This brings us full-circle back to my original post, where I wondered how the Americans could be duped by such simplistic thinking.

Because people are begging the Many Questions?

Saying they inflict plurium interrogationum on themselves just doesn’t have the same ring to it

elwed- no, but it has a nice rhythm to it.  I would add “illegitimi non carborundum” to that, but my classicist friends tell me it’s not authentic.

zilch: Daryl- still out there, or did we scare you off?

*chuckle*, no, not much scares me off.  That “Ben” guy showed up and started veering off into the whole “ok-to-hate-white-men” B.S., and the thread got a lot less interesting.  14 year olds will do that.

As far as “pulling out now”, it isn’t an option.  Even a lot of people who were dead-set against going to Iraq will admit that.

A failed Iraqi state would leave a power vacuum to be filled by the most violent, dangerous Imams and religious fanatics in the world.  Right now people like al-Zaqawi are on the run: if the US left Iraq, they would be setting up virtual countries to plot the destruction of Western Civilization.

As far as “pulling out nowâ€?, it isn’t an option.  Even a lot of people who were dead-set against going to Iraq will admit that.

The US could easily pull out of Iraq. Just withdraw one or two million of troops to Iran and Saudi Arabia. I have always thought that Iraq was all about Saudi Arabian oil in the first place…

As it is, the US cannot stay and it cannot go.

“As it is, the US cannot stay and it cannot go.“
I like the way you put that, elwed.  I believe the US has the responsibility to stay and see the job through since they started it.  But the problem is that Bush doesn’t know how/have a plan to see it through.  It’s ridiculous.  He’s like an overly domesticated cat who’s killed a mouse but doesn’t know what to do with it.

One can see how hell bent Islamic fundamentalists are by changing the following from:

A failed Iraqi state would leave a power vacuum to be filled by the most violent, dangerous Imams and religious fanatics in the world.  Right now people like al-Zaqawi are on the run: if the US left Iraq, they would be setting up virtual countries to plot the destruction of Western Civilization.

To: A stable Iraqi state would create a new outreach for American religious fanatics.  If the US remains in Iraq they will be setting up virtual countries to plot the destruction of Eastern Civilization.

I agree that we can’t entirely pull US forces out of region at this time.  We should never have been there in the first place, but now that we are, we need to begin to develop a smart exit strategy.  The only way I can foresee that happening is by us eating a little crow and passing up on some of our pork barrel contracts.  Other countries may then be tempted to participate in the region as a police and rebuilding force while the US pulls out.

The point Bush seems to be overlooking is stability vs. victory.  ‘We must win and we must have it all for ourselves.‘  With that mindset, we’ll be debating Iraq well into the next decade.

“If the US remains in Iraq they will be setting up virtual countries to plot the destruction of Eastern Civilization.“

What Eastern civilization?  Theocratic dictatorships propped up by oil money?  Medievalist Imams who decry modern medicine?  Terrorists? 

The most modern country in the mid east is Dubai, and they seem to have got it right: they’re planning for the post-oil economy and inviting the world in to join the party.  Turkey isn’t doing too badly - they’re lucky enough not to have oil money.

Not that I think we should go stomping all over the world forcing people to adopt Western ways, but the Islamic world doesn’t exactly have a lot to brag about.

The sad thing is that Islam, as little as I know about it, can actually be a very beautiful religion (gee, just as Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, and others all have that ability…).  During Europe’s Dark Ages, people enjoyed an incredible amount of freedom—possibly more than in any society up to that point.  Women included.  So it’s not a ridiculous supposition that Islam can be a good faith. 
Similarly, I think that there is a capacity for peace in Iraq.  Perhaps you have the right idea, deadscot, that the US should let other countries step in and pick up the pieces.  But I think that we still have to provide some kind of support for this, either in money (yikes!) or troops (also yikes!, but maybe far less troops).  I agree that we need to drop the contracts, since they just prove the suspicion that Bush went over there for his own interests.  But if we back out entirely, we’ll be those really big assholes who left other people to do our dirty work.
I don’t think we should discount Islam too much.  It may be from Islam that the Iraqi people can find the strength to pull their country together in a peaceful way to set an example for the rest of that area.  I’m not advocating a theocracy, here.  Just that people reclaim their religion from the fundies that have run amok with it. Of course, that’s not for us to say or do…but I can dream, can’t I?

