Leftist Predictions Are Always Wrong

It's a considerable bit of spin to suggest that Democrats in general and Leftists in particular are opposed to any changes in Social Security. What we've heard about the most from the Right and the Bush Administration is "private accounts".. ad nauseum. Private accounts are nice, but alone they won't fix Social Security. At the end of the day, though, Social Security is a minor problem compared to the infinitely larger looming threat: Medicare.

Speaking of Medicare.. what has the Right, via their proxies in the Republican party in control of both Congress and the Presidency, given us? An expensive (twice what it was estimated) prescription drug bill... a windfall to Big Pharma, thanks to Medicare's inability to negotiate for lower drug prices under the bill.

MW... as for your list of failures, I think it is important to distinguish between what is considered "the Left" here in America and what is "Leftist" in other areas of the world. Communism and socialism (the "socialism" of the WWII era) are not what is being proposed by "the Left" in America, nor would any reasonable American Leftist suggest that Communism and socialism, such as that manifested in the last century, is a good idea.

Environmentalists are also not the monolithic group you may think they are. Environmentalists are correct about global warming, in the sense that it is happening and we will be affected by it... but they miss the mark by blaming it on any influence of mankind. What is more likely, to me, is that Earth is in a natural warming phase. The consequences of which are probably not as serious for the Earth and life in general as they are for us. We should be prepared for any potential future effects of global warming. Environmentalists are wrong in their incessant chants for recycling.. recycling of anything and everything. Recycling should only be done when the costs of recycling, both in energy and resources, are lower than the costs of making/using un-recycled materials.

As far as the Iraq war is concerned, I support spreading democracy and removing dictators. I don't support, however, the specific way we've gone about it in Iraq. It should've been the Iraqi people who overthrew Saddam. We could've and should've helped them, but we shouldn't have done it for them. That's all in the past, though, so now we simply have to hope that the Iraqi people can appreciate and work toward democracy and freedom and avoid becoming enslaved by another dictator.

Your characterization of the philosophies of the Right.. as benefiting everyone more than those of the Left.. is, at best, biased and, at worst, inaccurate. Welfare reform was a great idea. The trickle-down theory and Reaganomics were not. (for some analysis of Reaganomics, check out this link).

Don't mention the communism and socialism of the 20th century without also mentioning fascism, a Right-wing atrocity.

President Bush and the Republicans are also wrong about ANWR oil having any impact on our dependence on foreign oil. The CATO Institute says so, anyway.

i don't care if it makes a diff. or not. if it produces 1 quart of oil i'll take it. of course it will produce much more but the point is we have a supply, no matter how small or large, of our own oil. if we use it at least the arabs won't have as many of our short hairs in their grip. there is a small but vocal group that are having a fit about anwr and i would dare say 99% of them have never been there and know very little of which they speak. they just jump on the wagon of some nut case who has found a way to live without working and has time to kill so he finds some cause to devote himself to. all these people do is bitch. they have no ideas to remedy the problems except for the rest of us to do without. i think they like to see people suffer. in this way they can cause harm to others and then say it is for the good of nature or the earth. anwr is not the answer but it may be a bandaid. while we are getting and using the resources our nation has to offer why don't the anti's pitch in and lets work on alternative forms of energy. that is how we can slow down the middle east terrorist. if they can't sell their oil then all they have left is sand.........

but the point is we have a supply, no matter how small or large, of our own oil. if we use it at least the arabs won't have as many of our short hairs in their grip

recovering oil from ANWR is only economical with high oil prices...I hardly see how that will have some effect on the relatively low cost producers in the Middle East. On the other hand, conservation efforts such as raising CAFE standards could have a huge impact, but they aren't being pursued.

You are right, raising CAFE standards would have a huge impact.... both good and bad. Good for energy efficiency and dependence but bad for US Automakers and everyone employed in related fields. Japanese are already stomping the crap out of GM and Ford and lead in the alternate fuels without a change in standards. Add in another standard that GM/Ford Management hasn't accounted for and they are doomed. So the real question is whether the economic cost/benefits can be balanced or whether something has to be given up.

"As far as the Iraq war is concerned, I support spreading democracy and removing dictators. I don't support, however, the specific way we've gone about it in Iraq. It should've been the Iraqi people who overthrew Saddam."

Isn't this a little like saying, I think that big bully should stop kicking the crap out that blind guy in a wheel chair, but I am not willing to offer anything but moral support to make it happen? The blind guy in the wheel chair should overthrow the big bully himself.

