Asymmetrical Information

Just reading the last sentence made me chuckle.

I think the real question is if the dept of Homeland Defense is spending its budget on the right things.

Will private security companies be held liable for letting terrorists through?

I love Paul Krugman. The man has zero intellectual honesty. That's an accomplishment.

I mean, I don't like Bush either, but if I criticized him (or the Republicans) on the basis of his refusal to increase federal spending, I'd be an idiot.

For Paul Krugman, everything that is Republican must and always must be bad: even if it's exactly what he would do. I suppose the Republicans have equally blind advocates, but anyone would have trouble keeping up with Krugman.

First, how has the 'radical right' been 'proven' right about spending? Second, yes I agree, let's talk about federal speding to the U.S. military which just got another 80 billion...by 2010 we'll have spent almost a TRILLION dollars on two wars that have gotten us NO tangible results.

First, how has the 'radical right' been 'proven' right about spending?...by 2010 we'll have spent almost a TRILLION dollars on two wars that have gotten us NO tangible results.

j, I think Jane was referring to Krugman's rant on the much smaller issue of federalizing airport screeners. I'm fairly certain her intention was not to debate the cost/benefits of Iraq and Afghanistan.

note taken...wasn't sure how far her federalization comment was being taken.

Sean's correct, although *once again* I'm not Jane.

Yes you are. Now shush, Jane's alter ego!

Oops, sorry Mindles. After your hiatus a while back I got out of the habit of reading the by-lines.

"by 2010 we'll have spent almost a TRILLION dollars on two wars that have gotten us NO tangible results"

Um, the Taliban and Saddam are out of power, and Al Qaeda is crippled. One could make a case that those benefits aren't worth the costs, but "no tangible results" isn't remotely plausible.

The airports with the private screeners are all relatively small ones. I assume the people doing the study were sophisticated enough to hold size constant when doing the analysis??????

whoops...missed SFO.

Certainly, my anecdotal experience is that screeners are noticably more professional and alert since federalization.

The Washington Post recently ran an article detailing a report by TSA's inspector general that found a laughable level of fraud within TSA. I don't suppose Krugman mentioned that.
____________________________________

Report Cites Waste and Abuse at TSA

By LESLIE MILLER
The Associated Press
Wednesday, April 20, 2005; 2:51 AM

WASHINGTON -- The Transportation Security Administration allowed lavish spending on a $19 million building for its crisis management center, including $3,000 refrigerators and about $500,000 to acquire artwork, silk plants and other items, an inspector general's report said.

A review of the project's expenditures uncovered evidence of suspicious purchases, improper use of government purchase cards, and unethical and possibly illegal activities by federal employees, according to the report released Tuesday by the Homeland Security Department.

...

Good find. Krugman takes the axe. I used to like him so much at Slate...

"by 2010 we'll have spent almost a TRILLION dollars on two wars that have gotten us NO tangible results"

Since you’ve chosen 2010 to inflate your estimate of the cost* of the liberation of Afghanistan and Iraq, oughtn’t we to wait until then to determine what the “tangible results” are that we’ve gotten from there?

* Not buying the Trillion dollar estimate for a minute.

[quote]"Um, the Taliban and Saddam are out of power, and Al Qaeda is crippled. One could make a case that those benefits aren't worth the costs, but "no tangible results" isn't remotely plausible"[end quote]

First, we've traded the Taliban for Afghan warlords who are not only less sympathetic to U.S. interests but treat women and Afghan peasants with much more impunity than the Taliban ever have (this doesn't make the Taliban anywhere near good or justified, just that Afghan warlords are worse to the Afghan people than the Taliban were).

Second, of course Saddam out of power is the ideal BUT only if the alternative is preferable which certainly isn't guaranteed now that the future of Iraq is questionable with elections that aren't throwing much support for the U.S. or the Iraqi people. And let's not even mention where Saddam got the mustard gas (it was the U.S.) to use against not only Iranian soldiers (which killed thousands) but the Kurdish minority as well...on a sidenote, its also public record that the U.S. provided intelligence for Saddam to use mustard gas in the Iran/Iraq war.

Third, in what world is Al Qaeda crippled? At best, Al Qaeda has slowed but it certainly isn't crippled. If anything, Al Qaeda has not only gone underground which makes them increasingly harder to find but only reinvigorates their cause. Plus, terrorism has INCREASED world wide, not decreased. Now, of course, I'm not advocating that we let Al Qaeda run willy nilly as it pleases BUT throwing money at the issue doesn't save lives (especially when its potentially a TRILLION dollars). To boot, the U.S. increasingly goes into debt to China and Japan which only UNDERMINES any potential results in the future against Al Qaeda.

