Letter to Editor

[hey_herb]

I pulled this quote from an article on this website.

http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/depression/depression.htm

[Samadhi]

Roosevelt didn't help us out of the depression either. He prolonged it. Common misconceptions.
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between.

[Naboo*]

[hey_herb]

I Googled "great depression" and got back over 59 million links. I couldn't possibly go through that many links, but the majority of the links I did go through list WWII as the major link to pulling the US out of the depression.

Many of Roosevelt's actions were a continuation and broadening of Hoover's earlier attempts to correct the downward trend of the economy. Roosevelt was basically trying to have the government spend it's way out of the depression. And to his credit, the unemployment rate went from 25% to 19% during his presidency before the war. But you are correct that this did not pull us out of the depression. I was just quoting the whole paragraph to give it some context.

You have listed what has NOT got the U.S. out of the depression, and that there are many common misconceptions. Could you now let us know what did?

[Naboo]

[worm]

time and debt repudiation pulled us out...according to this article, anyway.

i just modified my search to include libertarians

[Pablo]

[Pablo]

Naboo, thank you for post 43. I have no idea what Samadhi believes either. I think he's a smart guy, but that impression comes from other places, not his views on Iraq, whatever those are. I think once he said that now that we're there, it would be a mistake to leave, but that's about it.

[hey_herb]

hey_worm,

I read the article and the author says "The second great misconception was that WWII was the stimulus that actually got the U.S. Economy going again". He then states "I think it was time and debt repudiation". He does not site any resources or rational behind either statement.

I am not saying he is wrong, I would just like to see the path that leads to this reasoning. People going to work in factories to make machines of war, lowered the unemployment rate, put more money into the hands of people who would spend it, and helped the economy recover. This is a tangible and plausible relation that can be attributed to the war. Calling it a great misconception without saying why is pretty useless to me.

I do agree with him that the Federal Reserve System has failed miserably at it's supposed purpose. It is neither a Federal entity, nor a Reserve bank and is largely responsible for the debt problems in the U.S. today. I of course, am going to leave it that and not site any of my sources.

[hey_herb]

Yeah, I guess you are right. Because we all know that Employment, and Water and Electricity availability statistics are so much more important than basic human rights and freedoms.

So I guess you wouldn't really be the one on the stand saying "Give me liberty or give me death"? I guess you would be up there saying "give me electricity, water, and a job and I won't care what else you do".

What it really sounds like it that you know what you want to believe and facts aren't going to get in the way.

I am not stupid. I am not a blind follower. And you are being an ass to me because I put forth a different viewpoint.

[Pablo]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/27/AR2006022701160.html

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/A66151CB-2105-418B-BFAA-73211A631611.htm

Basic human rights? To do what? Starve in the dark?

OK fine, you're not a blind follower. What would you call it?

[Naboo*]

[Samadhi]

Naboo: You're right, I haven't often stated my views but I have stated them. Also, I'm fairly uncertain about what the reality is, I only have what I think it probably is. I get my news from a wide variety of sources and there is no consensus of opinions. But here's my general opinions that I'm leaning to.
Go to war: No
Iraq had WMDs: Probably not since the late 90s, but Saddam sure acted like he had them.
Iraq improving/getting worse: Improving
Soldier morale: Lion's share of soldiers are good
I believe that finishing the job we started is better than bugging out.

Anything else? (I fixed your tags btw)
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between.

[Naboo*]

Nope, that actually helps a lot. Thanks.

[Samadhi]

But please keep in mind that I'm not set in those opinions, much less so than in many other realms (for example, the Drug Jihad). It may seem like I'm very much to one side, but what I think I actually am is very anti-bad arguments.
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between.

[Samadhi]

hey_herb: That's pretty much it. The free market would have stabilized after time anyway. FDR interfered with the free market by setting quotas and fixing prices, this delayed the natural stabilization of the market. Also, industrialization had much to do with our economic increase, especially right after the war. Without WWII, and the waste of lives and resources associated with it, we would have had a much higher standard of living. The key thing to remember here is that correllation does not mean causation.
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between.

[worm]

hey_herb,

no wonder you can't get through all those links, you read the articles i wasn't offering support for the article, just putting out a differing opinion.

i don't want to get into the debate about iraq. it doesn't seem friendly or productive.

