workpublic
Junior Associate
Catch and release please
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 14:01:48 GMT -5
Posts: 5,551
Favorite Drink: Heineken
|
Post by workpublic on Nov 11, 2013 9:11:35 GMT -5
obama's lies about the ACA are ok, so i guess bushes lies about wmds are ok too? imho lies are lies.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Nov 11, 2013 9:13:06 GMT -5
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Nov 11, 2013 9:15:43 GMT -5
Doesn't leave me with much to do here.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,563
|
Post by tallguy on Nov 11, 2013 10:15:18 GMT -5
Doesn't leave me with much to do here. Considering that you have lapped the field in at least one of those, many of us are left feeling wistful as well.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,488
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 11, 2013 10:39:46 GMT -5
obama's lies about the ACA are ok, so i guess bushes lies about wmds are ok too? imho lies are lies. i was actually claiming just the opposite. however, how many lives did the wmd lies cost? how many dollars?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,488
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 11, 2013 10:40:20 GMT -5
Doesn't leave me with much to do here. you would post even if nobody read it, and you know it.
|
|
workpublic
Junior Associate
Catch and release please
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 14:01:48 GMT -5
Posts: 5,551
Favorite Drink: Heineken
|
Post by workpublic on Nov 11, 2013 11:01:45 GMT -5
i was actually claiming just the opposite. however, how many lives did the wmd lies cost? how many dollars?
i was replying to thankfuls line of reasoning.
reply to your reply is;
we don't know know how many lives or dollars will be lost when folks who had insurance they liked, lose it and they can't afford the "new" insurance or aren't eligible for the exchange.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,488
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 11, 2013 11:07:49 GMT -5
i was actually claiming just the opposite. however, how many lives did the wmd lies cost? how many dollars? i was replying to thankfuls line of reasoning. reply to your reply is; we don't know know how many lives or dollars will be lost when folks who had insurance they liked, lose it and they can't afford the "new" insurance or aren't eligible for the exchange. that's right. we don't know. but we DO know the cost of the WMD lies. i'll stick with what we know, thanks.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Nov 11, 2013 11:12:10 GMT -5
i was actually claiming just the opposite. however, how many lives did the wmd lies cost? how many dollars? i was replying to thankfuls line of reasoning. reply to your reply is; we don't know know how many lives or dollars will be lost when folks who had insurance they liked, lose it and they can't afford the "new" insurance or aren't eligible for the exchange. that's right. we don't know. but we DO know the cost of the WMD lies. i'll stick with what we know, thanks. That's a weak argument. Would you make the same statement regarding the ridiculous man-made global warming predictions?
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Nov 11, 2013 11:13:20 GMT -5
Doesn't leave me with much to do here. you would post even if nobody read it, and you know it. Psychologists call posts like this "projection".
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,488
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 11, 2013 11:25:38 GMT -5
that's right. we don't know. but we DO know the cost of the WMD lies. i'll stick with what we know, thanks. That's a weak argument. no, it really isn't. i am arguing facts -vs- projections. facts win every time.Would you make the same statement regarding the ridiculous man-made global warming predictions? i don't see why not, since i have never made any claims on that subject.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,488
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 11, 2013 11:29:20 GMT -5
you would post even if nobody read it, and you know it. Psychologists call posts like this "projection". no. that is totally false, Paul. allow me to explain WHY. you have stated, VERY CLEARLY, that you are here to proselytize. you have no intention of losing arguments, or even seriously debating them, because you are here to bring converts over to your side. using this space as a billboard will serve your interests just fine. (please let me know if i got anything wrong here) i have stated, VERY CLEARLY, that my whole reason for being here is to find out what causes people to think what they do. without interacting with people, i can't do that, so this board, in the absence of replies, serves no purpose for me whatsoever. we are very different in this sense, Paul. not the same at all.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Nov 11, 2013 12:08:38 GMT -5