Some points that are making me twitch:
The flypaper theory (aka “We have to fight them in Iraq so we don’t fight them here”).
Why not in Afghanistan then? I won’t speak for anyone else here, But Bush had my 100% support when we decided to hunt Al Qaeda and topple the Taliban.  Hell, if Bush had smoked bin Laden first, and then decided Saddam was the next prick to go… I think he would have had much more support. Priorities man, priorities!

I don’t recall one Right Winger giving a shit about the oppressed Iraqi people and expressing a desire to Liberate” them until the WMD argument fell apart. (I’ve checked a lot of blogs, and never seen it mentioned *ONCE* until that became the excuse).

Christian fundies -vs- Islamic fundies Bombing school buses with Israeli children or sending anthrax to pro-choice politicians and “liberal newspapers”... which is worse? (Whatever happened to that guy, anyway?).  Another thing we missed was Dr. James (“Focus on the Family”)Dobson’s antics of publishing Michael Moore’s home address for people to “pay him a visit” *wink* nudge*.

I personally don’t see the difference between the two when extremists are involved.

Bush/Hitler thing - It was irresponsible. Simple and plain.  Just as dumb as comparing Saddam to Hitler.  I understood where the left were coming from (think Germany 1938, not 1945 “The Reichstagg, the sweeping patiotism, the propaganda”).  The delivery was poor and left a bad taste in everyone’s mouths with the over-the-top hysteria.

Hitler is simply a lesson that one man should never get too powerful. End of story.

This thread kicks ass.  I am learning so much… thanks Zilch & Les (& everyone else)

Daryl- Welcome back. I’m still waiting (trying not to sound like a broken record) for a response from you about my critique of your “Europe is dying” post.

And about Iraq: I don’t think anyone can forsee what will happen if we stay, or if we pull out- what coalesces out of such a mess is, as history shows us, unpredictable.  I certainly don’t know what the best thing to do is at this point.  But what I do believe is this: Bush and Co. got us into this, and that was a tragic mistake- as I have said, Bush is Bin Laden’s best recruiter.  Al-Zaqawi and his ilk were soapbox preachers until the US provided an enemy for them.  And the terrorist indoctrination centers the US has provided, at Guantanamo and Abu Graib, are doing a bang-up job of inspiring wannabe suicide bombers.

Sentiments along the line of “well, maybe we shouldn’t have started this fight in the first place, but now we’ve got to make sure we win, or they will win and that will be the end of Western Civilization”, should sound familiar, at least to people of my age (54).  This is the Rambo argument, and we don’t seem to have learned anything at all from its failure.

The way to fight Bin Laden, IMHO, is:
a) to pursue him directly- admittedly, a difficult task.  I can’t really blame Bush for not getting him, although we would have had a much better chance if we had concentrated our efforts there and not gone into Iraq.
b) to not provide him with martyrs- something at which Bush has failed miserably.
c) to make terror less attractive to the masses by being helpful, with humantarian aid- also not a long suit of the US administration.  Our history of supplying arms to whoever suits our current needs is largely responsible for this mess, and others.  The Americans seem to have forgotten that Saddam was our best friend for a long time.  The Iraqis have not forgotten.

Shana, deadscot, DoF, elwed: yes, yes, yes. Hope I’m not being too sycophantic, but it’s like a drink of cool water to participate in a discussion with you all.

-=e=- thanks for being here.  I’m learning buckets too.  Three cheers for Les, too.

One last thought about the Hitler-Bush comparison thing.  I agree, Bush is not Hitler.  I’m in a fairly good position to compare them, at least in some ways (I’m not a historian), since I live in Hitler’s native country, and have had occasion to see films of both him and Bush and understand them in their native languages.

Difference one: Hitler was a lot more intelligent than Bush.  His speeches (I should say rants), although he was a deranged psychopath, were at least logical and grammatical.  I don’t quite understand Hitler’s appeal, because he was so obviously crazy, but I guess you had to be there.  My wife’s uncle (Waffen SS officer) still thinks he was the cat’s pajamas.

Difference two: Bush is a lot nicer than Hitler.  I am glad Bush is president and not Hitler (or Cheney, for that matter- or is Cheney the real president?)

One thing they have in common: a talent for surrounding themselves with likeminded underlings, most if not all of whom are more intelligent and/or more devious than they themselves.

I agree, comparing Buch to Hitler is facile.  But even if America is nothing like Nazi Germany, and is in little danger of becoming so, we can still learn from history (think more in terms of 1923 than 1938).  The curtailing of civil liberties does not bode well.

On the Hitler thing, I think the word that comes to my mind is opportunism.  Both Bush and Hitler are/were huge opportunists with lots of charisma for a flailing public.