Only in a world of the media 'soundbyte' can one say we've gotten tangible results.

Thorley,
Look, Bush got 80 billion dollars MORE to fund two wars which HAVE NOT YET done anything but increased terrorism worldwide. Oh, and about the TRILLION dollar statistic, even Bush concedes this mark as a possibility. do an online search for the statistic, it isn't just the 'left' blogs or 'leftist' (I hate using these terms, they don't even mean anything anymore) media outlets that use this potential stat.

J speculated:

"First, we've traded the Taliban for Afghan
warlords who are not only less sympathetic to
U.S. interests but treat women and Afghan
peasants with much more impunity than the
Taliban ever have ..."

Wow. Have these less sympathetic leaders
been training terrorists that have murdered
more than 3000 of our countrymen on US soil?
I'm rather certain if they had the New York
Times might have mentioned that in passing
somewhere. And your source about how
women are being treated WORSE than the
the Taliban did?

J also said:

"Second, of course Saddam out of power is
the ideal BUT only if the alternative is
preferable which certainly isn't guaranteed"

You aren't serious are you? Last time I
checked life doesn't come with guarantees.
EXCEPT that when leftists are in power
the amount of misery increases almost
exponentially. I give you the examples
of Soviet Russia, Communist China and
almost every American College administered
by left wingers.

J finally stated:

"Third, in what world is Al Qaeda crippled?
At best, Al Qaeda has slowed but it certainly
isn't crippled."

Gadzooks man, where are you reading this
bunk? Al Qaeda is a shell of it's former
self. Even Richard Clarke noted that in
"Against All Enemies".

Your statements are seemingly
unsupported by any proof what
so ever. Have you considered
a career change to writing
Romance Novels? ...

"As the Al Qaeda operative, who was
being supported by the new Afghani
Warlords ripped of the Bodice of
the struggling western femal, he
exclaimed 'It is now December 31,
2010 and the Americans have spent
ONE TRILLION DOLLARS and still cannot
stop me from ripping off your Bodice
.... bawhawhahaha'"

And again, as someone wiser than I am
pointed out, 2010 is at least 4 years
away. If you are so good at predicting
the future you know what is going to
have occured by then, shouldn't you
be playing the Lotto?

Finally some REAL claims by Ted...I'll deal with each in order:

First, Ted claims that the Taliban, and not the Afghan warlords, are complicit in 9/11 since they trained Al Qaeda that ended in the result of 3000 American lives. This is not the total story. He fails to bring up the fact that the U.S. TRAINED and gave ARMS to Al Qaeda and Bin Laden in the U.S.'s attempt to stop Russia from entering Afghanistan. Thus, America CANNOT claim that the Taliban was the sole sponser of training Al Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan. As for a source on the treatment of women in Afghanistan, one need look no further than the high ranking Sima Samar who Bush supported two years ago. She was recently kicked out of the Afghani government just for being a women and now is under heavy guard since she speaks out against the absolute rule of warlords in Afghanistan. Its to the warlords benefit to keep women suppressed because this just lets in a more reformed process into Afghanistan that won't be sympathetic to warlord desires.

Second, Ted basically just reiterates how life isn't guaranteed and blah blah blah (liberals are bad and are the source of all evil is essentially his point). As one can see, he has no ACTUAL claim other than the weak claim that life isn't guaranteed and liberals are to blame. On a sidenote, I am not liberal nor a democrat so no need to pigeonhole me. My point was how America is again complicit in Saddam's use of mustard gas when it's US who supplied it to him and gave him C.I.A. intelligence on how to use it against Iranian soldiers. Whatever happened to the Bush logic of those who aid terrorism are JUST AS GUILTY as those who are terrorists.

Third, Ted claims that Al Qaeda is a shell of its former self. I don't disagree with you Ted (mostly anyway). If you had read my post closely you would have noticed that I grant a reduction in Al Qaeda operatives, BUT crippled does not mean the end of Al Qaeda nor terrorism as such. My point was that terrorism has not only INCREASED in the past three years as a result of U.S. aggression but creates more potential threats for citizens at home in the U.S. If we follow your logic then terrorism should have decreased worldwide as a result of supposedly 'crippling' Al Qaeda but it has done the EXACT OPPOSITE. Last time I checked, the U.S. has killed more innocent people in Afghanistan and Iraq combined than 9/11 victims (according to Amnesty International anyway...is this too left of an institution for you?). This should not be considered collateral damage...are we really winning hearts and minds abroad??? We should demand justice for 9/11 victims but NOT at the cost of doing exactly what Al Qaeda does everyday.

