Treasure Arithmetic in Iraq

[RandFan]

Do you agree that if they WEREN'T in Iraq doing whatever, that they could be put to use chasing Osama?

Could? Sure. Would? Not necassarily no. There might be more though.

 

[BPSCG]

1. when should we have removed Saddam?
2. how should we have accomplished it? and
3. under your scenario, if Osama was still out there in March, 2007, should we postpone dealing with Saddam?[/list=1]

1. 
   

   1. When he was the primary, grave or even a credible threat to the United States.
   2. Depends on what the circumstances of that threat were.
   3. It depends on the level of threat of Osama vs Saddam.[/list=1]

   1. Your answer #1 short-circuits your answers 2 and 3.
      
      Since you believe Saddam was never "the primary, grave or even a credible threat to the United States," you presumably believe we never should have overthrown him, in which case, questions 2 and 3 become irrelevant (actually your answers to those questions were pretty irrelevant anyway, since they both amounted to little more than "It depends...").
      
      So if you believe we never should have overthrown him, that makes you, despite your protests to the contrary, objectively pro-Saddam. It's like someone saying he hates tooth decay, but opposes brushing his teeth; he perforce likes tooth decay more than brushing his teeth. You like the idea of Saddam in power more than you like the idea of overthrowing him by invasion. And since you've given no other plausible scenario for removing him, the only possible conclusion one can draw is that you are opposed to removing him at all.
      
      Since your position is the same as Saddam's position - he didn't want to be overthrown - you are objectively pro-Saddam.

 

[BPSCG]

Forgive me if I've been less than clear. I'm not a politician, so I tend not to speak in absolutes.

Neither do politicians. Especially when they find themselves in an untenable position.

I've explained before that "not one penny" specifically refers to money diverted from the hunt for Al Queida and Osama to Iraq. The Bush administration did divert money. That's been documented, and it was a mistake. That's the one penny I spoke of. I hope I'm not confusing it with the more general question about Iraq.

Assuming not one penny of Osama money or resources was diverted, THEN how much to remove Saddam from Iraq?

Ten trillion.

Just Kidding.

I know. You said sixty billion in another post. Were you kidding there, too?

Because that's not my question.

My question, poorly stated perhaps, was for those who support the war.


I asked, at what point do the risks exceed the costs we are willing to bear?


Those who oppose the war, it make sense that they don't have a price.

It's like asking someone who doesn't want a sandwich how much they'd pay for it. It's a pointless question. "I don't want it."

So this war? I don't want it. How much would I pay for it? I don't want it.

But now how much would you pay for it?

I don't want it.

So I don't have a price.

So does that mean that sixty billion is out, too?

I think that there are reasonable amounts, assuming you support the war, and there's a certain amount that I would find reasonable if it were to be argued that we should enter into this war.

But see, that's a different question from the one you're asking, BPSCG.

I'm asking "at what point do the risks exeed the costs we are willing to bear" and the question I think you're asking is "how much would you pay to free the iraqi people?"

Leaving aside the very real possibility that we've bought one without the other, the risks for me have always exceeded the cost. So I answer my own question by saying that.

So we're back to "not one penny..."

You can ask the question "What would you pay for a free, peaceful Iraq." and that's a seperate question. And I tried to give you answers that addressed that. My answers to that question deal with issues like timing and threat assessment of Osama vs Saddam. You didn't want to hear that, and just badgered me for a number, I think.

Sauce for the goose, etc. You certainly were badgering those of us who supported the war for a number. I won't accuse you of moving the goalposts, since you did indeed ask those of us who supported the war how much it should cost, but what you asked was analagous to having goalposts on just one end of the field.

As far as your claim that,

You can ask the question "What would you pay for a free, peaceful Iraq." and that's a seperate question. And I tried to give you answers that addressed that

you did nothing of the kind. You sidestepped and backtracked and talked about supposedly misplaced priorities, and "it depends," but nowhere do you put yourself on the same firing line you put the rest of us on, namely, what is the reasonable cost in dollars for the war (for those in favor) or to free Iraq (for those opposed)?

I don't have a number for that, because that presumes a different set of circumstances, OR it presumes that the war was fought the right way at the right time, and I just need to assign a number to it.

Now you're moving the goalposts. I'll accept you have no price tag for a war you don't want. But that's not the question that you suggested was more appropriate in the previous paragraph. That question - YOUR question - was, "What would you pay for a free, peaceful Iraq?" We're still waiting for your answer to that one.

I'm not trying to "fog my position". I'm not a politician. I'm a person, and I don't see this in absolutes.

But you had no trouble demanding absolutes from the war's supporters in the first place. If I may quote you:

Just ASSUMING that we hit $400B, would that be too much? How bout $600? $800?

Why should we be held to absolutes, but not you?

Hell yes, I want a peaceful, free and secure Iraq.

You just don't want to pay for it, at least not until we've solved the problem of "Muslim unrest," among other things. Objectively pro-Saddam.

 

[Silicon]

Bullsh*t.

I'm as objectively pro-Saddam as George HW Bush and Ronald Reagan were when they decided not to invade Iraq either.


Welcome to my ignore list, troll.

 

[BPSCG]

Bullsh*t.

I'm as objectively pro-Saddam as George HW Bush and Ronald Reagan were when they decided not to invade Iraq either.

Talk is cheap.

Welcome to my ignore list, troll.

I'm honored.

Now we know what you meant when you kept saying, "it depends..."