Dude, are we still even looking for bin Laden?  I haven’t heard a thing about him from the news lately.

Christian fundies -vs- Islamic fundies Bombing school buses with Israeli children or sending anthrax to pro-choice politicians and “liberal newspapers�... which is worse? (Whatever happened to that guy, anyway?).

Ok, here’s a test for us Americans.  (No offense to non-Americans, but you’ll understand in a sec) Read this list and consider your initial reactions, regardless of any reasoning.  Think about all the emotions you felt when these things were happening—we’re looking for the gut reaction here:

Tokyo subway gas attacks

Anthrax letters

The unibomber

September 11 attacks

Kamikaze bombers

Abortion clinic bombing

Suicide bombers in Israel

Columbine HS Tragedy

Ok, now, review the list again and consider how your reactions to terrorists and terrorist actions in America, by Americans compare to your reactions to those of other countries, by non-Americans.

It strikes me that Americans have a tendency to view terrorists within the country as freaks and anomalies.  They are considered as separate, unrelated instances that have no common sources or results.
When we Americans talk about terrorists in other countries, however, it becomes a reflection of the whole population.  Hell, why not the whole damn religion, region, continent, skin color…
Perhaps this is stating the obvious, but I was suprized at my own initial responses to each of the terrorist acts you listed, -=e=-.

So it occurs to me that it might be valuable, given the discussion of whether or not Am. fundies have the capacity to become like Al Qaeda, to try and
a. understand which differences in our perceptions of Am. vs. non-Am. terrorists are valid and which are not
b.characterize the valid differences into some sort of assessment of terrorism in America.  We gotta start at home first, eh?

I would love to start but I need to go to bed RIGHT NOW or I will DIE tomorrow.

So I will just leave this:
Am. terrorists are less organized than groups like Al Qaeda and this leads to their weak image in the eyes of Americans.  The only threat listed that actually has “martyrs” is the anti-abortion group.
Weak motivation=weak threat
But how quickly can these threats grow?
This is a bit of a restatement of earlier comments, but I want to live.

Goodnight

Shana, excellent points, all.  The other difference is that American terrorists have only a very, very small base of support in the population, because everyone is living relatively comfortably here.  If more of the country secretly supported them, they’d be a LOT more widespread, dangerous, and effective.

Terrorism Q&A - An excellent site. Kind of ties in with what Zilch and Shana were saying.

One thing I do agree with what the left and right have been saying all along: This IS a different kind of war. There is a real threat, and we need to eliminate it from its roots.

Nothing gives me a bigger headache than hearing the lame ass “They hate us for our freedom” crap.  It is no where near as simplistic as that.

In the list Shana put out, each one had a different motivation for what they did… but they had one thing in common: DESPERATION.  The perpetrators saw this as a “David and Goliath” struggle against an enemy they KNOW they can’t beat face to face.

In the case of the Dylan and Kliebold (Columbine), you can feel bad for what they went through in school.  But they took it to such an extreme that it’s impossible for a civilized mind to feel any sympathy for them afterward.

Groups like Al Qaeda & Hamas are run by very rich and organized people who reach out to the poor and hopeless. Fill their heads with propaganda, half-truths, and a purpose (just like a cult).

What if WE were to give these recruits a reason to live and a sense of purpose instead?

Don’t the insurgents in Iraq and the suicide bombers in the West Bank know they are in a no-win situation? Of course they do. If they cut their crap, someone is willing to work with them and address their grievances… they know this, yet they continue. Why?  Is it a trust problem with the West? Is what they’re demanding REALLY what they want? Are the scars of the past too deep?

This is the stuff we need to know.  How can we fight an enemy when we don’t understand why they’re fighting? When we say “fight to the death”, are we talking about exterminating the entire Arab poplulation?

And with what Shana was driving at.

Yes. From the Unibomber to Columbine to Timothy McVeigh. We saw them as nutjobs whose actions didn’t justify their cause.

Like GeekMom pointed out we’re comfortable in our lifestyles. We all have our opinions about school bullying, Waco and abortion… but they’re not strong enough for us to go out and blow up a building or hit a subway with Sarin gas over.

I don’t know about anybody else, but I’m more concerned with keeping my job and paying my mortgage than starting a damn revolution.

I guess I was premature in welcoming Daryl back.  I’m still hoping to hear from him, and Grey, and Justin, about my questions, but I guess I shouldn’t hold my breath.