Finally, Ted says I should play the lotto because I'm predicting soooooooo far into future (4 years to be exact). First, Bush predicts social security will be bankurupt 50 years from now (which isn't true but that's a different argument)...why do you give him this much latitude and not me with a measly four years? Bush CONCEDES we will be close to a TRILLION dollars by 2010 when you combine BOTH wars together (he just got 80 billion more a couple days ago). Second, even if I grant you that it won't be a trillion dollars, the number will be will be well above 600 billion which we've taken on loan from China and Japan...U.S. goes deeper and deeper into debt with not all that much to show for it unless you count American bodies, an increase in terrorism worldwide (which Bush concedes), and thousands of innocent people. Sure, we got Saddam and most of Al Qaeda BUT these advantages do not outweigh the disadvantages of what I've already described above. Bodies and money look easy when its typed in a blog but much worse when one confronts the reality of what is typed.

Does anyone really think that Al Qaeda has not tried to launch a terrorist attack in the US since 911. When is the last successful attack?

I don't for a moment think that we are completely safe, but OTOH we have been terror free for 3.5 years and that means something. And it is not that AQ has stopped trying.

"On a separate note, I dare you to say about the Bush Administration 'there is literally nothing that will persuade these people to accept the need for increased federal spending' and keep a straight face."

Say it with a straight face! I almost can't breathe because I'm laughing so hard when I try to say it. But then I remember that my children will be paying off the deficit, and that straightens my face pretty damn fast.

j, I hate to help you hijack the thread, but you're making ridiculous trend extrapolations. We've spent about $350 billion in the four years since 2001, but that doesn't mean we're going to spend $100 billion a year for the next six. While we'll no doubt be paying for soldiers in Iraq for a while, the bulk of the spending is probably behind us, not ahead of us; the active phase of the war cost a lot less than the occupation.

Jane,
You are absolutely correct that I have hijacked this thread by eclipsing your post with our two most current wars abroad, and for that I'm sorry...but what I'm not sorry for is the healthy dialogue of debating the merits of U.S. actions abroad which I argue trumps Krugman's comments for the moment. It seems this kind of discourse has left Washington and I'll be damned if any one of us treats our most current wars as "old" issues. Real people are dying while we debate these pressing problems.....although Krugman's comments are important, please allow me to be selfish just this one time.....

Saying that, let me respond to your comment about my apparent "ridiculous extrapolations" about the potential costs of the U.S.'s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan:

First, it's interesting you don't respond to my other comments.....if you have the time, I would love for you to comment no matter what your response is and I will do my best to critically engage with each argument you make. Second, you are correct that the war cost about a hair over 350 billion dollars so far. The real question is if it will cost almost a trillion by 2010. I argue it will for a couple reasons. The United States spends more on its military than all other countries combined. Increasingly, not only are other countries LESS willing to fit the bill thus costing the U.S. future capital (which will cost us beyond 2010 after Bush leaves), but our increasing debt to China and Japan has made the cost of the dollar decrease and their currency rise. Now, this has occured not only because of our debt but also because of the recent economic explosion of China in various export markets like manufacturing. As such, Bush has conceded that he is willing to take on more debt WITH INTEREST from Japan and China to fund the military for promises in Afghanistan and Iraq. I haven't even mentioned the cost of soldiers, reconstruction, nation-building, detention, etc. What we're looking at here is another 500 billion once we add our debt with interest. Of course, there are always supply-siders who say this all will cancel itself evenly but I haven't heard any evidence on how this would happen...anyone feel free to respond to the various ways Japan and China would cancel our debt. You say the major cost of the war is behind us...absolutely wrong on all accounts. You fail to add the cost of paying back with interest and seriously brush aside the cost of future occupation. Now, I could be wrong about a couple of variables between now and 2010 in reaching close to the trillion mark BUT let's not be in doubt that these wars will eventually cost that much no matter if its by 2010 or not. We see nothing but more soldiers going into Iraq and more soldiers getting their tour of duties increased or extended. So, the quickest we leave Iraq is in about two years. I admit I'm extrapolating Jane but am I doing it ridiculously? Most important for me, what have we got in return?

