I find it interesting that in a world where it's taken for granted that our side - the United States of America - will routinely detain and torture people suspected of (not proven yet) certain forms of wrongdoing, with no accountability or check on their actions, what are today's Libertarians - watchdogs of our liberty, who care about our liberty more than anything else, they say - most concerned with? That some of their money might be taken from them to provide health care for other people.

I'm not about to go into the rights and wrongs of that, only to note that to my mind they're screaming about cat barf in the kitchen while all that they own is being hauled out the back door to be burned on the lawn.

BTW - I, who was raised on the novels and ideas of Robert Heinlein (GI Generation) and on his views of core American values, find I do not want to live in a world where it's taken for granted that we will behave this way - and where not only is nobody listening, they don't even comprehend what I'm saying any more. As if I were babbling nonsense in Martian.

Well, except for those - including one hard-core Libertarian whose blog I take - who greet these arguments with a snarl about "anti-American traitors who would pat known criminals on the head and hand them the keys to the house." Meaning put them on trial and sort out the real criminals from those caught up in the net, try them under our own rules of law, convict them, and imprison or deport them or declare them POWs and deal with them accordingly. Oh, sorry - babbling nonsense in Martian again.

I thought it was just that we had elected a cadre of True Believers who honestly thought that being Us gave them the right to do anything they pleased, and that the next election would fix that. It didn't. It's apparently a cultural change that snuck by me when I wasn't looking - and I've been looking and following such things since childhood.

Nobody's listening. Not liberals and not libertarians. None of them even know what I am talking about. At 70 years old, I have lived too long.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

I find it interesting that in a world where it's taken for granted that our side - the United States of America - will routinely detain and torture people suspected of (not proven yet) certain forms of wrongdoing, with no accountability or check on their actions, what are today's Libertarians - watchdogs of our liberty, who care about our liberty more than anything else, they say - most concerned with? That some of their money might be taken from them to provide health care for other people.

I'm not about to go into the rights and wrongs of that, only to note that to my mind they're screaming about cat barf in the kitchen while all that they own is being hauled out the back door to be burned on the lawn.

BTW - I, who was raised on the novels and ideas of Robert Heinlein (GI Generation) and on his views of core American values, find I do not want to live in a world where it's taken for granted that we will behave this way - and where not only is nobody listening, they don't even comprehend what I'm saying any more. As if I were babbling nonsense in Martian.

Well, except for those - including one hard-core Libertarian whose blog I take - who greet these arguments with a snarl about "anti-American traitors who would pat known criminals on the head and hand them the keys to the house." Meaning put them on trial and sort out the real criminals from those caught up in the net, try them under our own rules of law, convict them, and imprison or deport them or declare them POWs and deal with them accordingly. Oh, sorry - babbling nonsense in Martian again.

I thought it was just that we had elected a cadre of True Believers who honestly thought that being Us gave them the right to do anything they pleased, and that the next election would fix that. It didn't. It's apparently a cultural change that snuck by me when I wasn't looking - and I've been looking and following such things since childhood.

Nobody's listening. Not liberals and not libertarians. None of them even know what I am talking about. At 70 years old, I have lived too long.

Well, I know what you're talking about and I feel the despair. I try to look at the history and figure out when it happened, too, but it seems like its been creeping so slowly for so long that its impossible to put a line down in the sand of time. The roots are old but the seed they grew from fell off even older vines.

I am particularly disturbed by self-proclaimed libertarians who can justify torture and human rights abuses but find progressive taxation or public roads to be an abomination. Some of them do see money as the primary force, and taxes the original act of aggression that enables all the states' other abuses to exist. But money is just money to me, and in today's system it is so displaced from the real work and wealth it is supposed to represent that it is hard to claim a right to what the government has created and monopolized. Who cares if the government taxes you a share of their money? How is private insurance redistribution - that leaves millions un-covered - a greater offense than public redistribution that actually achieves full coverage? What kind of economist ignores the reality of efficiency demonstrated by non-American medical systems?