Speaking of stupid- I heard recently that the country with the highest number of civil suits per capita is…. Austria!  A fair number of those suits have to do with Gartenzwerge (garden dwarves).  Maybe that’s why the Austrians aren’t fighting any foreign wars…

zilch: 1) Europe is poor.  Sure, the GNP of the EU is lower than that of the US.  But because a large percentage of the GNP in America goes to weapons and defense contracts, not to mention straight into the pockets of the filthy rich (a Republican speciality), we (putting on my European hat for a moment) have more left over for trifles the Americans have increasingly to do without: decent schools, public transportation, environment… How many homeless people do you see a day?  I don’t see any, and I live in a big city.  But, hey, if money (as GNP) is more important than all that, America is the place to be.

Typical far-left “statistic” which is completely unsupported by the facts.  The U.S. GDP per capita is $37,800.  Europe’s varies depending on which countries you include, but it’s between $25,300 (EU25) and $27,600 (just the EU15).  That’s ten to twelve thousand dollars more for each American.

Now, the U.S. defense budget for FY 2003 was $370 billion.  That’s a bit on the “high” side because there’s a war on, but let’s just use it.  $370 billion works out to $1,260 per American, spent on defense.  So, even if Europe spends not one dime on any military at all, they’re still $9,000 to $11,000 behind their American counterparts—per person.

As far as never seeing homeless people, despite unemployment rates of 10% to 25%.. Well, no one ever accused Europe of not having a social safety net.  In the long run, it’s not good for society as a whole if your government assumes Nanny duties.  “Don’t worry, Europe, no matter how lazy and unwilling to work you are, you’ll never be homeless.  We’ll take money from those who do work, and make sure you have a place to sit on the couch all day.“  Yuck.

zilch: 2) Europe is dying.  Yes, we have negative population growth.  So what?

How to respond to this?  At no other point in history would someone ask “so what”.  It’s a strange thing, this idea that a culture is going to simply decide to go extinct.

“So what”?  Well, if you don’t want you great-great-granddaughters wearing the Bhurka or being thrown in prison for missing afternoon prayers, you are going to have to assimilate the Muslims flooding the EU right now.  You’re going to have to impress on Muslim culture some foreign ideas like “Separation of Church and State”, and “Individual Rights”.  Let me clue you into a little secret: there’s very little incentive for Muslims to assimilate into a culture which is voluntarily going extinct.

zilch: 3) European culture is dying off.  This is simply ignorant.  I live here, and it’s not.  When cultures collide, lots of things happen, good and bad.  Sure, there are problems.  But Europeans are even more defensive of their culture, for good and ill, now that there are more immigrants here.  Hell, if we can survive Macdonalds, I’m not worried about the kebab stands.

Well, this intermingling of cultures can be a good thing when the minority culture gets assimilated and the majority culture co-opts what’s good about the minority.  That process made the United States the most powerful nation in the history of the world.

In Europe, on the other hand, the “culture collision” leads to things like Malmø, Sweden.  Things like arranged marriage.  Things like Dutch filmmakers being shot and stabbed to death in broad daylight for “offending Islam”.

Daryl- Thanks for replying.  Here we go:

1)  You seem not to have understood my point:  I said that while American GNP per capita is higher than European, the Americans spend more of theirs on the military and making the rich richer, and therefore have less left over for other things.

You haven’t rebutted this at all, merely repeated what I already said: the Americans have more money.  Apparently, per capita income (a typical “far right statistic”) is the only factor important to you in assessing quality of life.  The other factors I mentioned, the “trifles” of decent schools, public transportation,environment,  you obviously don’t consider worthy of consideration.

Admittedly, it’s difficult to compare quality of life between cultures. But I will take the good schools, the public transportation, the safe streets (want to compare crime rates between Europe and the US? Be my guest), the environmental concern, and above all the lack of will to engage in senseless wars (here I mean the EU- Eastern Europe has been pretty senseless too recently, although not world-endangering) over the gated communities, the skyrocketing prison population, the unaffordable health care, the fast food culture and the concommitant millions spent fighting obesity….  I don’t mean to sound anti-American.  I still think of myself as American, and I’m still an American citizen (mostly so I can vote against the idiocy over there- my vote here is not as important gliobally).  Americans can be proud of many things- their openness, their innovativeness, and yes, their engagement in protecting freedom and democracy around the world.  But these qualities are being engulfed in a tide of apathy and greed, largely directed by a small minority to further their own religious and/or financial agendas.