"Most important for me, what have we got in return?"

Answer: a safer country. You fail to address what the cost would be if we did not go to war. The United States had to unfortunately spend enormous sums of money during WWII to defend its citizens, and it has to do likewise regarding the current threat of Islamic nihilism. And the longer it waits to confront the enemy---the more it will probably cost. Our country waited, for instance, too long before it confronted Adolph Hitler. Much suffering could have been avoided had we taken him to task a few years earlier.

The very premise of your argument indicates that you don’t believe America is truly in danger. My guess is that you think the war on terror is merely a con job by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney to help enrich the top bosses of Halliburton. Needless to add, I strongly disagree with you.

Ted (in particular): why do you suppose so many people outside your country are anti-American? Based on what else you say, my guess is that you think either (a) because they're Lefties or (b) because they don't understand us. Please listen to yourself -

I paraphrase:
The Left has created an indistinguishable amount of misery in China and in Russia and on most of the US campuses they control.

And comment:
1. The cases of China and Russia are very different: it is plausible to argue that despite its abhorrent aspects, communism in China has substantially increased the lives of ordinary people - at least if your comparison is with the late-colonial period.

2. You equate the Left with state communism.

3. You place the dissatisfactions of college students alongside references to the sufferings of the Chinese and Russians.

This kind of writing tends to confirm certain stereotypes. Americans are ignorant of other countries, fanatical in their politics and consider the minor problems of any American - those poor college students - to rank with the misery of (eg) the occupants of the Gulag under Stalin.

No Ted, of course that's not what you meant. It is, however, what you wrote. How come, Ted?

'No Ted, of course that's not what you meant. It is, however, what you wrote. How come, Ted?'

What Ted wrote is correct,
We don't care what people in other countries think about us, maybe you do but we don't.
Who is we? The vast majority of the citizenry of the the United States thats who.
You obviously would rather be living under a system such as they have in China or France. The world has such a high opinon of them. Maybe you should live with the Palestinians, the world (especially the euro-weenies) has such a high opinion of them and a low opinion of us.

communism in China has substantially increased the lives of ordinary people

Are you smoking crack? Communism has nothing to do with the "increased lives".They were living in dirt until the Chinese allowed laziz-faire capitalism to pull their batesim out of the fire.

Do we have any real evidence that the private screeners are better?

The article says "... the difference between the private and government screeners was statistically significant but still slight."

Okay, they're slightly better, at 5 airports compared to 450. Any evidence that private program will work with the same slight improvment when ramped up by a factor of 100?

These five airports (San Francisco; Tupelo, Miss.; Rochester, N.Y.; Kansas City, Mo.; and Jackson Hole, Wyo) don't seem like major air hubs to me. If they had to do Atlanta or O'Hare or LAX or Dallas/Fort Worth or Denver International, would the slight advanatage be there?

With only 1% of the airports being done and none of the top-10, (SFO is #12) I hardly think anyone has been proven right.

"...the U.S. TRAINED and gave ARMS to Al Qaeda and Bin Laden in the U.S.'s attempt to stop Russia from entering Afghanistan."

First, the U.S. never gave a dime to Al Qaeda.

Second, those to whom we did give arms received them AFTER the Soviet Union had entered Afghanistan. The idea was to make it costly for the commies to stay there. And it turned out to be correct. It was the beginning of the end of the Soviet Union.

1. This tread does seem to have veered.

2. Most Americans and nearly all experts believe that we are now less safe since Bush diverted 9/11 to grab land.

3. As we are putting the cost of the wars on the national credit card instead of raising taxes to pay for them, last tried by LBJ, the true cost is over $1 trillion with interest included.

4. That little study proves nothing. It has as much validity as the one Nexus study that "proved" gay foster parents are 10 times more likely to sexually abuse children. Privatization simply means lower pay and benefits for workers, more political contributions from owners. Libertarian economics - politicians support measures which gives them more support, particularly financial support.

Gary

A few comments on some of the points that veered away from the threads intent. One country that we are sure not only funded the 911 terrorists but taught the ideaology of hatred that caused 911, is Saudi Arabia. I was physically sick to see Bush hold royal crowns hand during their garden stroll while the SA ambassador lectured the media about refinery capacity and it's effect on the price of gas. Americans need to look at the consolidation of oil companies that led to half the refineries closing(and rethink enviromental laws that contributed to those closings), look at the across the board oil company record profits, the increased value of oil itself, this administrations ties to the big oil and put the pieces of the puzzle together. Record setting profits aren't the result of a happy accident.