Anyway, these so-called libertarians popping up, so many of them are really just neo-cons trying to rebrand themselves like Standard Oil did back in the day. I don't often enjoy the KOS blogs, but this one did perfectly define the phenomenon. So when I see these fakers, I call 'em out.

Now, as to how liberals and mainstream Democrats became advocates of the corporatist war-machine, well, that's not my demographic and I'm not sure what to do about them. From my perspective, its always been that way - at the very least since LBJ introduced us to Haliburton and aggressive warfare. Of course, this holds with the common libertarian belief that both parties are corrupted beyond the point of reform - that the entire partisan debate is a distraction from the primarily uniform nature of our leaders.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

No, that's not true. For one thing, as I tried to explain earlier, we're really not concerned about any individual's subjective judgment here. We're not concerned with what they would answer in response to the question, "What is this worth?" All we're concerned about is the concrete action of parting with their money. We judge after the fact that item A is worth (on the average) $10 because consumers (on the average) pay $10 for it. For another when dealing with a question like that, which has a statistical answer (since some people will pay more for a given item than others will), increasing the numbers improves the accuracy. It's true that "finer information" is lost -- but that's good, not bad, because another word for "finer information" is "noise."

Your examples here are micro scale, and I was talking about the difficulty in going up to the macro scale. One price is easy to measure, a "price level" is not.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

I'm going to suggest, though, that this was not a change in core values. It was, instead, a reasoning from those core values based on facts, to a position on specific issues which you formerly thought was inconsistent with your core values and you now realize otherwise. The same thing can work interpersonally provided core values are shared. If core values are not shared, however, that won't work.

I think core values are probably shared by all -- the way people prioritize them varies widely. The issue with convincing, say, fruitcake is that his priorities are considerably off from mine and even further from yours. I don't think ideologies are as distinct as commonly thought. These value priorities do run very deep and are based on a lifetime of experiences, so I certainly don't expect one to ever be able to make one tidy argument and turn Dick Cheney into Che Guevara.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Does the phrase "hierarchy of values" answer that objection? I think so; do I need to explain why?

Sure, but it also explains my point above about whether people can change their stripes.

Originally Posted by independent

Anyway, these so-called libertarians popping up, so many of them are really just neo-cons trying to rebrand themselves like Standard Oil did back in the day. I don't often enjoy the KOS blogs, but this one did perfectly define the phenomenon. So when I see these fakers, I call 'em out.

The "conservatarian" phenomenon pisses me off too. If you make excuses for torturers, you pretty much lose any credibility to complain about lost liberty.

Originally Posted by independent

Now, as to how liberals and mainstream Democrats became advocates of the corporatist war-machine, well, that's not my demographic and I'm not sure what to do about them.

Well, they're just the other side of the coin. Imperialism is apparently evil only when conservatives do it.

Fortunately, there are plenty of consistent liberals and consistent libertarians. Now if they would just learn how play nice with each other . . .

Almost every so-called "libertarian" I have met is one of those "Conservatarians", essentially Conservatives that want to smoke pot, using the term as a way to jump form the GOP sinking ship.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

Well, they're just the other side of the coin. Imperialism is apparently evil only when conservatives do it.

I consider "Imperialism" and "Wilsonian Interventionism" to be 2 different things. IMO the international community has an obligation to prevent failed states and to stop war crimes. The Rwandan Genocide could have been stopped, the genocide in Darfur could have been stopped, but they weren't.

Originally Posted by Odin

I consider "Imperialism" and "Wilsonian Interventionism" to be 2 different things. IMO the international community has an obligation to prevent failed states and to stop war crimes. The Rwandan Genocide could have been stopped, the genocide in Darfur could have been stopped, but they weren't.