Relative to what counterfactual? What you mean, I suspect, is that we know the cost of going to war in Iraq; but there's something like a broken window fallacy in operation there. Let's stipulate for the sake of argument that Saddam Hussein posed no actual threat to the West or the US in particular. That wasn't the understanding of Congress at the time, but let's agree with our superior 20/20 hindsight that Congress were a bunch of sillies. georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/10/print/20021002-2.htmlYou'll see there the grounds on which Congress authorized the Iraq War. It is possible that Hans Blix could have defied Popper and proved the negative statement that Iraq had no extant WMD programs. It is possible that his monitoring would then have ended, and possible that Saddam Hussein would have learned his lesson and not resumed his activities. It is possible that the Iraqi dictator was not in league with his Ba'athist counterparts in Syria, and using delaying tactics to move WMD evidence beyond Blix' jurisdiction. All of this is possible. But we can no more know that this would have been the case than we can know the eventual cost of Obamacare. Neither can we know that Saddam would not have been emboldened to sponsor some terror act in the US costing thousands of lives and billions of dollars. Neither can we know what al Qaeda would have been getting up to if it hadn't been forced into a land war on Iraqi soil - we can assume its operatives wouldn't have sat around playing cribbage, but we can't know. To really assess the cost of a decision, you have to measure it against the hypothetical costs of deciding differently - it's a "Sliding Doors" problem. So you may view your position as dealing with a factual cost, but in fact the notional cost of not passing the Iraq War Declaration is crucial to your case. You can't know we wouldn't have had grounds to go to war due to some event in the alternate-universe timeline, even if you don't accept the grounds listed at length in the Joint Resolution in this timeline. And you can't know what not going to war might have cost the nation, even if you feel pretty confident that it would have cost nothing. I imagine you've had opportunity and incentive from time to time to review CBO projections, in which case you'll have noticed how wrong they tend to be. This is so because they static-model, for very sound reasons having to do with the impossibility of accurately predicting consequences over a multi-year timespan that by their nature are unanticipated in legislation. In costing out the Iraq War, you hit the same problem in reverse, in that you're comparing that cost to an entirely notional alternate-history baseline in which any number of adverse events may have stemmed directly from the failure to authorize War in Iraq. The same problem arises when I try to defend what are now the Obama tax cuts on the grounds that revenues under Bush were half a trillion dollars higher than under Clinton after those cuts passed; I don't know that they wouldn't have been even higher absent the cuts, even if I feel like I have a good understanding of why that wouldn't be so.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,488
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 11, 2013 13:11:17 GMT -5
Relative to what counterfactual? What you mean, I suspect, is that we know the cost of going to war in Iraq; but there's something like a broken window fallacy in operation there. Let's stipulate for the sake of argument that Saddam Hussein posed no actual threat to the West or the US in particular. That wasn't the understanding of Congress at the time, but let's agree with our superior 20/20 hindsight that Congress were a bunch of sillies. i honestly don't give a rats behind about what Congress thinks. it is the CIC's call. he determines whether we go to war or not, and how. and the fact that they believed the BS that the WH and others were spewing is kind of disingenuous, imo. Bush wanted them to believe, and they believed, so, he got his war.georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/10/print/20021002-2.htmlYou'll see there the grounds on which Congress authorized the Iraq War. you are assuming that i know nothing about this subject. i can assure you, that is a false assumption.It is possible that Hans Blix could have defied Popper and proved the negative statement that Iraq had no extant WMD programs. It is possible that his monitoring would then have ended, and possible that Saddam Hussein would have learned his lesson and not resumed his activities. It is possible that the Iraqi dictator was not in league with his Ba'athist counterparts in Syria, and using delaying tactics to move WMD evidence beyond Blix' jurisdiction. All of this is possible. Blix needed nothing more than time. those are his words. because Saddam offered "unfettered access" starting December, 2002, Blix felt he would be done within (6) months. all we had to do was wait. but the Bush admin was already running down the "mushroom cloud" road, and there was no way they were going to wait for that. those are the facts. they are as plain as this typeface.But we can no more know that this would have been the case than we can know the eventual cost of Obamacare. that is clearly untrue. there were no WMD. so there was no threat. so there was no reason to attack. so all of that money, all of those lives, and all of that moral capital was spent for NOTHING. Neither can we know that Saddam would not have been emboldened to sponsor some terror act in the US costing thousands of lives and billions of dollars. of course not. but we can't know that Bush wouldn't either. what we CAN and DO know is that he was not responsible for any terrorism up to that point, and that OBL and he were on opposite sides of the war.Neither can we know what al Qaeda