I don't think theres any accurate way to project the cost of the war in Iraq. It seems to me the downtick in violence in Iraq was more because of the interception of Zaquarwai's computer then Iraqui irrational exhuberance over a meaningless vote. I think Al Qaeda in Iraq went to ground until they figured out how and to what extent they were compromised by losing the computer. The recent wave of violence certainly suggests this is the case. It also suggests the insurgency is mostly foreign fighters, or that the remaining republican guard have thrown in with AQI. I think there is a long expensive road ahead in Iraq.

Back to the real topic. Krugman is a fool to just demand an increase in federal spending without looking at the how the DOH spends its budget. Or maybe Krugman just doesnt have the cajones to tell the people that all the first responder handouts has done nothing to make us safer. The DOH's mission is to protect the US, not to clean up the mess after an act of terror.

"Most Americans and nearly all experts believe that we are now less safe since Bush diverted 9/11 to grab land."

ROTFLMAO! Are you this guy?

Outstanding math, too. 4% interest triples in four years!

Some general comments:

First, the U.S. had entered Afghanistan 6 months before the USSR even laid a foot on on their soil.

Second, U.S. did give arms and training to Bin Laden in Afghanistan which the U.S. knew was being funneled for Islamic ideological aims that could be construed as terrorism. The U.S. didn't mind because it saw the USSR as a greater threat and the U.S. couldn't have been more wrong about that. Thus the U.S. cannot claim ignorance about who who Bin Laden was...it was clearly known he didn't like the USSR any more than he liked the U.S. He used our money, intelligence, and training as momemtum to further the creation of Al Qaeda.

Third, someone wrote about how it would of been more costly had we not gone to war and then made an analogy to Hitler's encroachment. This is a lazy high school understanding of history. First, you misconstrue what I've said...I am willing to pay for costly wars if we get tangible results that don't end up in the needless deaths of innocent people (whether its our citizens or others). So far, its tenuous to claim we are any safer now than then (especially with our borders the way they are). Even though 9/11 is never justified and is abhorrant, the U.S. has gone on to kill thousands of innocent people in Iraq and Afghanistan under the rhetoric of 'collateral damage'. We are not winning hearts and minds virtually anywhere in the world. We have put ourselves into debt with foreign countries (potentially costing a trillion in 5 years with all the interest accumulated). We ousted Saddam on bogus information with no WMD's and no link to Al Qaeda (our intelligence from Chalabi and 'curveball' have thoroughly been denounced recently). Plus you equivocate Hitler to stateless terrorism which makes no coherent sense in any real sense of those terms. And its quite dubious whether we would have spent more than a trillion dollars had we not gone to these two wars. Again, throwing money at the problem hasn't made anyone safer. Our aggression in Afghanistan and Iraq may help you sleep at night but sadly you are not only LESS safe now (terrorism has increased since 9/11), but their WILL be a blowback eventually. Stateless terrorism is much more resilient and much harder to identify than NAZI Germany.

j,

You assume all kinds of facts that are simply not in evidence. Put up or shut up. Thank you.

Jim English
Chicago
Go Bulls!

Jim,
What pray tell me am I assuming so that I can address each supposed "assumption" in order? I'm willing to put up the time but I need to know what particular assumptions you find questionable. If I don't hear back then I'll assume you really had nothing to say and were just being reactionary because someone disagreed with your already cemented assumptions.

Let's start with this:

"First, we've traded the Taliban for Afghan warlords who are not only less sympathetic to U.S. interests but treat women and Afghan peasants with much more impunity than the Taliban ever have (this doesn't make the Taliban anywhere near good or justified, just that Afghan warlords are worse to the Afghan people than the Taliban were)."

Please back this up with evidence.

Next, I want specific evidence to back up this claim:

"Second, U.S. did give arms and training to Bin Laden in Afghanistan which the U.S. knew was being funneled for Islamic ideological aims that could be construed as terrorism."

We all know we gave weapons to the Afghan rebels. I want specific facts detailing exactly what was given to Bin Laden and exactly when. Thank you.

I'd like this backed-up:

"And let's not even mention where Saddam got the mustard gas (it was the U.S.) to use against not only Iranian soldiers (which killed thousands) but the Kurdish minority as well...on a sidenote, its also public record that the U.S. provided intelligence for Saddam to use mustard gas in the Iran/Iraq war."