I will definitely second this. There are very different reasons one might use military force. The presidential campaign of 2000 showed stark diffrernces in intended policy and goals. The neo-cons, specifically the Project for a New American Century, advocated putting troops near the oil, putting US bases permanently in the Middle East. Bush 43 ran against the Clinton era policy of preventing large scale violations of human rights such as genocide, ethnic cleansing, organize rape and political famine.

From several accounts, Clinton was aware of cycle theory, anticipated a crisis that would include failed states and terrorism, and was focusing on pacifying as many possible failed state and crisis areas as possible. (Ireland, Palestine, Somolia, the Balkans, East Timor...) On the other hand, Bush 43 advocated using military force only to secure American interests, such as securing cheap access to energy.

Again, I declared the Clinton Doctrine -- that the US would act to prevent failed states and protect gross human rights violations -- a week before the White House. I could still support this under the condition that it can be done right, with international support, and with enough force to achieve a true victory rather than a quagmire. The objective in such cases ought to be to get the troops home leaving behind a stable government that does not practice gross human rights violations. The objective should not be a permanent presence in the area or force being present to secure resources.

Alas, we are currently overextended enough in Iraq and Afghanistan that we are in no reasonable position to do much elsewhere.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

The figures you just presented show that 60% of all Federal Income taxes are paid by those in the 50-99% percentiles of income, which roughly comprises the middle classes. Using your figures I can estimate that the middle classes pay about 66% of payroll taxes as well, compared to 9% paid by the rich...

-Uh...

...this takes us back to "define middle class". You think that the middle class is the 50-99 percentile? Really? The 99th percentile is "Middle Class"?!

If we look at the 10-90% range:

Originally Posted by jamesdglick

http://www.house.gov/jec/press/2000/10-16-0.htm

Percentiles Adjusted Gross Percentage of Federal
Income Personal Income Tax Paid

Top 1% $269,496 34.75%
Top 5% $114,729 53.84 %
Top 10% $83,220 65.04 %
Top 25% $50,607 82.69 %
Top 50% $25,491 95.79 %
Bottom 50%< $25,491 4.21 %

...we discover that those in the 10-90% range paid <35% of the income taxes, because the top 10% paid 65.04% (i.e. 6.504 times their fair share). The top 5% paid 53.84%, which in most universes constitutes "most", and I don't think most people would call the top 5% "Middle Class", unless you want to call them the Sooper Dooper Upper Upper Middle Class.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

At 70 years old, I have lived too long...

1) Don't worry. If we get Obamacare, Uncle Sam will fix that.

2) I don't remember you revealing your cohort before: You're a '38 or '39, so you were born BEFORE WWII. I sort of assumed you were a war-time baby ('41 or '42); now we know.

---

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

WARNING: The poster known as jamesdglick has a history of engaging in fraud. He makes things up out of his own head and attempts to use these blatant lies to score points in his arguments. When you call him on it, he will only lie further. He has such a reputation for doing this that many people here are cowed into silence and will not acknowledge it or confront him on it.

Anyone who attempts to engage with glick will discover this and find out you have wasted your time and energy on an intellectual fraud of the worst sort.

-So cry many Boomers (self-professed Lefties, mostly) whenever they fail to explain their hypocritical self-justifications, their double-standards, and their double-think forays into evil. Perhaps their consciences bother them, perhaps not. Who knows. [/QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Odin

I consider "Imperialism" and "Wilsonian Interventionism" to be 2 different things. IMO the international community has an obligation to prevent failed states and to stop war crimes. The Rwandan Genocide could have been stopped, the genocide in Darfur could have been stopped, but they weren't.

What the world needs is a liberal military force to fight the wars and battles in the areas and regions located around the globe that the Americans really don't give a shit about. We could call it, the American Foriegn Legion or something. If you live or return home in one piece, you could be eligible for a FREE college degree as long as sufficient funds are still available.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

I will definitely second this. There are very different reasons one might use military force. The presidential campaign of 2000 showed stark diffrernces in intended policy and goals. The neo-cons, specifically the Project for a New American Century, advocated putting troops near the oil, putting US bases permanently in the Middle East. Bush 43 ran against the Clinton era policy of preventing large scale violations of human rights such as genocide, ethnic cleansing, organize rape and political famine.

