he got the bright idea to Nationalize Petroleum supplies. That Backstabbing Socialist Traitor! And then he had to get even greedier and invade Kuwait! No not for oil lol

NedTugent (talk)05:18, 27 March 2010

You forgot to mention AIDS doesn't actually exist and Mr. Luc Montagnier lied to us all.

Mikemoral♪♫05:28, 27 March 2010

Even if what you say about ANWR were true, that is only ONE of the many places where we SHOULD be drilling, that a bunch of greenies can't stand the idea of us doing so. And it'd STILL be far more popular, cheaper, and faster than war, so NO, this war can NOT, by any stretch of logic, be for oil, there's still easier ways of getting that. The "War for Oil" claim is a weak argument.

Oh, and about global warming... two words- RECORD SNOWFALL!

And on Saddam- that guy should have been deposed ten years earlier, if not to protect ourselves, then for the good of his own people, who by the way are now on their way, slowly but surely, to a much better life! (talk)15:32, 27 March 2010
Edited by another user.
Last edit: 17:57, 27 March 2010

What's that awful smell..... ah......the rotting stench of Climate Change Denial.

Perhaps you should watch this

By the way Global Warming refers to an increase in the Earth's average global temperature. The resulting Climate Change can manifest itself as extreme weather events including -seemingly ironically- localized drops in temperature. If there is one characteristic that is nearly universal to the weather associated with Climate change it it an increase of moisture in the atmosphere. This causes - among other things - hurricanes, monsoons, floods, and you guessed it - Record snowfall,

Politically it was much easier to invade Iraq, (A Muslim Majority nation with a history adversity towards the United States of than to try to dredge a few million barrels of oil from ANRW (which would only benefit the US in the short term)). In any case The Payoff in Iraq was immeasurably Greater. Invading Iraq and setting up a friendly oil policy was a decision that will prove vital to the U.S. longterm strategic Interests as the world faces Peak oil. (talk)16:17, 27 March 2010

So, you're saying we benefit from the war in Iraq, without making it a point to deny that the non-terrorist, non-Saddam-supporting portion of the Iraqi people benefit too? I don't hear that very often. It's pleasantly surprising, though I disagree wholeheartedly that any supposed benefits of taking Iraq could outweigh the benefit of drilling on our own soil. Not just in ANWR, but off our shores as well, and anywhere else we have it.

Drill on our own turf, and we cut down on shipping costs, shipping distance, and the odds of accidental oil spills, plus we create jobs in our own country (a HUGE priority right now). (talk)19:27, 27 March 2010

I'm not sure how much the Iraqi people benefited when you consider that 650,000 - 1,000,000+ of them have died due to the invasion, occupation, civil war and related violence. Several million Iraqis (Many of whom had tenous connections to the old Ba'ath Party) have become political refugees as well. The rates of Leukemia, Bone cancer and other rare cancers have exploded in Iraq in the past ten year, due to the use OF "Depleted" uranium munitions by The occupying forces. By contrast, only 4,704 of the occupiers have died in the conflict. As an added Bonus five western Companies have now secured a deal with the new Iraqi Government on the future of Iraq's Oil production. So I think Its fair to say that the Occupiers have benefitted more the Occupied. (talk)20:14, 27 March 2010

utter nonsense ... you are regurgitating crap that you have heard from idiots

SVTCobra03:11, 27 March 2010

who was that comment directed to? (talk)05:01, 27 March 2010