PDA

View Full Version : McCain "Make it 100 [Years in Iraq]"



d'Anconia
01-04-2008, 07:22 PM
What a complete nut. Please pass this on to anyone you know who lives in New Hampshire.


vf7HYoh9YMM

KingJustin
01-04-2008, 07:32 PM
It really pains me to see him say this. I like when he talks about spending, but he will effectively keep taxes higher than all the Dems besides Clinton.

Jordanbcool
01-04-2008, 09:00 PM
Did he really say this? I'm a strong republican but this "war" isn't doing too well last time i checked..

bjohnso
01-04-2008, 10:56 PM
Keep digging John. You've almost reached China.

Rock
01-05-2008, 09:08 AM
Jordanbcool that does not make sense, a republican doesnt care about the world only about USA and less goverment. The original rebublicans wanted nothing to do with world policing or the outside world, only the world marked.

smokinHawk
01-05-2008, 10:19 AM
Did he really say this? I'm a strong republican but this "war" isn't doing too well last time i checked..

um it is doing ok last time i heard:confused:

KingJustin
01-05-2008, 10:34 AM
We are (finally) becoming effective at policing the state, now. But that really doesn't mean a whole lot. They are not making any progress on being independent of us. The political system in their country is not working (or making progress) and they still hate each other just as much as they always have. So, right now we can continue spending unbelievably high amounts of money, and keep our soldiers overseas and in harm's way, but we aren't actually making real progress.

Stumprrp
01-05-2008, 11:44 AM
what an idiot my god, yeah its fine, just keep letting our soldiers get killed daily for 100 years. i cant take it.

Paul Stagg
01-05-2008, 01:03 PM
Multigenerational occupation of Iraq was always the plan.

Brawl
01-05-2008, 01:51 PM
Multigenerational occupation of Iraq was always the plan.

good for John saying the truth ...yes we will be there for a long damn time ...

Not in the capacity we are now at war , but a lesser one .

Anyone that thinks we just pull out now is a complete bonestroke .

SW
01-05-2008, 02:51 PM
Did he really say this? I'm a strong republican but this "war" isn't doing too well last time i checked..

NO! He said, " Maybe 100" as in who knows when the heck we'll be outta there the way things are going. Come on now, listen to the video, guys.

d'Anconia
01-05-2008, 02:59 PM
um it is doing ok last time i heard:confused:

I'd be careful with the recent statistics. 2007 was still the deadliest year and it'd be bad for our country to have false hope over our occupation. Decline in deaths is still plenty of steps away from maintaining a stable free and democratic government in Iraq. Once the surge really starts to wind down should be interesting.

I still don't recall anyone ever installing a government in a foreign nation and having it last for a long time. Correct me if I'm wrong...

CrazyK
01-05-2008, 04:08 PM
The only progress that's happened in Iraq is progress towards the USA running a police state on them. They are no where near having a stable government of their own.

nejar462
01-05-2008, 04:44 PM
Well the dollar is collapsing in value and hatred of the US is growing exponentially in the middle east.

So we accomplished something, just nothing positive. I think people will wake up when they need to stay in long lines with a wheel barrel full of cash to buy a loaf of bread.

Jordanbcool
01-06-2008, 02:08 AM
Jordanbcool that does not make sense, a republican doesnt care about the world only about USA and less goverment. The original rebublicans wanted nothing to do with world policing or the outside world, only the world marked.

You're overgeneralizing an entire party dude.

But I def. think we need to dip out of the whole Iraq thing. We have too many problems in America to try and fix someone else's country.

shootermcgavin7
01-06-2008, 07:45 AM
They are not making any progress on being independent of us. The political system in their country is not working (or making progress) and they still hate each other just as much as they always have.


Maybe we're making a play to leave the place like the British did in the early 1900s.

nhlfan
01-07-2008, 03:00 AM
I still don't recall anyone ever installing a government in a foreign nation and having it last for a long time. Correct me if I'm wrong...

Canada worked out pretty well

:indian:

Rock
01-07-2008, 01:02 PM
Jordanbecool, Ron Paul is a republican following the republican guidelines. Bush is a neocon, they are like 2 extreme opposites.

rdkraus
01-07-2008, 01:17 PM
Jordanbecool, Ron Paul is a republican following the republican guidelines. Bush is a neocon, they are like 2 extreme opposites.

Rock

You're a little behind the curve here. Ron Paul Republicans have been almost non-existent for years and certainly don't run the party now. Try to keep up, my man (extra credit for living out of country LOL).

:thumbup: :thumbup:

God, I wish Republicans were all like Ron !!!

mickyjune26
01-07-2008, 01:47 PM
What's the big deal about what he's saying? We have forces in hundreds of countries. It doesn't mean they are fighting forces. All he's saying is that there will be US forces in Iraq (1) on a much smaller scale, (2) who won't be in active combat in Iraq (3) for a long time.

There's nothing different between how we have operated in any other country we fought (except Vietnam?).

Of course, they better change something soon to be able to promise that no one will be hurt. That's the real kicker.

TJ2389
01-08-2008, 07:52 PM
McCain wins in NH...

KingJustin
01-08-2008, 08:19 PM
What's the big deal about what he's saying? We have forces in hundreds of countries. It doesn't mean they are fighting forces. All he's saying is that there will be US forces in Iraq (1) on a much smaller scale, (2) who won't be in active combat in Iraq (3) for a long time.

There's nothing different between how we have operated in any other country we fought (except Vietnam?).

