George W. Bush Bashes Obama on Middle East

[Darryl1958]

Remedying the situation would have been extremely simple. Just make those who favor the war to pay an extra surcharge on their taxes. There is nothing morally redeeming about supporting government programs that other people have to pay for,

That ought to hold true for everything then, and not just the one thing.
And that, would lead to an extremely complicated form of government that would be impractical in the extreme.

 

[stinkcat_14]

That ought to hold true for everything then, and not just the one thing.
And that, would lead to an extremely complicated form of government that would be impractical in the extreme.

It certainly would make government smaller. The funny thing is, that I have yet to have one supporter of the wars give a logical explanation as to why the burden of the war should fall on our grandchildren. The only explanation I have ever received is: “we have done it before”. The problem with that is just because we have betrayed future generations in the past does not make it morally desirable to do in the future.

 

[Darryl1958]

It certainly would make government smaller. The funny thing is, that I have yet to have one supporter of the wars give a logical explanation as to why the burden of the war should fall on our grandchildren. The only explanation I have ever received is: “we have done it before”. The problem with that is just because we have betrayed future generations in the past does not make it morally desirable to do in the future.

The assumption that you are making is that the cost of the Iraq war is the betrayal, whereas the bigger betrayal is conceivably losing the war and leaving them a world dominated by ISIS and theocrats in Iran.

These Ponzi schemes are rife in governments now, but are not an argument against the Bush policy on the ME vis-a-vis what Obama is leaving our children, and our children’s children with.

There is a deferred cost in not fighting a war too, and a bigger cost in snatching defeat from the jaws of victory

 

[stinkcat_14]

The assumption that you are making is that the cost of the Iraq war is the betrayal, whereas the bigger betrayal is conceivably losing the war and leaving them a world dominated by ISIS and theocrats in Iran.

To make someone pay for something that they had no say in is a betrayal. It is like a person that goes out to dinner and enjoys a fine meal and then sticks someone else with the check.

These Ponzi schemes are rife in governments now, but are not an argument against the Bush policy on the ME vis-a-vis what Obama is leaving our children, and our children’s children with.

There is a deferred cost in not fighting a war too, and a bigger cost in snatching defeat from the jaws of victory

The point is, there is no reason why we need to pass the cost off onto future generations.

 

[Suudy]

It certainly would make government smaller. The funny thing is, that I have yet to have one supporter of the wars give a logical explanation as to why the burden of the war should fall on our grandchildren.

The argument is that because the cost to our grandchildren would be greater in other ways if we let terrorist organizations continue to threaten and attack American interests, either allies or strategic resources. Pay less now, or pay significantly more later. I believe that Bush believed there was a real threat to the US that if left unchecked would come back to haunt us tenfold.

Now, that’s not to all all military involvement has the same justification. For example, I’m not so certain that involvement in Somalia, Yugoslavia, etc can be justified as protecting US interests. And certainly other military missions, notably humanitarian missions such as sending in supplies to Haiti, are far more suspect. Unless one views those missions as “marketing,” so to speak (i.e. “See, the US isn’t a bully! We care about the world too!”).

 

[stinkcat_14]

The argument is that because the cost to our grandchildren would be greater in other ways if we let terrorist organizations continue to threaten and attack American interests, either allies or strategic resources. Pay less now, or pay significantly more later. I believe that Bush believed there was a real threat to the US that if left unchecked would come back to haunt us tenfold.

I don’t know about you, but I have never trusted anyone who is spending my own money supposedly on my behalf. If you really care about future generations, then you will make the sacrifice to make them better off. But to make them sacrifice to make them better off is a level of paternalism that has no place in our society.

 

[Crossbones]

One supposes those who wax so wistful about the merits of Saddam Hussein’s rule in order to bash Bush, would think so except for their antipathy toward any ally of the U.S.
If Mubarak had spewed hatred against the U.S., and particularly if he had allowed Russia to establish bases in Egypt, they would have loved him.

What’s this have to do with anything?