In other words, Mark could say, "I support in principle the overthrow of dictators and the spread of democracy, but I am unwilling to dirty my hands with the hard work of actually doing it. Furthermore, if anybody actually does engage in the hard work of overthrowing dictators I will sit on the sidelines and tell him he's doing a lousy job, and I would do it much better, if I cared to actually do something, which I don't."

RS: It is utter folly to suggest that our hands would've been clean had we not invaded Iraq. There's very little about the Middle East that doesn't relate to us in some way or another.

To use your blind person in a wheelchair analogy... we should've compensated for the person's handicaps so the person could've kicked the crap out of the big bully. The handicapped person can't want freedom from the bully less than we do.

If the Iraqi people really wanted freedom and democracy and to overthrow Saddam, we should've given them what they need and let them form the requisite rank-and-file devotees.. "revolutionaries", if you will.. so they could earn their freedom. What you don't personally fight for you tend to value less.

Mark--Not sure what to make of your first comment, the hands I was referring to where your's (and like-minded folk) and your unwillingness to dirty them by offering meaningful support to those who living under dictatorship and your willingness to carp at the people willing to undertake the often dirty work.

I think the "Blind, wheelchair bound man" analogy is very apt. Saddam had total control of the police and armed forces, and the citizenry of Iraq was largely disarmed. What would they have overthrown Saddam with? The citizenry of Iraq was like a blind cripple in their ability to resist Saddam Hussein. Remember what happened to the Kurd's who tried to set up a separate state after Gulf War I. Saddam destroyed them while we sat by and did nothing. Plus let's face it, the primary objective of the Iraq invasion was to overthrow Iraq's terror supporting regime, not to free the Iraqi people. Freedom for the Iraqi people is a nice fringe benefit, but in the wake of 9/11, why would we want to wait the years it would take for a resistance movement to develop enough strength to overthrow Saddam when we can do it in a couple of months?

RS: "Meaningful support" doesn't necessarily mean "invade and do their work for them". I agree that the Iraqi people needed help overthrowing Saddam. I don't agree, though, that we had to do it for them. Show someone how to do something and give them the tools to do it and they'll do it for themselves and appreciate it. Do something for someone and they'll learn and appreciate nothing.

As for the "primary objective" of invading Iraq, I always thought it was Iraq's purported WMD "imminent threat". The administration cited other reasons, like Iraq's purported support of terrorists, but the urgency and necessity of it was predicated on WMDs.

As it now stands, Iraq is no less of a breeding ground or haven for terrorists than it was under Saddam.

RS said: "why would we want to wait the years it would take for a resistance movement to develop enough strength to overthrow Saddam when we can do it in a couple of months? "

There's no difference between waiting years for a strong resistance to form in Iraq and waiting years for Iraqi democracy and freedom to either take hold or fail and result in another dictatorship.

Mark: You're saying we should have given some hypothetical Iraqi resistance tanks and jets and weapons systems? Uh, that sounds kinda impractical.

As for oil, it lives in a global market.

MW: You're saying we should have removed an Iraqi dictator in the hope that some hypothetical democractic government will take root and that the Iraqi people will, hypothetically, cherish and value this freedom and democracy enough to not let the past repeat itself? Uh, that sounds kinda impractical.

A resistance in Iraq, created before the removal of Saddam, could have provided an Iraqi security infrastructure for post-Saddam Iraq... something which is sorely lacking right now. Right now, US troops are the only security infrastructure... and that is not, in my opinion, how we should be using our troops.

Oil lives in a global market? You're right.. it does.

Then what the hell is your poster boy President Bush doing telling people that ANWR oil is going to reduce our dependence on foreign oil? You know who's more likely to benefit from ANWR oil? China.. not the US.

Michael--It's not just giving some hypothetical resistance movement tanks, planes, and guns. It's providing training, logistics, transport, etc. The US military is the best trained, best equipped, best supplied, and most mobile military force in the history of the world. We also have leaders who have actually lead men into combat. That kind of stuff doesn't happen overnight.

Mark--On what basis do you assume that things in Iraq would have turned out better with some sort of organic overthrow of Saddam. even assuming they could have overthrown Saddam, it seems just a likely you would have a dominant Shia majority taking revenge for years of repression from the former Sunni leadership, another Sudan perhaps, or another radical Shia country like Iran.