From several accounts, Clinton was aware of cycle theory, anticipated a crisis that would include failed states and terrorism, and was focusing on pacifying as many possible failed state and crisis areas as possible. (Ireland, Palestine, Somolia, the Balkans, East Timor...) On the other hand, Bush 43 advocated using military force only to secure American interests, such as securing cheap access to energy.

Again, I declared the Clinton Doctrine -- that the US would act to prevent failed states and protect gross human rights violations -- a week before the White House. I could still support this under the condition that it can be done right, with international support, and with enough force to achieve a true victory rather than a quagmire. The objective in such cases ought to be to get the troops home leaving behind a stable government that does not practice gross human rights violations. The objective should not be a permanent presence in the area or force being present to secure resources.

Alas, we are currently overextended enough in Iraq and Afghanistan that we are in no reasonable position to do much elsewhere.

Bob, are all liberals as foolish and niave as you sound?

Originally Posted by Odin

I consider "Imperialism" and "Wilsonian Interventionism" to be 2 different things. IMO the international community has an obligation to prevent failed states and to stop war crimes. The Rwandan Genocide could have been stopped, the genocide in Darfur could have been stopped, but they weren't.

Indeed, Wilsonians will use the fig leaf of "spreading Democracy" to cover the shame of their murderous ways. Nevermind that white supremacy (Anglo supremacy, to be precise) is at the core of Wilson's belief-system and nevermind that Bush used the exact language of this Democratic Idealism to justify his own wars.

In Rwanda and Darfur, there's the pesky effect of foreign intervention in precipitating the war crimes. Belgian colonists created isolated social structures for Hutus and Tutsi, and they supported the "elite" or "aristocratic" position of the Tutsi until fighting broke out and they abandoned the colony. The entire history of independent Rwanda has been dealing with the colonial legacy and race-based class system imported from Europe.

In Darfur, intervention against the fighting would have run counter to China's own imperial interests in the region. Rather than prevent a war that was being fueled by Chinese weapons imports, American intervention could have triggered a proxy-war with China over energy resources. And 3rd party observers would continue to berate America for military intervention in oil-rich regions.

I'm sure though, for every hundred wars in the history books, one or two of them may have ended abuses worse than the ones they created.

Originally Posted by K-I-A 67

Bob, are all liberals as foolish and naive as you sound?

It's values clash. When you have talked about invasions of the continental US by overseas powers, I have a similarly strong reaction. You come across as paranoid and ignorant of military logistics.

People perceive reality in greatly different ways and have trouble taking those who look at the world differently seriously. It's quite mutual.

Originally Posted by independent

Indeed, Wilsonians will use the fig leaf of "spreading Democracy" to cover the shame of their murderous ways. Nevermind that white supremacy (Anglo supremacy, to be precise) is at the core of Wilson's belief-system and nevermind that Bush used the exact language of this Democratic Idealism to justify his own wars.

I am dubious about Wilson, myself. General Smedley Butler's "War is a Racket" vision of foreign policy was too true in Wilson's time.

There is a big difference between attempting to secure resources for the interests of one's own nation and attempting to stabilize failed states in the interests of the local region. And, yes, one has to beware of those who will say they are doing the latter while in fact they are interested in the former.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

It's values clash. When you have talked about invasions of the continental US by overseas powers, I have a similarly strong reaction. You come across as paranoid and ignorant of military logistics.

People perceive reality in greatly different ways and have trouble taking those who look at the world differently seriously. It's quite mutual.

What's greater in value to you, promoting and projecting the liberal image and ideals or securing the resources and strategic positions around the globe that are necessary for the long term stability and defense of United States?