Specific evidence of the transfer of mustard gas from the US government. I also would like to see thes public records to which you refere. Thanks.

Good luck with this one:

"Our aggression in Afghanistan and Iraq may help you sleep at night but sadly you are not only LESS safe now (terrorism has increased since 9/11),"

I am interested in hearing how you define your safety metric. That alone should be worth a laugh. Thanks.

This is a new one for me:

"First, the U.S. had entered Afghanistan 6 months before the USSR even laid a foot on on their soil."

Could be true? I honestly have never heard this before. Much less ever seen any evidence of it. But what the hell? Give it a shot.

"The United States spends more on its military than all other countries combined."

This is meaningless as an unqualified statement and probably untrue no matter how you measure it, but feel free.

Jim,
Actually you picked the ones that are the easiest to find except the fourth one which is interpretive but my textual evidence shall make the case why my interpretation is at the very least a legitimate understanding of why we are LESS safe currently. Give me a little while to gather all this up then I'll post...thank you for your patience.

j,

you wrote:

"If I don't hear back then I'll assume you really had nothing to say and were just being reactionary because someone disagreed with your already cemented assumptions."

I have to head out for a drink. If I don't here back from you, I'll assume you are full of shit. Fair enough?

Jim English
Chicago

Jim,
I'll post as I go through each instead of posting all at once...

Fair enough Jim.

Jim,
Here's my source cites (these are only two of many I could have picked) for U.S. complicity in giving Saddam bio and chem warfare in the 1980's. Make sure you go to the bottom of the first website because there they will give you an exhaustive list of citations. Both websites are:

1.) http://www.nonviolentways.org/arming-iraq.html

2.) http://www.belleville.com/mld/newsdemocrat/5674107.htm

If you have further questions let me know.

Jim,
Here's my source cite (again, one among many...all you have to do is look) for U.S. complicity in Bin Laden's formulization of Al Qaeda in 1988 in Afghanistan. Remember, my argument was that the U.S. gave arms and training to knowingly brazen individuals who were just as much against the U.S. as they were against the USSR of which BIN LADEN WAS A MEMBER...Bin Laden used these assests to PARTIALLY fund his future project in Al Qaeda. The problem is that the C.I.A. hasn't released all the documentation yet BUT this doesn't make my point any less valid or believable. My basic point is that the U.S. was so afraid of the USSR that it made friends with anybody who was willing to fight them which has shown to be a huge mistake. Link is below:

1.) http://www.msnbc.com/news/190144.asp?cp1=1

Jim,
Here's my source cite showing how there was U.S. led operations in Afghanistan before the Soviets even showed up. I made this argument merely to show how the Soviets weren't the only invading force there.

1.) http://www.mediamonitors.net/mosaddeq2.html

“The comments have gone AWOL, thanks to a commenter who somehow misread the above to read "proven right..about the 'war on terror' "and hijacked the thread.”

Nope, you goofed up. You should have deleted his remarks, or at least ignored them. The moment that you personally responded to this individual---you tacitly gave permission for the rest of us to slap him around. We merely followed your example.

David,

First, I will admit I purposefully hijacked this thread and intentionally misread with a tenuous link for you all to talk about this. I didn't force you to respond...I'm merely exposing assumptions I hear on this blog everyday. Fiction can be fun but reality is much more interesting. At least haven't been name-calling as you so easily do against me.

Second, you all are slapping me around??? If you all are slapping me around then I am breaking your face with actual claims to support what I am saying. All Jane and you people have given me is warrantless assertions and parrot-talk of what the mainstream media says everyday. If you delete my posts that goes to show that some people only want to hear what they already agree with.

Perhaps so. In my defense, Jane responded first.

Here's my source cite for the U.S. spending more money on its military than all other countries combined (there are A LOT of source sites for this one as well). I merely used this example to show how much money the U.S. spends, not to make a value judgment. One siginificant reason we spend so much money is with our 'peace-keeping' missions with the United Nations. There are other reasons but none of my argumentation hangs on this point. Link is below:

1.) http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/prem/200403/fallows

"Second, U.S. did give arms and training to Bin Laden in Afghanistan"

"my argument was that the U.S. gave arms and training to knowingly brazen individuals who were just as much against the U.S. as they were against the USSR of which BIN LADEN WAS A MEMBER...Bin Laden used these assests to PARTIALLY fund his future project in Al Qaeda."