would have been getting up to if it hadn't been forced into a land war on Iraqi soil - we can assume its operatives wouldn't have sat around playing cribbage, but we can't know. again, we don't need to know that. you are erecting a lot of false "need to knows" here.To really assess the cost of a decision, you have to measure it against the hypothetical costs of deciding differently - it's a "Sliding Doors" problem. So you may view your position as dealing with a factual cost, but in fact the notional cost of not passing the Iraq War Declaration is crucial to your case. You can't know we wouldn't have had grounds to go to war due to some event in the alternate-universe timeline, even if you don't accept the grounds listed at length in the Joint Resolution in this timeline. And you can't know what not going to war might have cost the nation, even if you feel pretty confident that it would have cost nothing. you are measuring the certainty of $800B in war cost, and 100k lives lost against a hypothetical? again, my money is on the certainty of what we did, which was far greater in scope than anything either planned or carried out by every terrorist in the history of the world.I imagine you've had opportunity and incentive from time to time to review CBO projections, in which case you'll have noticed how wrong they tend to be. This is so because they static-model, for very sound reasons having to do with the impossibility of accurately predicting consequences over a multi-year timespan that by their nature are unanticipated in legislation. In costing out the Iraq War, you hit the same problem in reverse, in that you're comparing that cost to an entirely notional alternate-history baseline in which any number of adverse events may have stemmed directly from the failure to authorize War in Iraq. The same problem arises when I try to defend what are now the Obama tax cuts on the grounds that revenues under Bush were half a trillion dollars higher than under Clinton after those cuts passed; I don't know that they wouldn't have been even higher absent the cuts, even if I feel like I have a good understanding of why that wouldn't be so. again, my analysis doesn't depend on the CBO, which is indeed hypothetical. it is based ONLY on the undeniable costs we have sustained in Iraq. if you want to have this conversation in a year, when we have REAL numbers, i will gladly hand Obama his due.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Nov 11, 2013 13:16:22 GMT -5
Respectfully, dj, you're missing my point.
For the record, I'm not assuming you don't know the things you're not stating. I'm just stating the things you're not stating to frame the argument that you're comparing the measured cost of the Iraq War against a false correlate.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Nov 11, 2013 13:19:50 GMT -5
How many Iraqi children died as a result of the utterly ineffectual sanction regime? There's a UN report that put a figure on it. It's greater than 100k. By that measure, the Iraq War saved lives, and the lives it saved were more innocent than the ones it cost. That's the sort of thing I mean by counterfactuals. www.nytimes.com/1995/12/01/world/iraq-sanctions-kill-children-un-reports.html
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,488
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 11, 2013 13:24:07 GMT -5
How many Iraqi children died as a result of the utterly ineffectual sanction regime? more, perhaps. but to use your phrasing- this is not the argument i am making. what i am concerned with, as a US citizen, is the lives that are lost which are a direct cause of OUR actions. what other people do maybe tragic. it may be a horror. it may be genocide. but if it is not CAUSED by us, then we have no moral stake in it. and yes, i really do believe that. we can choose to TAKE one- but obviously, there may be considerable moral cost insodoing.There's a UN report that put a figure on it. It's greater than 100k. By that measure, the Iraq War saved lives, and the lives it saved were more innocent than the ones it cost. That's the sort of thing I mean by counterfactuals. www.nytimes.com/1995/12/01/world/iraq-sanctions-kill-children-un-reports.htmlagain, it feels like a lecture, phoenix. the day we start worrying about genocides that routinely crop up around the world (particularly in countries that are loosely allied with the US), is the day i start entertaining this "but what about the lives we saved" argument.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,488
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 11, 2013 13:25:37 GMT -5
Respectfully, dj, you're missing my point. For the record, I'm not assuming you don't know the things you're not stating. I'm just stating the things you're not stating to frame the argument that you're comparing the measured cost of the Iraq War against a false correlate. i know what you are arguing. you are arguing that we MAY have saved lives by going to Iraq. that is true. but what is MORE true is that we DID kill a lot of people by going. i don't believe in just ends for unjust means, phoenix.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Nov 11, 2013 13:29:24 GMT -5
The point here is that the sanction program was US-led and US-backed: it was our action, and the estimated 576,000 child casualties that resulted were, in Madeleine Albright's phrase, "a price worth paying."
