The U.S. Embassy in Iraq is distancing itself from statements made by Rep. Dana Rohrabacher that led to a government spokesman saying the congressman and his delegation are not welcome in the country…
Dana Rohrabacher, the chairman of the Oversight and Investigation Subcommittee of the House Foreign Affairs Committee…told reporters during a news conference at the embassy in Baghdad that he suggested Iraq repay some of the cost of the war.
“Once Iraq becomes a very rich and prosperous country … we would hope that some consideration be given to repaying the United States some of the mega-dollars that we have spent here in the last eight years,” said Rohrabacher, according to the Agence France-Presse news agency…
Traveling with Rohrabacher were Democratic Rep. Russ Carnahan of Missouri; Rep. Ted Poe of Texas, a Republican member of Rohrabacher’s subcommittee; Republican Rep. Jeff Duncan of South Carolina; Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert of Texas; and Democratic Rep. Jim Costa of California.
Telephone calls to the district and Washington offices of all five congressmen were either not answered or not immediately returned.
Will this be part of the Republican platform in 2012?
Wasn’t there a bill to this effect passed during the initial invasion? This was when conservatives were promising that the war would pay for itself.
If I remember correctly, Iraq was going to pay for half of the privilege of being invaded by America. (I don’t have the time to do the search but that’s my memory.)
The Christians shouldn’t. We pretty much got them massacred. Surprise, being an atheist Saddam did not tolerate sectarian violence.
The only thing the Bast party and Saddam followers owe us would be two to the head.
Maybe some of the others do owe us a favor but then we pretty much bleeped things up by not having enough troops in the country to maintain the peace after knocking out the government.
I’d be happy to settle for getting out of the place.
We should have been sucking the oil out at cost (or less) as a means to pay for the war. Our fault if we didn’t follow through with that.
The problem is that we try to wage war by phoning it in.
You can’t even have a good police action from across an ocean away.
That’s no way to conquer. Read The Prince by Niccolò Machiavelli. Its all in there, in black and white and blood red.
You have to move your seat of government into the territory you’re occupying for a couple of generations to show you’re serious and to break the will of your opponents.
Eventually old enmities turn into grudging acceptance, turn into leery relations turn old rivalry, turn into close friendship. (e.g. England and France. Look at France and everybody else and you can see what happens when you screw it up… [They were in Vietnam until the people kicked their asses in Dien Bien Fu, Algeria until they realized that they just weren’t sufficiently evil anymore, inherited possessions from Napoleon all over the South Pacific and South Atlantic that they are only to happy to neglect.)
WW II was the last war of conquest the ‘States waged. (Though I can make an argument for South Korea, it was a United Nations war.)
We started phoning it in with Johnson and have fucked up every conflict, and screwed every ally, since.
The United States no longer has the balls to be a conquering nation. You’re all too fat, too lazy, too self-absorbed and too namby-pamby to really go to war, not even over your own survival.
#14
“Freedom isn’t Free” isn’t my thought, but an ad campaign for the local Republican free paper. Different pictures with that slogan. The one that caught my eye was with a middle eastern family huddled next to a wall with US mil boots and rifle barrel in foreground.
It is also cross marketed to other right-wing groups. They’ve got t-shirts and biker patches… stuff like that.
The one of the other ads in the series is of the Lincoln memorial. Why Lincoln? Not because of the Civil War, which is still a sore spot for many in the South to this day, but because of Lincoln’s willingness to suspend civil liberties to achieve his goals.
Effectively this is the GOP asking that Lincoln’s era and Bush II’s era be compared apples-to-apples. That the danger level was the same 10 out of 10. Yeah right.
The Civil War had BATTLES with more people than our current WARS. That was also against a much smaller population. And the action wasn’t in another land: everything destroyed would be a loss to an American.
I don’t want to understate the dangers faced by America, just to point out that others systematically overstate those dangers to cover up their own mistakes.
The logical thing to do is tax those US states whose elected politician voted in favor of an invasion.