Originally Posted by K-I-A 67

What's greater in value to you, promoting and projecting the liberal image and ideals or securing the resources and strategic positions around the globe that are necessary for the long term stability and defense of United States?

Are you joking? If war for territory and resources is the path to stability, why is our GDP/capita being passed up by pacifist/defensive states?

We spend $10 million on an armored troop carrier, they spend $10 on scraps for a roadside bomb. How in the hell is that a good investment compared to investing in our human capital through education or medical care?? Do you think the dirt and rocks in the ground are worth the lost potential and opportunity costs of dead soldiers and their dead American brains that will never write a piece of software, or a song, or a new method to improve the efficiency of some random process?

If you think Democrat partisans sound foolish & naive, you should take a look at the image Republican partisans are cultivating. Its like some kind of 18th century puritan aristocracy. Foolish and naive still apply, but you have to add "absolutely insane," "behind the times" and "sociopathic."

Originally Posted by independent

Are you joking? If war for territory and resources is the path to stability, why is our GDP/capita being passed up by pacifist/defensive states?

We spend $10 million on an armored troop carrier, they spend $10 on scraps for a roadside bomb. How in the hell is that a good investment compared to investing in our human capital through education or medical care?? Do you think the dirt and rocks in the ground are worth the lost potential and opportunity costs of dead soldiers and their dead American brains that will never write a piece of software, or a song, or a new method to improve the efficiency of some random process?

If you think Democrat partisans sound foolish & naive, you should take a look at the image Republican partisans are cultivating. Its like some kind of 18th century puritan aristocracy. Foolish and naive still apply, but you have to add "absolutely insane," "behind the times" and "sociopathic."

When Obama was running for office he promised ***change***.
He kept his promise.
There are now MORE US soldiers serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, then when GWB was in office.

Originally Posted by fruitcake

When Obama was running for office he promised ***change***.
He kept his promise.
There are now MORE US soldiers serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, then when GWB was in office.

Haha, yeah, so why are all these Republicans saying that he's cut & run, and why are all these Democrats saying that he's a humanitarian? What a racket.

I'm sure we'll have Republicans protesting the next war and Democrats buying "Support the Troops" bumper stickers for their cash4clunker hybrids.

Originally Posted by K-I-A 67

What's greater in value to you, promoting and projecting the liberal image and ideals or securing the resources and strategic positions around the globe that are necessary for the long term stability and defense of United States?

First, it isn't as simple as either/or.

Second, your concept of 'liberal image and ideals' are warped. You have a very distorted idea of what liberals want and debate against said distorted ideas rather than against the ideas that liberals are actually trying to promote. Thus, it would be silly of me to accept the label of 'liberal'. I'd much rather propose my ideas and try to convince you to respond to them.

Third... There are bad ways to secure resources and strategic positions. Let's go with the "Rebuilding America's Defenses" proposal to put troops near the middle eastern oil fields as implemented by the Bush 43 administration. He disregarded the Pentagon advice that he wasn't sending in enough troops to suppress insurgency. The tactics included mass imprisonment and torture of military aged males. He tried to finance the invasion and occupation with oil money taken by right of conquest. He built permanent bases and stated an intent to stay forever. There was talk of going after Syria and Iran next, as soon as Iraq was secure, which provided motivation for Syria and Iran to make sure Iraq didn't become secure.

Making sure one has access to resources can be necessary and appropriate, but one can go about it the wrong way. Any time one wants to use military force one should go in with sufficient force to get the job done, have a plan for what happens after the initial victory, and have an exit strategy. This is as true whether one is trying to rectify a failed state or occupy an oil producing region.

Thus, the question is not whether one should attempt to secure American interests, but to correctly identify American interests and strive to do no more than what one is willing to pay for. If one wants tax cuts and small budgets, on might want to limit one's military ambitions.

