josh wrote:You keep saying that they have not made enough progress? And I keep saying to you...based on what? What is your idea of "enough progress" and what are you measuring that against?
Well I do not want to get into a never-ending debate again. But my idea of enough progress is that in 5 years time, there should be only a limited troop presence by now. Instead, we have more (or close to it) troops there than at any time previously. That's progress in reverse.
josh wrote:I agree we have a spending problem in the US and infrastructure issues...completely agree. But why do you automatically assume that defense spending which is WELL BELOW the 50 year average, at something like 4% of GDP is the cause?
Too much defense spending is one of the reasons (a BIG one), not the only one. There's plenty of other waste. And if I recall correctly, Iraq war funding may not be part of the "defense budget", instead the spending is classified as something else. I think the accounting is all messed up (maybe on purpose).
josh wrote:Could it be that spending on bridges to nowhere, spending on Planned Parenthood, spending on the arts, spending on billions and billions of pork may be the real reason?
It's that too.
josh wrote:Why is 1 year an "orderly fashion"? Where did that number come from? Why isnt 3 years or 10 years an orderly fashion? How long did we stay in Japan and Germany after WWII?
Because one year is long enough and 3 is too long. I used logic to come up with that . Don't know about those other wars but I doubt they are good comparisons anyway due to the unique circumstances of every war.