*wiggles back into the shadows*

[Samadhi]

[Samadhi]

Pablo: I’ve started reading your links.
First:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/after/2003/0328advisors.htm
I will assume this data is correct barring contrary evidence (except for conflicts, I don’t think the argument is conclusive). However, following through to your original premise would require several sharp blows to the head.

http://www.publicintegrity.org/wow/
Yeah. And? (sorry, if you expect more rebuttal to a link than that…~shrug~ don't make me make your argument for you)

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/pa12_murtha/2005_12_14_dear_coll_iraq.html
Your two previous cites seemed fairly objective and relayed some factual pieces of information. I started reading Murtha’s letter and was writing commentary critiquing his use of just plain shit poor logic, but realized I had half a page for his first page. I don’t have the time. Perhaps the rest of his letter is the font of wisdom. I doubt it. Please feel free to take the time to read it and point out these pearls to me.
(your latter links appear, at least by context of your remarks, to be addressing facts of conditions…I’ll respond to those separately after I read them)
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between.

[worm]

[edit]

[Samadhi]

When was I talking to you? I know it's to HH but actually prefacing it that way is polite
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between.

[Antrax]

[Pablo]

[Pablo]

[Antrax]

[Pablo]

[Pablo]

[GH]

Two things float around in my mind during these threads. Maybe someone can help me get a handle on them.

First, it seems like it's almost a sign of progress that the Iraqi people are willing to express any displeasure they're feeling. Perhaps I've just been drinking the Kool-Aid, but I get the impression that people that weren't happy under Saddam didn't complain for long.

Second, I'm sure we all agree that whatever has happened in Iraq so far can't be changed. So we have to move on from where we are now. Given that, it seems to me, in my nearly infinite ignorance and naivete, that just leaving Iraq would be a disaster. If, in fact, things are worse than they were before, how can we just walk away? If we think our image is bad now, as military occupants, what would it be like if we were the country that came in, made a mess, and left without trying to help clean it up?

[Pablo]

[GH]

First I'll say that I don't think there's anything to win. I don't see there being any definition of "winning" and "losing" in this situation. I do think that by removing the former government (however ruthless or unpleasant it may have been), we took on an obligation to do our best to make things right in the end. I don't think we're done.

Second, I'll say that I'm almost sorry I spoke up. If I had wanted to be belittled, I could have just sarcastically insulted myself without posting. I felt like I pointed out pretty clearly what I thought would be disastrous about it. Your response didn't help me understand where you considered my thinking to be flawed (and I assume that you do), other than to sensationalize the American loss of life. Why are American lives any more valuable than Iraqi lives?

[Pablo]

[GH]

And people who won't even open their minds in internet discussion deserve the same. Or worse.

[Pablo]

[GH]

I'm not "condoning" the idea of leaving forces there only to generate profit for companies that are "friendly" with the administration. That would be deplorable. I'm just not sure I'm convinced that "profit" is the only motive, which is the sense I got from your original letter. I've seen anti-war POVs range from "we should keep talking" to "he's trying to increase popularity" to "it's all about oil" to "he did it for his dad" to "he's just an idiot," and I probably missed some others. I can believe that any or all of those played a part in the decision, and that some of the POVs in support of the war are also at least partly correct.

But the point I was really trying to make was that we have to start from right now. Staying there is certainly an unpleasant option. So is having to go back. So is having the aggression brought to us here at home. So is walking away and leaving a country vulnerable. Is "go home" really the best move to make?

-- I'm sure I over-reacted. --

[Pablo]

[Pablo]

[GH]

I'm trying to understand what you're saying. Your message to me, so far, seems to be, "Some American companies are making money in Iraq, and our forces there are getting attacked, so we should leave." Is that close?

What would happen if we leave? I don't know. But it seems likely to me that local militias take control of small areas, some of them ally to destroy other ones and take their power, and the ultimate "leader" of the country will be the warlord who supresses his opposition most effectively. I base that claim on the fact that it seems to me to be generally what happened before, which I believe you were telling Antrax is good reason to believe that it will happen again.

On the other hand, what if we stay? I don't know. The only long-term military occupation that I can think of off the top of my head is Germany. That one seemed to suck for a really long time, and then turn out pretty OK.

[Samadhi]

[Samadhi]

BTW
http://www.iraqgoodnews.com/
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between.

[Pablo]

I clicked on that link and couldn't find anything there more recent than almost a year old.

However, I did find this:

"We could smell pride in the atmosphere this morning; everyone we saw was holding up his blue tipped finger with broad smiles on the faces while walking out of the center. [We] couldn't think of a scene more beautiful than that."

That's the good news?