I also see the world as recovering from colonial imperialism. With the invention of weapons of mass destruction, major powers have ceased fighting direct wars of aggression upon one another, and most powers have released their colonies. Most power are no longer using military force to extort resources out of less powerful countries. However, most third world countries have very strong memories of what it was like to be on the wrong side of a colonial occupation. Also, the division of wealth that was a design goal of colonial imperialism lingers. The former colonies are still in general much poorer than the former imperialists.

So long as this is true, there is apt to be terrorism. In an age of weapons of mass destruction, I would like to discourage terrorism. If it isn't discouraged, they will be used.

Discouraging terrorism, to my mind, involves giving the males of military age reasonable hope for a decent life. This means a healthy economy. As dictatorships and failed states seldom generate healthy economies, one would like to see less corrupt governments, preferably democracies that respect human rights. However, imposing good government at gunpoint is not an easy solution. Also, anything in the least resembling colonial imperialism is apt to result in an insurgency.

A good sized part of the problem is the division of wealth. Americans would like to continue to enjoy a lifestyle that requires much energy and other resources. If we are doing anything that in the least resembling extortion of said energy and resources using military force from an impoverished region, we ought toe expect anger and resentment.

I don't want to go too far down the "Blame America First" path. I feel confident you can justify your belief that we should use force to secure the life style that you are accustomed to. I suspect you are entirely sincere in your belief that we should continue to live fat. However, I feel similarly confident that if we extort wealth from poor areas using force, we are not going to be popular. We will not be at peace. In an age where covert delivery of weapons of mass destruction is quite possible, I am not confident that use of military force to secure resources is truly in the interests of American security.

Thus, I believe our objective in Afghanistan and Iraq should be to get our troops home as quickly as we reasonably can without their becoming failed states. We should secure human rights, encourage democracy, build nations, discouraging corruption, and make it clear that our goal is not permanent occupation or securing of resources. We should also remember the cost in blood, treasure and good will as we do these things. We seem committed to nation building in Afghanistan and Iraq, but bootstrapping cultures out of the Agricultural Age is not easy or cheap. Whenever possible we should let various nations transform themselves in their own way and in their own time.

I believe the above is roughly compatible with many liberals, but I believe I approach things from a slightly different perspective.

Originally Posted by Odin

Almost every so-called "libertarian" I have met is one of those "Conservatarians", essentially Conservatives that want to smoke pot, using the term as a way to jump form the GOP sinking ship.

Unfortunately, the reason you tend to see "conservatarians" more than actual libertarians is for the same reason that Joe Klein gets more airtime than Naomi Klein. The media strongly reinforces beltway norms of political discourse. This has repercussions in society at-large, too -- in that all too many people exposed to libertarian thought fail to recognize the radical implications because they're simply accustomed to the equation of pro-market views with support for big business.

Originally Posted by Odin

I consider "Imperialism" and "Wilsonian Interventionism" to be 2 different things. IMO the international community has an obligation to prevent failed states and to stop war crimes. The Rwandan Genocide could have been stopped, the genocide in Darfur could have been stopped, but they weren't.

Unfortunately, the line between humanitarian intervention and the "white man's burden" is dangerously thin. I wouldn't even call the policy you advocate Wilsonian, either, since that implies some sort of return to an earlier standard. Alas, the U.S. has never pursued a foreign policy where stopping Rwanda or Darfur would be a priority. Even, under the current President, such interventions will never be contemplated. I suppose that the U.S. could help enforce the norms of a global civil society, but don't hold your breath for it.

Originally Posted by independent

Haha, yeah, so why are all these Republicans saying that he's cut & run, and why are all these Democrats saying that he's a humanitarian? What a racket.

I'm sure we'll have Republicans protesting the next war and Democrats buying "Support the Troops" bumper stickers for their cash4clunker hybrids.

Saying and Doing are 2 different things.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

Unfortunately, the line between humanitarian intervention and the "white man's burden" is dangerously thin. I wouldn't even call the policy you advocate Wilsonian, either, since that implies some sort of return to an earlier standard. Alas, the U.S. has never pursued a foreign policy where stopping Rwanda or Darfur would be a priority. Even, under the current President, such interventions will never be contemplated. I suppose that the U.S. could help enforce the norms of a global civil society, but don't hold your breath for it.