That, or seize all the GOP assets and turn over Cheney and Bush to Interpol to face the world court.
Somebody besides me should pay for it, that’s all I know.
#25, Chris, thanks for the explanation… interesting. I guess if I were American, I might have caught your nod to their current significance.
QUOTE from a former president..
” The OIL from Iraq will pay for the war”
When i heard this I laughed, then tried to figure out HOW…
Guess what..WE ARE PAYING FOR IT.. You wont get a higher price then the USA..
#20–Skeptic==sorry my schedule took me away. Lets parse:
Hmmm—but before parsing, having re read our posts, I am again unable to understand what I think you must be trying to say. The statement is too self referential, too general, too broad==too undefined. And as I tried to respond in the same framework, I find the same complaint/confusion in my own response.
1. – You assume that you are on the short end of benefits. What if the 49% didn’t want to wage war? /// What I said was: ““I feel nothing but joy in the 49% I have knowing it allows me the benefits of the 51% “–which is an acceptance of the 49/51 split but negates the characterization of a “short end” as I take joy in the 49% WHILE HAVING BENEFITS in the 51%. This actually does capture what I was trying to say: that its all good. But I see the ambiguity–mostly coming from your set up I think. “What if the 49% didn’t want to wage war?”===========and I think I have it. You take society as a whole and then identify a conflict as if the society were an individual with the same conflict. You switch ponies mid metaphor.
At #14 you say: “I don’t know of anyone who has ever experienced “freedom”, by it’s literal and philosophical meaning: “The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.” /// And that is one definition/interpretation/reality/expression/context. I have a few points to make: 1==it is well understood that we have many freedoms that necessarily come into conflict and all therefore must be compromised to maximize them all. My freedom to swing my fist must be compromised by your freedom to have your nose within my reach. Is my freedom “really” so restricted then that I cannot punch you if we disagree? I don’t think so. The direct answer to your question is that I am a freeman such as you search for, and I believe you, and most of us here are as well.
2. There is a very famous expression of another appreciation of freedom by JP Sartre: “We were never more free than during the German Occupation.” This expression of Sartrean Existentialism actually confronts directly the definition you use, but plays on the balance I give at point one. What is freedom but accepting the consequences of our actions, and yet choosing none the less? What, you think freedom is experienced in an environment free of consequences and reflections/predictions/balance? Hoomans live in society, not an isolated island. Ideas based on the latter have no credence in the former.
2– To what “givens and circumstances” are you referring? I don’t believe I gave any examples. /// Every idea springs from givens and circumstances whether they are stated or not. Your failure to give examples is what makes your statement ambiguous–it could be right or wrong but its impossible to say as it is “ungrounded” or unexampled. YES–I agree. So (maybe) I am not a free person because there is war that I don’t agree with? Well, “I” am not at war, how does a war affect me except by far extension thru inability to travel to the area without risk of harm or having my taxes taken to pay for it, or really, my dollar devalued to pay for it? Well–I don’t want to travel to war zones==is the denial of something I don’t want an invasion of my freedom? Deficit spending is too extenuated to affect the heart of freedom which is the ability and actuality of THINKING for one’s self.
3–I couldn’t decide on a suitable antonym for “freedom” in it’s broadest definition. Immobility doesn’t cut it either. Have you got a better one? /// Good one. I’m thinking: Afreedom, anti-freedom. Non-freedom. Slavery. Dogma. The False hope of lowered Expectations?===now let me check the thread for a considered response……..”Complete freedom would be as terrible as complete immobility.”//// So, complete freedom as you use it strikes me as anarchy? and maybe the opposite of that is some distopian vision of little office cubicles? Regimented? Hmmm. A little directed thought makes “immobility” a pretty good word as extreme as it is, it matches the extreme of “complete freedom.” Neither exist. Is the exercise somewhat irrelevant by its own framing/context? I think so.