Even if we could create this hypothetical Iraqi Resistance Army, the US armed forces would have to provide air support, logistics, and military advisors/trainers. Since we would be heavily involved in any case, I am not sure I see any real advantage to taking several years (years Saddam can be using to improve his armed forces and getting more countries on the payroll, via the Oil for Food program) to organize and train an organic Iraqi force.

RS: A democracy is only as good as the people participating in it, regardless of whether it's achieved by the people themselves or provided for by an outside influence (the US). So no, there's no basis to assume that the overall situation would be better if Saddam was overthrown from within.. but there's also no basis to assume that the overall situation would be worse. In the end, the people of Iraq will get for a post-Saddam government exactly what they're willing to tolerate. The question is whether it's our job to instill the values and virtues of democracy in the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people... or whether they must value democracy by themselves first. I believe in the latter. The emergence of an overbearing Shia majority is just as likely now as it would've been had Saddam been overthrown in another fashion.

We'll see if the Iraqi people really want freedom from dictatorships. If they don't.. and they let another dictator take control.. our efforts will have been for nothing as far as Iraq is concerned. If they do.. then we'll know two things:

- Our mission was a success.

- A homegrown resistance to Saddam could have also been successful.

The advantage of creating a homegrown Iraqi resistance is that it puts the responsibility of achieving the overthrow of a dictator and security of the country directly upon the Iraqi people themselves.. where it should be. We would have turned this from what is viewed by the Iraqi's as an "American occupation" into an "Iraqi revolution". Ownership is the key. By removing Saddam for the Iraqi people, it became our thing... when it should have been theirs.

Mark--The disadvantages of the "home grown" movement is that it is more likely to fail, it will require substantial US support, including air support, logistics/training, transportation, etc.(which really puts a large measure of responsibility for success or failure on us), and even if it does succeed you are just as likely to have a worse situation as you are to have better. There is also a chance that another country (Iran for example) might take advantage of the chaos to move in and install their own regime. And what's this problem you have with imposing democracy on a defeated country. It worked very well with Japan and Germany. Neither country had a tradition of liberal democracy before we came in.

The "homegrown insurgency" also gives Saddam several years to consolidate his position and build international support through the use of "Oil for Food" money. I see that as the major disadvantage, and the most likely reason a insurgency wouldn't work without massive amounts of US support, again putting a huge part of the responsibility for success or failure on us.

RS: A homegrown movement isn't any more or less likely to fail than the tenuous democracy that is currently in Iraq. The Iran factor is just as valid now as it would be under a homegrown movement.

Saddam already had several years to "consolidate his position".. and as we found out, it didn't give him anything in the way of WMDs or a really significant military. The nefarious business of the Oil for Food program would have been discovered whether or not we invaded Iraq ourselves or aided a homegrown movement.

A homegrown resistance to Saddam would have indeed required significant help from us, but the difference would have been that we could have accurately gauged whether or not there was a desire for such a resistance and determined for ourselves whether they really were ready for democracy and freedom or whether they lacked the courage and will to fight for their own freedom.

Mark--I have let you sidetrack me on to Iraq democracy issue. As I stated in my original post, the purpose of invading Iraq was to overthrow Saddam and his terrorist supporting regime. The possibility of democracy in Iraq is at best a fringe benefit. It would have taken years to organize a resistance movement capable of overthrowing Iraq, even then it would require substantial US military aid. During that time, the sanctions on Iraq would have probably been lifted, allowing him a free hand to develop his military and organize international support (through bribery). Your method is the method of someone who was not really serious about overthrowing Saddam.

RS: If the purpose of invading Iraq was simply the removal of Saddam, we would've been out of there a long time ago.

That is clearly not how the Bush Administration has been portraying the situation. Lots of things have been touted as the reason for invading Iraq. First it was WMD's.. then it was Saddam's purported support of terrorists (which proved to be rather underwhelming).. and now it's being sold as a beacon for democracy. The success or failure of these reasons is irrelevant of the point: there were many reasons put forth by the administration.

Rob

America should have armed The Iranians instead of arming Saddam during the Iran Iraq war. Then the Ayatollah Khomeini could have taken over in respectable Shi'ite fashion, putting Saddam on the stoker, having him executed forthwith.

Let the Iranians join in with the politics! Invite them in. The American's will be able to leave the country safe and sound, and forget about this big problem that they have shoved upon their own head.

What the Heck it's a muslim country let the Muslims sort it out!

OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL.

That's what it's all about. OIL.

There are bigger problems going on in Isreal.

They are in posession of mass amounts of nuclear arsenel

and they can't stop stealing land.

These Europeans.

Very bad manners.

Yes Uhuru, the US should get out of the Middle East and let the Muslims get back to the serious business of opressing women and killing Jews, Christians, and homosexuals.

Mark--The primary purpose of the invading Germany was to overthrow Hitler's regime and the primary purpose of the invading Japan (fortunately done after Japan surrendered) was to overthrow Japan's military regime. We still have troops in both countries 60 years later. In neither case was our primary mission to establish functioning democracies, but we did (and I think we will in Iraq too). This is really getting tiresome, Mark. For all your talk about spreading freedom and democracy, you lack of willingness to take action shows that you are not serious about it. I go back to my original comments:
"In other words, Mark could say, 'I support in principle the overthrow of dictators and the spread of democracy, but I am unwilling to dirty my hands with the hard work of actually doing it. Furthermore, if anybody actually does engage in the hard work of overthrowing dictators I will sit on the sidelines and tell him he's doing a lousy job, and I would do it much better, if I cared to actually do something, which I don't.'"

RS: Lack of willingness to take action? What part of my plan to help form a homegrown resistance indicates an unwillingness to take action?

Invading isn't the only form of "taking action". Invading isn't the only way to "dirty our hands" and "do the hard work".

I've explained what I think we should have done in Iraq. Just because you don't agree with me doesn't mean I'm unwilling to take action. I'm unwilling to take the actions that YOU think we should take.. but not unwilling to take ANY action.

Mark, I accuse you of being unwilling to take action because your "plan" is not serious. You are proposing to take several years to create some sort of Iraqi resistance which we would then have to provide a tremendous amount of military assistance if they were to have any chance of succeeding. Then if it does succeed, we bail out and let a country with no real tradition of democracy try to sort things out and hope for the best, and if it fails, you can feel good about yourself because you have no real responsibility. You can say you tried, but those poor Iraqis aren't smart enough yet. I fail to see how that plan gives the Iraqis any real chance of creating a functioning democracy. It took a long and expensive occupation to create functioning democracies in Japan and Germany.

RS: My plan is perfectly serious. I neither require nor seek your approval.

There are a couple things you have yet to grasp, though:

- If a homegrown Iraqi resistance were to succeed in overthrowing Saddam, that would be great. When you talk about a "country with no real tradition of democracy try to sort things out".. that's EXACTLY what the situation is now. They're a sovereign nation now. If they form a government that's oppressive and un-democratic, it will be their own fault. As it is, WE did the work of removing their dictator. Why should they care if they get more of the same out of their new government? How is this country, which you accurately described as having no tradition of democracy, supposed to value democracy if they have no sense of what it takes to achieve and maintain it?

- If a homegrown Iraqi resistance fails, no one is going to "feel good about themselves" because we tried. It will be a failure, just as it will be a failure if our current policy fails.

Again Mark, you ignore the examples of Germany and Japan. You also ignore the reality that for any homegrown resistance to have had any chance of success, we would have to provide so much military support that they would be mere window dressing, and rather obvious window dressing at that. That's why I continue to assert that your plan is not serious, and that you are really not serious about your desire to spread freedom and democracy.

Hang on. Wait a minuite Rob!

That sounds HUGELY stereotypical of Muslims.

The American people.They just don't have any understanding of the finer issues.

Muslims want to PROTECT the family unit.In the UK which is where I am from there is a daily newspaper called THE SUN. For decades on page 3 they have on a daily basis shown unclothed women to titilate the mind of man.It is a point of prestige for the paper and is what makes it sell.

I could be stereotypical as well and say

"White European man is happy to see the breasts of his mothers and daughters hanging out for 50cents and the world to see and thinks this is liberation and freedom for his country", couldn't I?

Is this the kind of DEMOCRACY that you want in Iraq?

Do the Americans think they know better than the Ayatollahs how to run the country? I think not.

I could say " George Bush's mouth smells of PIG and he is a habitual drinker of Alcohol, By Arab standards he is floggable - a repulsive human being with no respect or sense of morality toward his family. His daughter shall end up liking to pose nude for playboy by the virtue of America being CIVILISED" couldn't I?

Muslims have PROTECTED the Jews for centuries.Our men married their women.Now, they steal ourland and make nuclear weapons to destroy us.