Agreed, Wilson had too much "What's good for the United Fruit Company is good for Latin America" in him. It is far too easy to speak high ideals while one's policies are in fact exploitive.

Clinton 42 attempted to move towards a foreign policy that supported human rights and fought failed states, pushing interventions in the Balkans and East Timor. It wouldn't surprise me if Obama would like to do something similar, but we are currently so over extended in Iraq and Afghanistan that it can't happen.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Clinton 42 attempted to move towards a foreign policy that supported human rights and fought failed states, pushing interventions in the Balkans and East Timor. It wouldn't surprise me if Obama would like to do something similar, but we are currently so over extended in Iraq and Afghanistan that it can't happen.

His interventions in the Balkans make my point for me. In Kosovo, we intervened to prevent a "genocide" that has never been proven to have actually been occurring. In practice, we bombed civilians in order to support an ethnic cleansing campaign by KLA terrorists. Spreading peace with bombs is a dubious strategy. Intervention proponents seem to have a neat, tidy vision for such actions which avoids the harsh reality -- that such actions are still basically wars, with all the brutality that entails.

Originally Posted by jamesdglick

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger View Post
At 70 years old, I have lived too long...

1) Don't worry. If we get Obamacare, Uncle Sam will fix that.

Obama says he's going to cut health care costs.
http://thepeoplescube.com/images/Cash_for_Clankers_Medicare.png

Originally Posted by independent

Are you joking? If war for territory and resources is the path to stability, why is our GDP/capita being passed up by pacifist/defensive states?

We spend $10 million on an armored troop carrier, they spend $10 on scraps for a roadside bomb. How in the hell is that a good investment compared to investing in our human capital through education or medical care?? Do you think the dirt and rocks in the ground are worth the lost potential and opportunity costs of dead soldiers and their dead American brains that will never write a piece of software, or a song, or a new method to improve the efficiency of some random process?

If you think Democrat partisans sound foolish & naive, you should take a look at the image Republican partisans are cultivating. Its like some kind of 18th century puritan aristocracy. Foolish and naive still apply, but you have to add "absolutely insane," "behind the times" and "sociopathic."

What world do you live in? Is your world called heaven or is your world called earth? We spend ten million on a troop carrier to significantly raise the probability that the troops who ride inside who are hit by something foreign made like a roadside bomb will survive and come back home alive. They spend ten 10 bucks on scraps for roadside bombs or a 100 bucks on explosive vests because they don't have the millions to spend on producing troop carriers, the billions to develop and produce modern day arsenals and they don't give a shit about the lives of their own in relationship to themselves in general. It's at the point of not giving a shit what happens to them, to themselves or their own that a person must be able to rise in order to meet or engage some Osama on an equal plain or parallel.

Originally Posted by K-I-A 67

What world do you live in? Is your world called heaven or is your world called earth? We spend ten million on a troop carrier to significantly raise the probability that the troops who ride inside who are hit by something foreign made like a roadside bomb will survive and come back home alive.

The real world, where the best way to keep those American brains off the sidewalk is by not sending them to make war in the backward deserts halfway across the world.

They spend ten 10 bucks on scraps for roadside bombs or a 100 bucks on explosive vests because they don't have the millions to spend on producing troop carriers, the billions to develop and produce modern day arsenals and they don't give a shit about the lives of their own in relationship to themselves in general. It's at the point of not giving a shit what happens to them, to themselves or their own that a person must be able to rise in order to meet or engage some Osama on an equal plain or parallel.

Why do you act like this behavior is so shocking or foreign? Under any of your scenarios where America becomes invaded, we'd be the ones fighting with improvised explosives and guerrilla tactics. Do you think an American patriot would hesitate to suicide bomb an invading Chinese convoy?