2) and 3) Lower population growth is strongly correlated worldwide with higher education. Muslims who live here get a better education than where they came from.  And as far as impressing foreign ideas on Muslim culture, they have to accept our ideas of individual rights (separation of church and state is a complex issue here) when they immigrate, because that’s the law, and they are subject to it like anyone else.  You’ve given no evidence that European culture is dying, just “typical far right” scare scenarios.  As I said, I live here and don’t see it.

And as to your last remark:  “Well, this intermingling of cultures can be a good thing when the minority culture gets assimilated and the majority culture co-opts what’s good about the minority.  That process made the United States the most powerful nation in the history of the world.

In Europe, on the other hand, the “culture collisionâ€? leads to things like Malmø, Sweden.  Things like arranged marriage.  Things like Dutch filmmakers being shot and stabbed to death in broad daylight for “offending Islamâ€?.“

So there is no racism, no hate crime, no religious crazies killing others in America?  News to me.  My wife can walk through our local park alone at two in the morning and not worry about a thing.  All things considered, I’m willing to forfeit a higher per capita GNP and living in “the most powerful nation in the history of the world” for that.

And Daryl- you said, in response to my point about the number of homeless in America vs. Europe:

“As far as never seeing homeless people, despite unemployment rates of 10% to 25%.. Well, no one ever accused Europe of not having a social safety net.  In the long run, it’s not good for society as a whole if your government assumes Nanny duties.  “Don’t worry, Europe, no matter how lazy and unwilling to work you are, you’ll never be homeless.  We’ll take money from those who do work, and make sure you have a place to sit on the couch all day.â€? Yuck.“

So it’s better to let the homeless remain homeless than to feed and shelter them (“Nanny duties”)?  You might reconsider if you get laid off…  But I guess the homeless have no one but themselves to blame, and deserve it.  And how about the old and the handicapped and the injured veterans who aren’t pulling their own weight?  Pull their plug too.  Oh, I guess the Republicans are doing their best…

zilch: You seem not to have understood my point:  I said that while American GNP per capita is higher than European, the Americans spend more of theirs on the military and making the rich richer, and therefore have less left over for other things.

And as I already pointed out, this claim is demonstrably false.  Americans make about $11,000 more than Europeans per year.  They spend about $1,200 per year on their military.  That means that even if you consider the $1,200 completely wasted, and even if Europeans spent nothing on defense—not a dime—Americans still have $10,000 more left over every year, after paying for their larger military.

zilch: And as far as impressing foreign ideas on Muslim culture, they have to accept our ideas of individual rights (separation of church and state is a complex issue here) when they immigrate, because that’s the law, and they are subject to it like anyone else.

*chuckle* try telling them that.  They will take advantage of your “separation of Church and State” for as long as they’re in the minority.  Once they’re in the majority, you can forget about it.

zilch: My wife can walk through our local park alone at two in the morning and not worry about a thing.

Good for her.  Make sure she doesn’t speak up against Radical Islam, like this woman did.

Daryl- Ok let’s try again, although this is getting a little repetitious. Quote:  “I said that while American GNP per capita is higher than European, the Americans spend more of theirs on the military and making the rich richer, and therefore have less left over for other things.“  I didn’t say that the European per capita GNP was higher after military expenditure.  I said they had more money to spend on other things after military expenditures and making the rich richer.  Nowhere did I say that the average European makes more money than the average American.  They differ in how they spend their money, and you haven’t responded to that at all.

And you say: “*chuckle* try telling them that.  They will take advantage of your “separation of Church and Stateâ€? for as long as they’re in the minority.  Once they’re in the majority, you can forget about it.“

More neocon fantasy.  And do your homework before you make ignorant comments about European culture: most European countries, such as Austria where I live, have no legal separation of Church and State.

And: “Good for her.“  Doesn’t really deserve a reply, but I’ll go for it.  Yes, there is crime in Europe too, and some of it is related to Radical Islam.  As I already said, there are problems when cultures collide.  You seem to think that by pointing to problems in Europe, you’ve proven your point about the danger of Islam. And yet at the same time you say “Well, this intermingling of cultures can be a good thing when the minority culture gets assimilated and the majority culture co-opts what’s good about the minority.  That process made the United States the most powerful nation in the history of the world.“  If Europe is going about this assimilation the wrong way as you claim, and America the right way, why is America as crime-ridden as it is, compared to Europe?

More neocon fantasy.  And do your homework before you make ignorant comments about European culture: most European countries, such as Austria where I live, have no legal separation of Church and State.