Doesn't sound that way to me. Your assertion seems pretty clear.

Where you don't change your tune, your assertions are weakly supported by unreliable sources. There is no evidence here.

Good luck with the mental illness.

Jim,
Hmmmm what to say here other than this blog proves how some only want to see what they already agree with. There's no point in my continuing here when the discourse has ended up this muddled and distasteful. I was willing to be cordial but that cannot happen when people just say warrantless things like "you have a mental illness" and you have "unreliable sources". No ever says WHY my points are bad...just assertion after assertion without any shred of evidence their way. Most of time I respect Jane and her readers but this is pointless not only for me but you all as well. There's no reason for me to keep posting my link evidence since Jim will just say its "unreliable". I KNEW he would do this, but alas I tried anyway. In the end, forgive me for the veering of this post and I will not post here ever again. You all can start cheering now...

"I was willing to be cordial but that cannot happen when people just say warrantless things like 'you have a mental illness' ..."

You misquoted me! Don't get me wrong, I do believe "you have a mental illness" but that is not what I wrote. Once again you have demonstrated your lack of ability to engage in reasonable debate.

Jane:

Where did "the bulk of the spending is probably behind us, not ahead of us" come from? Now that you're in London, have you had access to The Big Book of Imperial Costs? Are you in possession of information from the Bush Admin. about its intentions regarding length of stay, etc.? Did you decide that, by the process of Randian "triumph of the will," once you say it, it will become true?

It's entirely possible that total future costs will be greater than total costs to date? Or not. No one knows, because we don't appear to have a particular plan on the ground.

I see we've moved from:

"Second, U.S. did give arms and training to Bin Laden in Afghanistan"

to a back up argument:

"my argument was that the U.S. gave arms and training to knowingly brazen individuals who were just as much against the U.S. as they were against the USSR of which BIN LADEN WAS A MEMBER...Bin Laden used these assests to PARTIALLY fund his future project in Al Qaeda."

For which a cite is produced which, in part, reads:

"By no means was Osama bin Laden the leader of Afghanistan’s mujahedeen. His money gave him undue prominence in the Afghan struggle..."

HIS MONEY. Not ours.

Similarly, the same commenter had stated:

"...the U.S. TRAINED and gave ARMS to Al Qaeda and Bin Laden in the U.S.'s attempt to stop Russia from entering Afghanistan."

Again, we receive a cite which doesn't support the above statement, but the opposite:

"...the United States launched a covert operation to bolster anti-Communist guerrillas in Afghanistan at least six months before the 1979 Soviet invasion of the country, according to a former top US official.

"Brzezenski stated that “We actually did provide some support to the Mujahedeen before the invasion.”[3] “We did not push the Russians into invading, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.” He also bragged: “That secret operation was an excellent idea. The effect was to draw the Russians into the Afghan trap.”[4]"

Which is a fairy tale that Brzezinski has been retailing for years, in an effort to rescue his reputation. Even if it was true, the intent was to get Russia IN, not prevent them from doing so, as stated originally.

Nonetheless, the small amount of aid to AFGHANS who wanted to rid themselves of a Soviet puppet government in 1979 had nothing to do with Al Qaeda or bin Laden.

Patrick,
I pretty much AGREE with EVERYTHING you just said...which only goes to show how much you MISREAD what I wrote. That seems to be the motif here with some of you...

At least a significant group of readers here have asked for further source citations and have ended up drawing the same conclusions I do.

nice trick: when losing declare victory.

good job j.

I do see that you are not, how they say, on our side. enjoy your work with zarqawi.

I'm sure it feels comfortable to label me a defender of Zarqawi, a person with a mental illness, blah blah blah...I have no problem with people disagreeing with me, but most of the comments here only show how desperate you are by attacking ME as a person. My point in this blog is for people to come out of their ideological ivory towers and spur discourse with people who disagree with our most deeply held beliefs, arguments, views, etc. But I guess this just makes me a terrorist huh? Most commentors here just preach to choir...

If the choir believes that assertions must be backed up by evidence, then count me as a member.

Re-read the thread j. You failed to back up most of your assertions. You changed at least one of your assertions after the fact to try and fit the "evidence" you gooogled. Now, you are attempting to use my reference to your mental health to mount some victim campaign. Give it up. As I wrote in my initial post in this thread, "Put up or shut up". Back-up your assertions with evidence from reasonable sources and allow the readers to judge for themselves or risk the ridicule that you will rightly deserve. Good day.