I could say "America loves the homosexual lifestyle and their men are homosexual. They wish for their sons to be homosexual so as to rejoice in their marraiges with other men, whilst they sell their naked women to foreign parties" couldn't I?

However, unlike you I am not the narrow minded type.

RS: Oh, and we're not providing "so much" military support now? Right now, there is NO "window dressing". WE made the decision to disband the Iraqi army after Saddam went into exile. That is the single biggest mistake we made. We're seeing now how effective they could've been at securing the country. Iraqi people, being actively involved in removing Saddam and securing the country afterward would have gone a long ways toward making it look like something the Iraqi people really WANT.. rather than something they were GIVEN.

RS: You question my seriousness about bringing freedom and democracy because I don't agree with YOU on how we should go about it. That's pretty plain to see by now.

Uhuru--I am sure the Muslim males willingness to take Jewish brides was a great source of comfort to Jewish men. I am also sure that 5 invasions of Israel since 1948 by various Muslim countries had nothing to do with their perceived need for nukes.

Rob

Let's get our hat on straight here. The more alcohol you drink the more likely you are to do something stupid, like shoot a gun. America is a gun crazy place and I have never heard of so many incidences within a developed country whereby stupid white American men go into schools and shoot half the children - overnothing at all.

They're a different breed from suicide bombers by a long shot and are a product of you're screwed up Jerry springer Freak Out.

Alcohol and porn is a ruination of the western world and SO WHAT if Jewish women want to sleep with Muslim men. Oh yeah Christian women have been quite willing throughout the centuries also, by the way.

Of course, the Christian and Jewish faiths do not permit marraiges for men outside of their own religious orders, so historicaly THEIR only way of getting their own back's been through seduction or just plain rape.

Now YOU tell me what's the fairer system.

Isreal is what you call a terrorist state because that's how these people got the land in the first place - through terrorism.

The first Isreali politicians were known terrorists may God Curse their hypocrisy.

Up until this date they still terrorise the Muslims so what on earth do you expect for the Palestinians to do? Wait for you to hand the land back on a plate?!

Take the Nuclear weapons off 'em. They're as crazy as the Americans and are likely to do another 'Hiroshima'. They CANNOT be trusted with them, and stop being so prejudiced about the whole affair.

Honestly

Mark--The reason I accuse of not being serious is because in the best case, your plan will take years to work, which is another way of saying probably never. In reality, you really don't have a plan, you have an idea without the vaguest clue of what it would take to make it a plan. Does your "plan" involve a guerilla insurgency? That would really be a non-starter. While it would have the advantage of being ready to go relatively quickly, it's disadvantages are legion. The two biggest are that Saddam would probably kill the entire family of any suspected insurgent and would have no problem leveling any village the supported the insurgents; not good for morale, don't you agree? But even if it did work, it would take years, maybe decades of bloody fighting. How long do you think it would have taken the French Resistance to overthrow Germany if not for the Normandy invasion? Another option would be to train and equip an "army in exile", like the Polish Brigade in WW2 and use it to stage a Normandy style invasion with US air and logistics support. Do you have any clue how big this army would have to be? The US took 130,000 of the best trained, equipped, and supplied troops the world has ever seen and took 1 month from the start of operations to defeat the Iraqi Army. Do you think this Iraqi Resistance Army would have to be bigger or the same size? I think it would have to be much bigger, but even if we only went with the same size force, it would take years to train them to even a basic level of proficiency and that's not even counting the time it would take to train an entire NCO and office corps. How about equipment? I figure this IRA would require at least 500 M1 Abrams Tanks and an equal number of M-2 Bradley Fighting Vehicles to have any chance. At current production rates, assuming all current production went to equip the IRA, it would take 5 years, unless you propose that we take the vehicles out of existing US stocks, I doubt that would fly. I could go on, but why? As I said, your plan is another way of saying never, which is why Idon' take you seriously.

RS: Our current plan will take years to work.

My idea is rooted in principle... the principle of direct involvement as a means of acquiring and understanding the value and importance of something. I believe the Iraqi people should have been afforded the means and the opportunity to achieve freedom from Saddam themselves. Gifts are never appreciated as dearly as that which we earn.. through "hard work" and sacrifice.

If you're going to refuse to take me seriously because I cannot spell out for you exact details of my plan (number of troops and equipment, timetables, etc.).. you go right ahead. I'm sorry if I didn't meet your criteria, but meeting your criteria is not among my obligations. The price of valid dissent is not so high.