Big words, big ideas, cannot be thrown around so lightly. That only evidences the shame of rhetoric as unhelpful analysis. Truly, the devil, the answer, is in the minute details, the smallest examples. That is what our brains are designed to handle. We are all more about our feet on the ground than we are about our head in the stars.
Its the truth that sets us free–but then bounds us by its consequences. Sublime.
#14, Skeptic,
I don’t know of anyone who has ever experienced “freedom”
Ahhh, now we know who hasn’t gone commando.
Kuwait paid $10 billion, so why not Iraq?
#12 Dusanmal, spot on!
they should reimburse us.
Re#31, Bobbo. first off, thanks for the effort you put into that (respectful to, LOL!) reply. I am definitely not a student of philosophy, so my attempts of putting what I ‘feel’ into words may be somewhat crude by comparison. My emotional base is somewhat compromised by the pharmacy of drugs I have to take daily, so please forgive me if I seem a little inconsistent from day to day.
I think your first comment actually hits nail on head… #1“Hmmm—but before parsing, having re read our posts, I am again unable to understand what I think you must be trying to say. The statement is too self referential, too general, too broad==too undefined.”
Actually, that was exactly what I was trying to do. I realize that “freedom” is is relative and can also be viewed through political, personal (free will) and by any means categorized. What I was trying to do was address the ultimate meaning of Freedom as it pertains to all aspects and philosophical divisions… the simplest all encompassing meaning of freedom. I probably failed on that count, but that was what I was after.
In consideration of brevity I’ll refer to just n excerpt of each of your points in post #31, but my answesr refer to your points in entirety.
#1 “You take society as a whole and then identify a conflict as if the society were an individual with the same conflict. You switch ponies mid metaphor.”—
IMO, society IS 2 individuals or more. Consider society a marriage. If 2 very opposite people were always split 49-51 on their decisions the marriage would collapse. decisions on who should make coffee in the morning or take out the trash are insignificant, but aborting the ‘surprise’ pregnancy, allowing pre-marital sex for the 16 yo, where to put investments (stock market or government bonds) etc would make life together very stressful and resentful. Expand that to millions of people. In the USA you have huge numbers of people who are at 100% odds with each other on enough critical issues that a 49-51 split makes it impossible to function efficiently and effectively. If you were to separate those groups into their own societies, they would each be stronger, happier, and more efficient. The “middle ground” group (relative to the extremes) would have their state(s), the far right and left would each have their state(s), and depending on the dynamics, there could be a few “tweens”. In that scenario, as long as voting took place within their boundaries, democratic votes on major issues would be closer to unanimous (say a 80-20 split) and the “marriage” would work. IMO the USA is too divided to remain a single entity. I see the possibility of angry separation(s) in the making. Of course, this is just an ‘armchair’ comment without in depth political depth of thought or solution, but it I hope it illustrates my point. A democratic decision should be based on a clear majority where 80% of the voters are happy. 51% is mathematically a “win” but certainly does not make for a happy society. just look at the rift on this blog for reference of the unrest in your country.
#2, “Is my freedom “really” so restricted then that I cannot punch you if we disagree? I don’t think so. “
– You are agreeing with me there. Yours is an example of agreement of where to draw the line (from the extremes). If you take your literal example then sure we are free and will always be because even if we are bound and gagged we can still think freely. But if you include consequences in the definition, then you are not free to punch me without consequences. After all isn’t it the consequences from overstepping limitations to freedom that we are opposed to? Who cares if you are required to be felt up at the airport, if there were little or no consequences to walking right by?
re #2, sigh, I agree with you, and i think you misunderstood me whether it was my fault or yours.
#3 (2b?), Your failure to give examples is what makes your statement ambiguous
– Again, my same answer as to your point #1, “What I was trying to do was address the ultimate meaning of Freedom as it pertains to all aspects and philosophical divisions… the simplest all encompassing meaning of freedom. ”
#4 (3?), “So, complete freedom as you use it strikes me as anarchy? and maybe the opposite of that is some distopian vision of little office cubicles? Regimented? Hmmm. A little directed thought makes “immobility” a pretty good word as extreme as it is, it matches the extreme of “complete freedom.” Neither exist.”