SomeCallMeTim wrote:
"It's entirely possible that total future costs will be greater than total costs to date? Or not. No one knows, because we don't appear to have a particular plan on the ground."

I certainly can't disagree with that. Planning has been a scarce commodity. But there has been sort of a trend among the administration to misunderestimate the cost. Otherwise Bush wouldn't have gone ahead with those enormous tax cuts, right?

"Before the invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration told the American people that it could be fought on the cheap. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz said "We are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon."[1] Budget Director Mitch Daniels said Iraq will be "an affordable endeavor,"[2] "that will not require sustained aid"[3] and cost "in the range of $50 billion to $60 billion."[4] Defense Policy Board Member Richard Perle said, "Iraq is a very wealthy country...They can finance, largely finance, the reconstruction of their own country."[5]

http://www.ppipes.org/?q=node/3801

How long are we going to give the Iraqis to pull together an army capable of at least keeping the insurgency at bay? 3 years? 5 years? 10 years? What if they never manage it?

Jim,
Wait a minute here...there have principly been two arguments leveled against me. The first claim you made was how my info was unreliable...which is a response without ANY assertion, justification, or warrant as to why my evidence is defunct. Second, one commenter argued how I morphed my claim on U.S. funding/training of Afghan rebels (LATER to form Al Qaeda). Patrick pinned a claim on me I never made. He ASSUMED that my claim was advocating that the U.S. and Al Qaeda got together somehow in the 80's and DIRECTLY funded/trained Al Qaeda operatives (which was a claim I never made). My argument was U.S. complicity in the funding of Afghan rebels of which a portion later spawned Al Qaeda (namely Bin Laden who used not only his own money BUT U.S. training and PAST U.S. funding as momentum for his own ideological ends). The implications of my argument WHICH I'VE ARGUED ALL ALONG was about U.S. complicity...not blame or finger-pointing.

I would also like to point out how most of my arguments go untouched...only a few are actually attacked on any real level.

"Wait a minute here...there have principly been two arguments leveled against me. The first claim you made was how my info was unreliable...which is a response without ANY assertion, justification, or warrant as to why my evidence is defunct."

Re-read the thread. You did not back up ANY assertion you made until I called you on it. Then you introduced some sources that I personally find unreliable and in at least one case substantailly changed your argument (US gave arms to bin laden changed to US gave arms to afghan rebels who may or may not have been associates of bin laden's). Had you introduced your sources in-line with your arguments, I would still have found them unreliable but I would have let it go. Likewise, had you researched prior to posting, you would have saved yourself from changing your assertions to fit your data.

Reasoned argument requires that assertions are backed up by evidence. You assume all kinds of facts. Then when challenged, you attempt to back them up only to discover you cannot. Yet you somehow think you are winning the argument. Whether it is mental illness or stupidity I cannot say, but you clearly suffer from something. Good luck with getting some treatment.

Jim,
Well I have to say Jim on-balance I'm the only that gave ANY citations at all...I didn't see any counter-citations from anyone else. I'll reiterate what you said earlier, "PUT UP OR SHUT UP". DO YOU HAVE ANY COUNTER-CITATIONS JIM??? Because when you post them I'll just say its "unreliable" without any back up as to why since that seems to be an adequate response for you.

Oh yea, I forgot to write how you were right about my mental illness...my brain has unfortunately been infected by REASON for far too long, maybe if I stay at janegalt.net then I'll be cured of my taste for it.

"DO YOU HAVE ANY COUNTER-CITATIONS JIM???"

No, I do not. You might also notice that I made no assertions that needed backing up. My only assertion was that you had failed to back up your assertions. I believe you have provided more than enough evidence to make my point.

Keep telling yourself how reasonable you are. Maybe you will believe you, but until you start backing up what you say with credible evidence everybody will know you are full of shit.

There is nothing more to be said.

Jim,
Well at least we agree on one thing...there really is nothing more to say. Thanks for the discourse though...

You guys done? Ok, back to airport security...

I'm agnostic about whether screeners should be public or private employees. (Although if you travel abroad, you see why there's no reason competent, courteous public employees can't be found to enforce security.

My pet peeve is this, though: What the hell is up with separate security lines for first and business class passengers? I don't fly coach on my 1040, or on the local taxes that support the airport. I see no reason why the TSA should enforce the airline caste system.

Comments are Closed.