 

[Suudy]

If you really care about future generations, then you will make the sacrifice to make them better off. But to make them sacrifice to make them better off is a level of paternalism that has no place in our society.

On this point, I agree. If we are going to initiate military action against a foreign state or in a foreign state, then we should ask the people to help support it. Perhaps a temporary tax increase with a sunset provision?

But you know, as well as the politicians in office, that if that were a condition of entering any foreign conflict, it would NEVER get traction, no matter how well argued it might be by the administration requesting it. It would take something as large as another Pearl Harbor to do it. And Bush probably had that chance with 9/11, but he didn’t take it.

 

[Crossbones]

With Bush, there was at least no precedent to go on in regard to consequences of what would happen when a dictator falls. This was entering into new territory that former presidents before 911 were loathe to enter before that disaster of the attack on American centers of power and prestige…

By the time the Arab Spring came around, the harsh consequences of such an occurrence ought to have been well enough known, especially by people who were so intimately aware of, and so harshly critical of the failures involved with the fall of Saddam.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. People were so giddy about the revolution of young people with cell phones, as if they learned nothing about Iraq as to what comes next.

One, no, it wasn’t new. Consider Iran and the Shaw. President GW Bush didn’t learn that lesson. Two, the Hussian situation was vastly different. No one in the US was supporting Iraq. There were very strong sanctions in place. On the other hand, Murabak apparently had his power because of support from the United States. So, the US was left in the bad position of either continuing to support a dictator that has been since convicted of corruption and accused on murdering his own citizens or discontinuing that support. Well, call me crazy, but I think the right choice for the US is to not back murderous dictators.

 

[stinkcat_14]

On this point, I agree. If we are going to initiate military action against a foreign state or in a foreign state, then we should ask the people to help support it. Perhaps a temporary tax increase with a sunset provision?

But you know, as well as the politicians in office, that if that were a condition of entering any foreign conflict, it would NEVER get traction, no matter how well argued it might be by the administration requesting it. It would take something as large as another Pearl Harbor to do it. And Bush probably had that chance with 9/11, but he didn’t take it.

I think the problem is, we are all too greedy for our own good. In addition, many people are afraid to admit that, which I think makes the problem worse. I think when it comes to government spending people don’t see spending they like as a burden on someone else. It is just what they are entitled to. That is what makes it so easy to run deficits.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Why is it morally redeeming to support government spending that other people pay for? .

I don’t know about “morally redeeming”, but “other people” always pay for all government programs, by and large. IRS employees, for example, do not pay most of their salaries in taxes. Other people pay it. Soldiers do not pay for their equipment and salaries. Other people do.

 

[Ridgerunner]

On this point, I agree. If we are going to initiate military action against a foreign state or in a foreign state, then we should ask the people to help support it. Perhaps a temporary tax increase with a sunset provision?

But you know, as well as the politicians in office, that if that were a condition of entering any foreign conflict, it would NEVER get traction, no matter how well argued it might be by the administration requesting it. It would take something as large as another Pearl Harbor to do it. And Bush probably had that chance with 9/11, but he didn’t take it.

Even WWII was largely paid for with borrowed money.

 

[Ridgerunner]

It certainly would make government smaller. The funny thing is, that I have yet to have one supporter of the wars give a logical explanation as to why the burden of the war should fall on our grandchildren. The only explanation I have ever received is: “we have done it before”. The problem with that is just because we have betrayed future generations in the past does not make it morally desirable to do in the future.

Other than very small engagements, it really appears war is too expensive to be paid for by current taxes. Even the celebrated parsimony of Frederick the Great wasn’t, though he did save up for war in advance instead of paying for it in arrears, at least most of the time.

 

[stinkcat_14]

I don’t know about “morally redeeming”, but “other people” always pay for all government programs, by and large. IRS employees, for example, do not pay most of their salaries in taxes. Other people pay it. Soldiers do not pay for their equipment and salaries. Other people do.