– I refer you to my first post to Chris… “When Chris posted “Freedom isn’t free.”, my first thought was that freedom doesn’t exist. If it is not imposed by a dictator, it is imposed by oneself in under the umbrella of society. Complete freedom would be as terrible as complete immobility. “
– So we agree again. I don’t see any conflict of ideas.
And lastly, re: “Big words, big ideas, cannot be thrown around so lightly. That only evidences the shame of rhetoric as unhelpful analysis.”
– Well, they can if you are on a blog and just want to make a shallow point and add your potato to the pot of stew. There always seems enough eats for everyone.
I truly enjoy your posts when I can understand them.
Now time for me to wait for the nausea to subside from a recent dose of my antagonistic life-saving drugs.
Hey Skeptic==don’t you find you get back what you put out? More true than not in this 49/51 world?
Point 1==you are confusing “freedom” with harmony or agreement. You have some valid points to make with your ideas but your labels are flawed. My “freedom” to prefer tax free bonds is not negated by my wife’s desire to choose high risk start ups. Same with abortion, fidelity and all other issues to various degrees. Now, if you are saying I am not free as long as I don’t get my way==then who can deny that except JP Sartre who certainly did? Yes, its definitional and the broader a concept your reference, the less meaning your thoughts can have. I do agree on your definition of society. It is also the definition of politics and one of the finer distinctions about religion? Fun!!
So, I would say rather than the general, we could make great progress in finding the most narrow of examples to illuminate freedom. If we were of the mind to do so?
#2–yeah, I think we are pretty much thinking very much the same with the exception as I did go into that the idea of defining freedom as if you were the only person on the island is less than meaningful as it never applies? I prefer the freedom of thought and physcial limitation over the freedom to be as wild as I might wish while starving to death or going crazy in my isolation. I mean, shouldn’t we get real even when philosophizing? ((I just changed my nom de flame!))
#3–I think applying “ultimate” to anything is suspect? Probably hubris or failure to understand the complexities/subtleties/other contexts? All things to their purpose. As energy is dissipated by the cube of the distance squared, isn’t the meaningfulness of an all encompassing philosophical generality likewise diminished? More impact with a rifle than with a shotgun?
#4–So you probably “love” the number of times I post how incredibly healthy I have been? ((There!–I said it again.)) I can tell you at least I understand the grace and gift in life I have been allowed to experience==it very much is the basis for my far left leanings. I KNOW how lucky I am. How much of your own intelligence would you give up to get healthy? Impossible question I know. Offered only to say its a real question putting the suffering into some perspective==if we had the freedom of choice?
None of us are free to choose our immediate circumstances, but there remains still other areas of free choice==where and how to live tomorrow, etc. Is there if not freedom a liberation in firmly recognizing our limitations? I think so. Limits and balance in all things.
Ok skeptic==keep up on the meds because I’ll be looking to disagree with you if I can. I’ll check this thread as well for a few days should you have additional thoughts or complaints?
Sante////bobbo
>> MikeN said, on June 14th, 2011 at 7:09 am
>> Kuwait paid $10 billion, so why not Iraq?
We liberated Kuwait. We invaded, occupied and trashed the hell our of Iraq. Big difference.
In any regard, $10 billion is chump change for the total costs of these wars you conservatives forced on us.
Wolfowitz said Iraq oil money would pay for the war – http://money.cnn.com/2007/11/08/news/international/iraq_oil/index.htm
Did Iraq asked to be invaded and completely destroyed? Have lost your mind? I think if anybody need to pay its USA for killing, raping, destroying a country which did not attacked us
How much is an Iraqui life worth?
“Republican Congressman Says Iraq Should Repay Us for Invading their County”
WTF! he WANTS Blowback!!??