Of course, they better change something soon to be able to promise that no one will be hurt. That's the real kicker.

Look how big our military budget is. A lot of it has to do with our troops being stationed overseas.

shootermcgavin7
01-08-2008, 09:56 PM
Look how big our military budget is.

There is an argument that a lot of the money pissed away in the defense budget makes up for poor incentives by private companies to invest in R&D.

In other words, it is a larger, more inefficient version of the already inefficient NSF.

But it still leads to tech breakthroughs.



For example, without wasteful military spending, one could at least make the argument that microwaves and the internet would not exist.


I'm doing my best to say on topic, I'm just pointing out that a large military budget can have positive unexpected consequences.

I also have made no secret over the past 5 years that I voted for McCain in 2000.

Blanche_Soprano
01-08-2008, 10:29 PM
Jordanbecool, Ron Paul is a republican following the republican guidelines. Bush is a neocon, they are like 2 extreme opposites.


Rock

You're a little behind the curve here. Ron Paul Republicans have been almost non-existent for years and certainly don't run the party now. Try to keep up, my man (extra credit for living out of country LOL).

:thumbup: :thumbup:

God, I wish Republicans were all like Ron !!!


Ron Paul is a Libertarian. He only runs on the Republican ticket because it gives him a better chance of getting anywhere. So by using him as an example of a Republican, you are losing site of who the American Republicans are.

North
01-08-2008, 11:39 PM
I wish there was a reasonable way around parties. Or maybe even if they weren't currupt.

KingJustin
01-08-2008, 11:51 PM
There is an argument that a lot of the money pissed away in the defense budget makes up for poor incentives by private companies to invest in R&D.

In other words, it is a larger, more inefficient version of the already inefficient NSF.

But it still leads to tech breakthroughs.



For example, without wasteful military spending, one could at least make the argument that microwaves and the internet would not exist.


I'm doing my best to say on topic, I'm just pointing out that a large military budget can have positive unexpected consequences.

I also have made no secret over the past 5 years that I voted for McCain in 2000.

Yeah, the NASA argument. I agree that this applies to military R&D, but I don't believe it really applies to military bases in Germany, Japan, etc. I also agree that it is inefficient in bringing useful technological breakthroughs, although I am guessing that you think it is only mildly inefficient, whereas I think it is amazingly inefficient.

And I think the issues with R&D are that (a) we need global patent laws, and we need to actually really work for these, (b) we need much better patent laws that look more indirectly at the problem, and (c) we need to the government to leave the market.


Also, I actually like McCain more than the other Republicans. I think he can be a much more competent Commander in Chief, and I think (other than the Iraq war) he is likely to spend much less money than Bush. He was very vocal in ~2002-2004 about how much Bush was spending.

d'Anconia
01-08-2008, 11:59 PM
Let me just mention that during the Renaissance, Enlightenment, and Industrial Revolution the government contributed less to R&D than it does today.

And even if someone argued to defend the effectiveness of government subsidized R&D they'd still have to try to defend the way in which that money was obtained. Money for R&D just means the government will get lobbied for that money without any real oversight to make sure we are getting nice results from the money given out. Just look at how much money this whole ethanol bull**** industry is getting right now.

anelka
01-09-2008, 03:27 AM
There is an argument that a lot of the money pissed away in the defense budget makes up for poor incentives by private companies to invest in R&D. In other words, it is a larger, more inefficient version of the already inefficient NSF. But it still leads to tech breakthroughs.

For example, without wasteful military spending, one could at least make the argument that microwaves and the internet would not exist.

So you spend a few trillion dropping bombs, and accidently develop some technology now and again. Doesn't sound like very efficient research.

If all the money spent on the military was spent on NASA and other scientific research, there'd probably be men on Mars right now and cures for every disease imaginable.

anelka
01-09-2008, 05:46 AM
Let me just mention that during the Renaissance, Enlightenment, and Industrial Revolution the government contributed less to R&D than it does today.

And even if someone argued to defend the effectiveness of government subsidized R&D

Ironically, millions of businesses reap the benefits of space technology, which would never have existed if it was up to private interests, who only ever care about the profit margins of the next quarter.

shootermcgavin7
01-09-2008, 08:47 AM
KingJustin,
I think it is very inefficient. And yes, I was referring to R&D and not military bases.

However, R&D itself is a very inefficient process, and also a process with non-linear payoffs. Changes to patent law doesn't affect R&D itself, just the potential payoff to a breakthrough. A firm may have 20 R&D projects, of which only 1 turns out to be a feasible technology breakthrough. And maybe only one that pans out in the long-term (which tends to be unacceptable to executives in publicly listed firms).

The biggest factor seems to be that funding R&D is inherently riskier than funding physical assets, and very frequently it is the case that firms are not able to raise enough capital for R&D.

I personally think it would be better spent directly on the NSF, but it is difficult to quantify.....because the R&D breakthroughs from the military side are a byproduct.

The current structure of financial markets provides the incentive for companies to underinvest in R&D.....and maybe to a lesser extent some flaws in the patent law.

KingJustin
01-09-2008, 10:09 AM
I still think that if the research & development is legitimately useful, then even though it may takes significant amounts of money to develop a product, when they actually do, they have a monopoly on the market and can charge whatever they want to get their money back, and therefore does not occur.

Of course, this is against the law.

And yeah, I realize it takes enormous amounts of capital and the pay-offs are only very long term. But imo, large businesses (which can be made up of capital from thousands of people, i.e. public companies) are willing to look long term.

What does NSF mean?