So, just because everyone does it that makes it acceptable? So the question is, why is making future generations pay for the wars better than paying for it ourselves? I realize that it has been done before, but so have abortions been done before, so that is not a moral justification.

 

[seekerz]

The “people on the playing cards” DID lead a band of bloodthirsty criminals and were bloodthirsty criminals themselves. Who do you think organized and carried out the acid baths, the rape rooms, the killings of children in front of their parents, the mass executions in the deserts, the gassing of Iranians and Kurds? Indignity? They deserved the indignity of the hangman’s noose.

Would you erase Bush’s actions and put those criminals back in power? I doubt it. Easier just to criticize in the absence of better ideas. The “playing card” people were not a bit better than ISIS, and a great deal more powerful militarily. But not to worry. Obama put ISIS in power over half of Iraq and Iran in power over the rest of it. So in that way, one supposes, your wish to re-install murderous despotism has been granted.

When the Kurds, the Sunni leaders and the Shia all begged us to stay to maintain the peace, it tells one a lot more than directionless Bush-bashing does about his actions.

Hold it…haven’t you heard? The people on the playing cards are ISIS. Who provided their raison d’etre? And what makes them worse despots than the rest of the despots in the ME? Is beheading someone on a court order, or using state resources to ‘disappear’ people any worse than beheading them or disappearing them under a black flag? To us understandably, but not to the people born and breastfed under that sort of brutality.

 

[estesbob]

Hold it…haven’t you heard? The people on the playing cards are ISIS. Who provided their raison d’etre? And what makes them worse despots than the rest of the despots in the ME? Is beheading someone on a court order, or using state resources to ‘disappear’ people any worse than beheading them or disappearing them under a black flag? To us understandably, but not to the people born and breastfed on that sort of brutality.

The Obama administration unilaterally pulling out of Iraq caused the rise of ISIS.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Other than very small engagements, it really appears war is too expensive to be paid for by current taxes. Even the celebrated parsimony of Frederick the Great wasn’t, though he did save up for war in advance instead of paying for it in arrears, at least most of the time.

Actually, it appears that the wars could have been easily paid for by getting rid of the Bush tax cuts. That would have been a perfectly reasonable choice for the public to make, do you want a war or a tax cut? That would lead to a better decision than having both and making future generations pay for both.

washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/revisiting-the-cost-of-the-bush-tax-cuts/2011/05/09/AFxTFtbG_blog.html

 

[seekerz]

The Obama administration unilaterally pulling out of Iraq caused the rise of ISIS.

If it makes you happy to believe that, fine. “Peace” that is bought by bribing local leaders is no peace at all, just an illusion with an expiry date stamped on it. The Sunni-Shia infighting has lasted what - centuries at least. ISIS was inevitable - no matter how long America stayed…or are you saying taxpayers should have subsidized the false peace in Iraq indefinitely?

 

[Path_Finder]

Hold it…haven’t you heard? The people on the playing cards are ISIS. Who provided their raison d’etre? And what makes them worse despots than the rest of the despots in the ME? Is beheading someone on a court order, or using state resources to ‘disappear’ people any worse than beheading them or disappearing them under a black flag? To us understandably, but not to the people born and breastfed under that sort of brutality.

Tell that to the Syrian Human Rights Commission.

ISIS executes at a much higher rate.: syriahr.com/en/2015/04/2154-people-executed-by-is-since-the-declaration-of-its-alleged-caliphate/

Islamic State executes 2154 people since the declaration of its alleged “Caliphate”

These despot governments you speak of do not just execute persons because they are Christian.

Nor are these governments involved in suicide bombings, etc.

 

[Path_Finder]

The Obama administration unilaterally pulling out of Iraq caused the rise of ISIS.

Did you know the treaty to pull out was signed during the Bush administration? Of course, it was flexible but it’s a bit more complex than your statement.

Also, the war is in Syria too, ISIS might not have risen to power likewise, if there hadn’t been a good 2-3 years of Sunnis being bombed in the first place.