The choice between a war that kills 100,000 people, most of them combatants, and a sanction regime that leads to more than half a million children dying, is on those narrow grounds alone obviously leaning towards the war.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Nov 11, 2013 13:30:37 GMT -5
Okay. Do you believe there are real-world situations where the practical choices are between alternatives all of which are bad? And that the moral imperative is to seek the alternative which is the least bad of them?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,488
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 11, 2013 13:44:09 GMT -5
The point here is that the sanction program was US-led and US-backed: it was our action, and the estimated 576,000 child casualties that resulted were, in Madeleine Albright's phrase, "a price worth paying." The choice between a war that kills 100,000 people, most of them combatants, and a sanction regime that leads to more than half a million children dying, is on those narrow grounds alone obviously leaning towards the war. you are making two assumptions that i disagree with, and one that i question. first, i disagree that UN backed sanctions are "caused" by anyone other than the leader of the nation that is sanctioned. second, it is totally false that MOST of the people that died in Iraq were "combattants". this has not been the case in any armed conflict since WW2 (and arguably earlier. WW2 was about 50/50). i am not advocating for sanctions, btw. i am arguing that this logic doesn't work for me. if a nation refuses to obey the rule of law, and is a threat to itself and it's neighbors, the international community has the right to intervene. if that intervention causes suffering, that is NOT the fault of the intervening entity.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,488
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 11, 2013 13:44:43 GMT -5
edit: i question the half a million statistic, but it is immaterial to the argument.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,488
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 11, 2013 13:46:13 GMT -5
Okay. Do you believe there are real-world situations where the practical choices are between alternatives all of which are bad? And that the moral imperative is to seek the alternative which is the least bad of them? of course. but i also believe that, as a choice on said list, WAR is among the worst alternatives that can be made. edit: i also believe that we are being very capricious with our moral authority. in 1994+, we (the world) sat and passively watched as half a million were killed in Rwanda. we did NOTHING. we scarcely even discussed it. this is only one of a dozen examples i could come up with, without any effort.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Nov 11, 2013 14:10:18 GMT -5
The point here is that the sanction program was US-led and US-backed: it was our action, and the estimated 576,000 child casualties that resulted were, in Madeleine Albright's phrase, "a price worth paying." The choice between a war that kills 100,000 people, most of them combatants, and a sanction regime that leads to more than half a million children dying, is on those narrow grounds alone obviously leaning towards the war. you are making two assumptions that i disagree with, and one that i question. first, i disagree that UN backed sanctions are "caused" by anyone other than the leader of the nation that is sanctioned. second, it is totally false that MOST of the people that died in Iraq were "combattants". this has not been the case in any armed conflict since WW2 (and arguably earlier. WW2 was about 50/50). i am not advocating for sanctions, btw. i am arguing that this logic doesn't work for me. if a nation refuses to obey the rule of law, and is a threat to itself and it's neighbors, the international community has the right to intervene. if that intervention causes suffering, that is NOT the fault of the intervening entity. Your first point lends itself to the same assertion about provoking an act of war. I believe that the aggressor in a war bears moral culpability for it - in my view, that culpability is placed in the context of the impact of not going to war (I believe there can be such things as 'just wars,' although I see the Iraq War as merely expedient. I actually find it justifiable in comparison with the consequences I believe would have attended not going to war). If nothing else, a program of economic sanctions that punishes a people for the wrongdoing of their leaders is a morally questionable response to a morally wrong actor. Your second point I will stipulate to, and rephrase: most of them weren't children, unlike all of the victims cited in that UN report. If you're not advocating for sanctions, and you're not advocating for war, and - I'm guessing - you're not comfortable letting Saddam Hussein's several documented bad acts go unpunished... how would you have squared that circle? I see this as one of those "only bad alternatives" scenarios, personally.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Nov 11, 2013 14:14:25 GMT -5
I think both Kofi Annan and Bill Clinton are on record as considering Rwanda their worst respective failures, and they bloody well should.