Case in point - Germany is one of the more secular European nations, but I invite to look up Article 7 of the German constitution.

zilch: I said they had more money to spend on other things after military expenditures and making the rich richer.  Nowhere did I say that the average European makes more money than the average American.  They differ in how they spend their money, and you haven’t responded to that at all.

There’s nothing to respond to.  Look, Americans, on average, are $10,000 more productive than their European counterparts—even after they “waste” money on their big Army.  At this point, the burden of proof is on you, zilch.  My claim was that “Europe is poor” compared to the United States, and I haven’t seen any refutations as yet.

Let’s start with the basics, and work from there.  This is going to be a rather foreign thought process, if you’re used to arguing based on emotion rather than facts and logic.  So let’s start simply.  You say the Europeans have “more money to spend on other things”—your own words.

How much more money, exactly?  You seem so sure that you’re right, and money is about the most quantifiable thing in existence.  Daryl claims that Europeans actually have about $10,000 less per year, and you seem to think he’s wrong, and that Europeans actually have more.  So tell us, how much do they have?  You give us a number, and we’ll go from there.

Daryl claims that Europeans actually have about $10,000 less per year, and you seem to think he’s wrong, and that Europeans actually have more.

Why the entry in the’third person‘?  Emotional disturbance or group effort?

Look, Americans, on average, are $10,000 more productive than their European counterparts—even after they “waste� money on their big Army.

Good point.  I think that would be before military spending, but even then, at 3.5% the difference is negligible.  All of this has come at a cost though.  While our economic power parity remains stronger, our public debt is on par with the EU and our deficit is dramatically larger.  Even in trade deficits the EU continues to out-pace the US so if countries ever do lose faith in the ability of the US to repay debt we will be much poorer than our European counterparts.

So, the US has the economic advantage but is pursuing the dangerous route of a credit based economy while the more conservative Europeans tend to be reinvesting their meager GDP into their social infrastructure.  I realize I’m being very general in my observations but I can understand the logic behind Zilch’s statement and Daryl’s (or whomever’s) response.

Look, Americans, on average, are $10,000 more productive than their European counterparts—even after they “waste� money on their big Army

Even that assertion is somewhat dubious. 

EU and America productivity comparisons

Note that Germany is a -huge- part of why the productivity statistics are skewed in favor of America.

Also note that productivity—per hour worked—is pretty much consistent, whether it’s EU or America. IE:  Americans -are- more productive,  because they actually work more.  (It’s not like there’s some secret efficiency potion in America’s water supply).

So the average Europeans take-home is truly less.  Does that mean that Europeans are, on average, ‘poor?‘  I don’t think there’s a simple answer to that question.  I think it’s a question of what individuals within these cultures value.

I’m willing to work an extra ten hours a month just to have broadband access.  That’s a -lot- of work, more than an entire day, when I could still have internet access through dialup for about one hour’s worth of work.  But the difference between dialup and broadband is -worth- the extra labor to me.

Am I ‘richer’ than a guy who spends that ten hours hanging out with his wife, or playing fetch with his dogs?

I don’t think that I could make that argument (In fact, I think I just convinced myself I should probably be hanging out with my wife instead of you guys.  Nevertheless, I’ll try to finish this post).

As far as military spending goes, I don’t believe that America will be somehow bankrupted by this war.  Nor do I think that these record deficits are some sort of death knell for the American economy.  I’m not an economist (not even close) but my understanding of the problem is that the fallout will be a devalued dollar and a spike in interest rates.

That’s going to inevitably result in less spending by American consumers.  I’m not going to be able to buy jeans for $12 anymore.  And my mortgage payment’s probably going to be steep.  I’ll be living in a smaller house than I planned.  And a record deficit means that these conditions will persist for an extended period of time.  (And I wouldn’t mind that fact so much if I thought that that ‘debt penalty’ was going to get spread around a bit more.  Unfortunately, I think that the people that will suffer the most will be the people on the absolute bottom of the economic totem pole). 

I don’t dislike the amount of money we’re spending in Iraq because I think it’s going to break our economy, I dislike it because I think that money could have been spent in -better- ways.

The only way that I could possibly see the war in Iraq as actually being economically justifiable is if it really was/is about oil—not about oil for us, but about controlling oil exports to the countries that are forced to import massive amounts (China and Japan) and which -also- happen to be some of our major creditors.  Our debt to those countries is probably less of a concern if we have our hand on the tap of a resource that they absolutely -must- have. 

Of course, I’m a paranoid, with all the delusions of secret insight that comes with that condition.