I disagree with the way Iraq was handled. I presented the reasons for my disagreement and, all the while, I did not question your seriousness or your committment to action or the pursuit of higher goals.

No Mark, I don't take you seriously because your idea is a plan of inaction, not action. It is the hope that if you kick the can far enough down the road someone else will take responsibilty for getting the job down, and somebody other than George Bush will get the credit. It's gotta frost you that some dumb yokel from Texas is actually willing to step and do the hard work that your side is constantly trying to avoid, whether it was overthrowing Saddam or fixing Social Security.

RS: As I've said before.. whether you agree with it or not.. "invasion" is not the only form of action... and not the only form of action that could've been effective in Iraq. If sweeping-generalization season is open (as it apparently is, given your generalizations about "my side"), let me make a few of my own about "your side": Your side is trigger-happy and quick to question the devotion or loyalty of those who express a dissenting opinion. If "my side" is constantly trying to avoid action.. "your side" is constantly trying to create excuses for the action you see fit in any given situation.

There. Now.. let's dispense with the broad-stroke generalizations, shall we?

Do you agree with the principle I outlined in my previous post?

The only thing that "frosts" me about Iraq is the mistakes we've made conceiving and implementing our current plan. I disagree with the way we went about handling Iraq.. and that will never change.. but what really "frosts" me are the blunders we've made along the way.. like disbanding the Iraqi armed forces after Saddam went into exile. That's the big one.

As for Social Security, there's plenty of bullsh!t from both sides. Democrats think there's nothing wrong with Social Security at all... and Republicans think Social Security is in "crisis" and that private accounts are the cure. Social Security needs some tweaking, to be sure, but private accounts alone aren't going to cut it.

The Bush Administration is spending its political capital on Social Security while conveniently ignoring the infinitely larger problem of Medicare. To tie in your action-inaction rhetoric from earlier... is the prescription drug bill (a monumental failure in terms of cost).. an example of this Administration's "action".. something to be proud of? It seems to me they picked the wrong thing to take "action" upon.. at least, the wrong thing to take "action" upon FIRST.

Another great comment thread!

Mark--Actually it is not sweeping generalization season, depending on who you talk to it is either rabbit season or duck season. Back to your assertion that there where other options to invasion, of course their where, but none of them would have overthrown Saddam in any reasonable amount of time. You may think waiting 5-10 years to develop some sort of counter-insurgency is an acceptable alternative, but the reality is you may as well say never, because in the intervening time, something else will become higher priority, maybe North Korea or Canada (I thought they should have been a higher priority than Iraq, F'in Canucks!). How long do you think it would have taken the French Resistance to overthrow Nazi Germany absent the Normandy invasion, and would the wait have been worth it?

RS: How long do you think it's going to take for Iraq to have a stable, self-supporting, and powerful democratic government? Removing Saddam is pointless if there is nothing ready to take his place.

You can compare the sides crudely to a football game. Mark's plan is coming through like an armchair QB sitting and crying about the action taking place "He shouldn't have thrown that ball, now we have an interception!!" versus a QB in the game who has 3 seconds, knows the scouting reports, must adjust to changing environment, and just made a decision that wasn't great but is part of the game. If your "plan" for homegrown insurgency is so great, why not apply to North Korea? Almost the same situation as Iraq but you didn't address the fact that both dictators OWN the military, crush opposition without remorse, and basically do what they want. The people suffer but can't and won't overthrow the gov't. It will take either forceable removal or death of the dictator. How many people were you willing to sacrifice in Iraq growing an insurgency? 100K - 500K? How many years? Get the UN to do it?! Laughable and pathetic. They can't even take action when real atrocities are taking place..they just debate it. RS asks a good question as a litmus...How long or successful would the French Resistance have been at removing Germany in WW2?

Mark--This whole "Medicare first" thing is also a bit disingenuous. Before Bush came in office there were no serious plans to fix either problem, so know you say we should fix Medicare first. It's a little like the people who said we should get North Korea first; they really didn't want to get either, but wanted to sound tough and at the same time, change the subject. I also see the logic behind fixing the smaller problem first. If you have a bunch of credit card debt you are trying to payoff, most financial advisors will tell you to try to pay the smallest ones off first; it gets you going in the right direction and starts a little momentum. Regarding the Medicare drug benefit, I was not crazy about it either, but there may be some long-term benefits by reducing hospitalization costs. If it is easier for seniors to stay on their meds, maybe there will be fewer hospital visits.