I agree with you here; I don't really see actively participating in half a million deaths in Iraq arising from malnutrition under a sanction regime that, if anything, strengthened the tyrant's grip there, as being morally superior, though. Unilaterally imposing regime change has its own consequences, but those may sometimes be preferable.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,488
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 11, 2013 14:26:19 GMT -5
you are making two assumptions that i disagree with, and one that i question. first, i disagree that UN backed sanctions are "caused" by anyone other than the leader of the nation that is sanctioned. second, it is totally false that MOST of the people that died in Iraq were "combattants". this has not been the case in any armed conflict since WW2 (and arguably earlier. WW2 was about 50/50). i am not advocating for sanctions, btw. i am arguing that this logic doesn't work for me. if a nation refuses to obey the rule of law, and is a threat to itself and it's neighbors, the international community has the right to intervene. if that intervention causes suffering, that is NOT the fault of the intervening entity. Your first point lends itself to the same assertion about provoking an act of war. I believe that the aggressor in a war bears moral culpability for it - in my view, that culpability is placed in the context of the impact of not going to war (I believe there can be such things as 'just wars,' although I see the Iraq War as merely expedient. I actually find it justifiable in comparison with the consequences I believe would have attended not going to war). If nothing else, a program of economic sanctions that punishes a people for the wrongdoing of their leaders is a morally questionable response to a morally wrong actor. Your second point I will stipulate to, and rephrase: most of them weren't children, unlike all of the victims cited in that UN report. If you're not advocating for sanctions, and you're not advocating for war, and - I'm guessing - you're not comfortable letting Saddam Hussein's several documented bad acts go unpunished... how would you have squared that circle? I see this as one of those "only bad alternatives" scenarios, personally. i am for either economically engaging with or disengaging from nations, depending on how worthy they are of that trade.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,488
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 11, 2013 14:27:38 GMT -5
I think both Kofi Annan and Bill Clinton are on record as considering Rwanda their worst respective failures, and they bloody well should. I agree with you here; I don't really see actively participating in half a million deaths in Iraq arising from malnutrition under a sanction regime that, if anything, strengthened the tyrant's grip there, as being morally superior, though. Unilaterally imposing regime change has its own consequences, but those may sometimes be preferable. phoenix, forgive me, but i have run out of time for this interesting discussion, today. maybe later tonight i can get back to it...... i will add this, however: i don't believe that "ending the sanctions" was even mentioned as a reason for going to war back then. i will leave it to you as to decide WHY.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Nov 11, 2013 14:38:41 GMT -5
It was an effect of the war, however. We're dealing, it's been established, with actual effects here.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,488
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 11, 2013 20:39:05 GMT -5
It was an effect of the war, however. We're dealing, it's been established, with actual effects here. my point was that wars have to be justified in a democracy. this might have been a very good justification. WMD was not.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Nov 12, 2013 9:11:23 GMT -5
Forbes now predicts ObamaCare will be fully repealed well in advance of the 2014 mid-term elections. www.forbes.com/sites/stevenhayward/2013/11/11/obamacare-will-be-repealed-well-in-advance-of-the-2014-elections/How bad this gets for Democrats is completely in the hands of Barack Hussein Obama, President, and leader of the Democratic Party. Will he opt to sign reforms to save his party, or will he veto the certainly massive, and substantive chages that will amount to an effective repeal of ObamaCare- as I've predicted- or will he be a bitter clinger to his signature achievement?
|
|