Mark--I imagine it will take at least as long to forn a stable democracy in Iraq as it did to form one in Germany or Japan. I think it took 7 years in Japan's case, not sure about Germany.

6kings: I never said it couldn't be applied to North Korea. Saddam owned the military, crushed opposition, and basically did what he wanted.. to be sure.. but that doesn't mean we couldn't have stopped him from crushing the opposition.

You did, however, say the magic phrase: "they ... won't overthrow the gov't"... and that's ultimately the problem regardless of what we do. As I've been saying, the Iraqi people will get exactly what they're willing to tolerate. If we remove the obstacles related to why they "can't" overthrow their oppressive government and they still don't want a real democracy.. then nothing, including invasion, is going to get them to take their country into their own hands.

I sincerely hope our efforts in Iraq aren't fruitless... but I would have liked to see a bit more acknowledgement of the fact that appreciation for something is rooted in direct involvement in achieving it, which we haven't done. We haven't shown them.. through direct involvement.. what it takes to remove a dictator. We can only hope that they have the requisite appreciation for democracy so they can avoid becoming ruled by another dictator.

RS: I've always thought, since long before I started posting on MW's site, that Medicare was a bigger problem than Social Security. Your presumption that I'm just now talking about Medicare is ignorant.

There's no logic behind fixing the smaller problem first. Medicare and Social Security are, in many respects, both "third rails" of politics. Talk of fixing either tends to ruin one's political career. GWB made the foolish mistake of choosing to spend his precious political capital on fixing a relatively minor (compared to Medicare) problem, and it's not at all clear whether his spending of this political capital is going to actually result in some meaningful reforms.

Mark--I never claimed to know what you think about Medicare, I only pointed out that before Jan. 20, 2001, no one had put forth a plan to fix either problem. It's one thing to think a problem needs to be fixed and another to risk putting forth an actual plan. The prior administration had 8 years and never put forth a plan for either.

Another thing, I just gave you a very logical reason for fixing the small problem first, it gets you going in the right direction and it builds momentum. Here's another reason, most people under 40 understand and/or have private retirement accounts. Every 3 months I get a statement from my retirement account that shows how much it has grown; some months its a lot, some a little. I'd like to see my Social Security money do the same. For better or worse, Medicare is not even on my radar screen yet, it's too far in the future and it's too abstract.

RS: It only gets you going in the right direction and builds momentum if something comes of it. At this point, that's not a given.

And, as I said, private accounts.. as nice as they are.. aren't going to fix Social Security on their own.

Medicare may not be on YOUR radar screen yet, but it should be on President Bush's radar screen, as it's heading for a much worse situation than Social Security is.

Mark--I imagine Medicare is on the President's radar screen, but your assertion was that there is no logical reason to fix SS first; I was pointing out why you where wrong.

I won't be wrong unless the President actually manages to fix Social Security.

There are logical reasons to tackle Medicare first, the principal one of which being that it is a much larger problem and should be addressed first. If you're a plumber fixing leaky pipes or fixtures, you fix the pipe or fixture that leaks more first. Medicare represents a significantly larger unfunded government liability than Social Security.

They can start by repealing the way-too-expensive prescription drug bill.

Mark-You are wrong because their are logical reasons to fix the SS problem first, just as their are logical reasons to fix Medicare first. Your assertion was that there was no logical reason to fix SS first. Clearly that is wrong.

I think the plumbing analogy is faulty because in neither case are the pipes actually leaking. They are both projected to leak at some time in the future, so if you can fix either one before they do start leaking, you will be ahead of the game.

RS: The plumbing analogy is not faulty. Whether they're leaking now or going to leak later is irrelevant... because when they do leak, Medicare will be the bigger leak (by quite a bit). Even if whether they're already leaking or not was relevant, it would still make more sense for the plumber to preemptively take care of the larger leak first.

Medicare is projected to exhaust its hospital-care trust fund by 2019, more than 20 years before Social Security is forecast to slide into the red. So, getting back to our analogy, not only is Medicare going to be the larger leak.. it's also going to start leaking long before Social Security does.

RS: Let me rephrase my assertion, then: There are no logical reasons to fix Social Security first that override the logical reasons for fixing Medicare first, since Medicare's problems are both more serious and more imminent than Social Security's problems.