2007 November 12 Monday
Democrats Say Iraq War Costs Higher

This is called shooting fish in a barrel.

The economic costs to the United States of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan so far total approximately $1.5 trillion, according to a new study by congressional Democrats that estimates the conflicts' "hidden costs"-- including higher oil prices, the expense of treating wounded veterans and interest payments on the money borrowed to pay for the wars.

That amount is nearly double the $804 billion the White House has spent or requested to wage these wars through 2008, according to the Democratic staff of Congress's Joint Economic Committee. Its report, titled "The Hidden Costs of the Iraq War," estimates that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have thus far cost the average U.S. family of four more than $20,000.

Yes, of course the war costs more than the amount of money appropriated on it so far. We are borrowing the money to spend it. Plus, we have tens of thousands and many hundreds of soldiers coming home with physical and mental disabilities. A lot more soldiers are getting brain damaged than are getting diagnosed for it. The costs for all that get tallied up over decades and the costs are quite high.

People who are soldiers are people who are not workers. There are opportunity costs.

The report argues that war funding is diverting billions of dollars away from "productive investment" by American businesses in the United States. It also says that the conflicts are pulling reservists and National Guardsmen away from their jobs, resulting in economic disruptions for U.S. employers that the report estimates at $1 billion to $2 billion.

The war does not provide a net benefit to American security. If our leaders really really wanted to do something to reduce the threat of terrorists there's a far easier thing to do: Keep out the Muslims.

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2007 November 12 10:50 PM  Mideast Iraq Costs


Comments
jay k. said at November 13, 2007 7:20 AM:

young timmy mcveigh was not a muslim. as far as you know neither was the anthrax terrorist. as far as i can tell anti-abortion extremists who terrorize legal clinics are rarely muslims. william krar is not a muslim but he had enough sodium cyanide to gas everyone in a building the size of a high school basketball gymnasium before he was arrested in 2002. i know many on the far extreme right would like america to be some romantic image of homogeniety. simply listen to bill o'really. but in the long run racism will solve nothing.

Philadelphia Steve said at November 13, 2007 8:02 AM:

But hating Muslims is so much fun for the radical right. Bill O'Rielly and the rest of FoxNews stoke that hatred every night.

In fact hatred (of Muslims and virtually everyone else who does not fit their mold) has become the bedrock faith of the Republican Party. If they did not have their hate, what would Republicans stand for? (Well... Republicans would still have their "borrow and spend" fiscal policies. But what beyond that?)

jay k. said at November 13, 2007 8:05 AM:

they would still have their big government policies too.

Ned said at November 13, 2007 8:11 AM:

The Democrats are right, of course - the actual costs of all wars always exceed the stated costs. Pension benefits to the widows of civil war veterans were paid until well into the second half of the twentieth century - I wonder if Abe Lincoln ever thought about it? This whole thing just highlights how ineffective the Democrats are - since they control both houses of Congress, why don't they do something about it other than prattle on? When the Republicans controlled Congress, the Democrats might have had a legitimate beef, but now they own the problem too. If the Dems want to run on an anti-war platform next year, fine, then they can explain to the voters why they haven't already pulled the plug on funding the war and brought the troops home. The answer, of course, is that if they do, they know that the GOPer's will blast them for being "weak" and "soft" and terrorism and national security. Traditionally this has been fertile ground for Republican attacks, and the Democrats know it. Just line up and wait your turn, folks, no need to push and shove - there's plenty of hypocrisy for everybody.

jay k. said at November 13, 2007 8:52 AM:

ned...
the democrats do not "control" both houses. all they have in the senate is a razor thin majority. that does not nearly equal control, no matter what the rnc talking points say. you seem to think the dems are left with a choice between de-funding the war and the staus quo. that is a false choice, but again, typical of the rnc talking points. as much as you and the rnc would like to draw the comparison...abraham lincoln did not make a choice to pre-emptively wage a "war" based upon intelligence chock-full of caveats. bush, by using supplemental and emergency funding, is trying to hide the true costs of his choices. it's only right that the electorate is made aware of the consequences of those decisions.

jay k. said at November 13, 2007 8:57 AM:

...and it is especially important that the elecorate is informed of true costs when the guy spending money like a drunken-awol-air-nat'l-guardsman repeatedly claims to be "a good steward of the peoples money".

Ned said at November 13, 2007 9:59 AM:

jay k. -

I wasn't aware that I was advancing RNC talking points, since I have little to do with them and don't much like them either. Let's look at the facts. The Senate Democratic caucus has 51 members - 49 Democrats and two Independents (Lieberman and Sanders) who vote with the Democrats. The Republican caucus has 49 members. Last time I checked, 51 out of 100 was a majority, which is why the Majority Leader is a Democrat. Yes, it's a very thin margin, but it's still a majority, and the majority controls the agenda. The Senate has filibusters and all sorts of arcane rules that can require a supermajority (60 votes) to pass some legislation, but, again, the majority controls the agenda - if the Democrats don't like spending money in Iraq, let them propose a cutoff and force the Republicans to filibuster to block it. This isn't going to happen because the Democrats know good and well that some of their own members aren't going to support it - but whose fault is that? In the House, the matter is clear-cut. The Democrats have 233 seats, and the Republicans have 202, so the Speaker is a Democrat. There are no filibusters in the House - everything runs strictly by majority rule. And the Constitution requires that all revenue bills originate in the House. So why doesn't the House Democratic majority just refuse to appropriate any more money for Iraq - 31 seats is hardly a razor-thin majority, and they only need one vote more than half to block it. I have no use for Bush and his neocon buddies, and I have opposed the Iraq misadventure from the beginning. The GOP certainly deserves plenty of blame for getting us into this sorry mess, but what about the 29 of 50 Senate Democrats (including presidential wannabes Clinton, Edwards and Biden) who voted for the Iraq war resolution? Do they get a free ride? John Edwards was a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee at the time - is he going to claim he was "deceived?" My problem with the Democrats is not that they, for once, are telling the truth about the actual costs of this war - I agree with them there. My concern is that they are all talk and no action - how are they any better than the Republicans?

Mirco said at November 13, 2007 10:31 AM:

This is a case about "What is seen and What is not seen".
We can see and measure the costs of the war, even the hidden costs, but what about the costs of don't going in war?
What about the cost of another or more attacks in the USA or EU like the 9/11?
What about the falling of the oil fields and oil routes for Iran, Saddam or al-Qaeda?
What about the backlash with much more hardliners (like Tancredo) having much more support?

jay k. said at November 13, 2007 11:47 AM:

ned...
lieberman caucuses with the democrats, but on votes like this wiil always vote isreal...i mean republican. without the numbers to overide a veto they are can set all the agenda they want...it doesn't amount to real control. i'm an independent...and i am disgusted by both parties. just a little less by the dems.
mirco...
nothing about our attack of iraq is stopping more attacks like 9.11 (iraq was not involved and posed no legitimate threat to us), it is making the oil supply less reliable and a lot costlier, and who is more of a hardliner than cheney?

Paul said at November 13, 2007 5:23 PM:

Sure, we could keep out all the Muslims. We could kill the ones that are here. That would prevent another 9/11, but wouldn't prevent Oklahoma or probably the Anthrax attacks.

But most importantly, it would mean that we'd lost the war against Islamic extremism. If one buys the Bush line that "they hate us for our freedom," then eliminating those freedoms would be the most direct course of capitulation. You say the Democrats want to surrender?? You're proposing to radically alter our entire national character because you're so afraid of a threat that is far less likely to harm you than being struck by lightning.

Fortunately, this has played out many times in our past. Time and again since the American revolution, there have been cowards among us who have demanded that we eliminate the freedoms enshrined in the Constitution so that we don't succumb to Threat X. Lucky for all of us, these cowards have been overpowered by the brave among us who hold this country to a higher standard.

Good to see which side of that line this blog stands on. (Here's a tip: if you change your sheets immediately after wetting the bed, you'll be a lot more comfortable.)

Randall Parker said at November 13, 2007 7:11 PM:

Paul,

The old "they hate us for our freedom" is good propaganda but pretty misleading. You don't really buy it, do you?

The neocons have defined victory against terrorism as remaking the character of Muslims. I say we aren't going to succeed in that undertaking. In fact, we are making no progress in that direction. The current strategy of reshaping Muslims into Jeffersonian democrats has totally and utterly failed.

When a strategy is a total failure I don't stick with the strategy in order to avoid admitting it has failed. You can do that. But that way leads to continued failure. Why do that?

If we keep out the Muslims that does not mean we lost a war. How is that a loss? We kept communists out during the Cold War. That didn't feel like a loss. Did it feel like a loss to you?

We used to keep out immigrants entirely for a period of decades. I don't think we lost any character during that period. Your contention is incorrect.

I think you are holding this country to an idiotic standard. I'm for freedom for Americans. I'm not for converting the whole world to be like us.

Paul said at November 13, 2007 7:33 PM:

Randall,

No, I never bought the neocon propaganda. I thought you might, which is why I referred to it. Glad to see you're smarter than that!

I have a fair amount of insight into Muslim immigrants. My wife's family moved from Pakistan to the UK when my wife was 3. I'm very close to them, and have met loads of the extended family. My wife is a US citizen now, and helps pay for the bombs. Just a bit of disclosure.

About our "current strategy of reshaping Muslims into Jeffersonian democrats" which "has totally and utterly failed", that says at least as much about our strategy as it does about Muslims, probably much, much more. Pakistan, as one example, is comprised largely of moderates who do in fact want democracy, and have had it many times in their history (although very corrupt democracies, granted). Iran also has a democratic past. Malaysia is not a dictatorship, nor is Indonesia. Muslims are certainly behind in terms of democratic progress, but I wouldn't conclude that they are incapable.

What has failed is the strategy. Take Pakistan, for example. The US invasion of Iraq had quite a transformative effect on Pakistani youth culture, as young people went from wearing blue jeans, listening to pop music, and idolizing all things American, to sitting in madrassas listening to how evil America is. (These lessons come complete with visual aids straight from Iraqi news.)

What also failed was the diplomatic style. With us or against us. Bring 'em on. Threatening to turn Pakistan into a smoking crater. Not the way to win friends and influence people, as one can clearly see by the results.

Keeping Muslims out would certainly be a loss. The loss would be the 1st Amendment, which prohibits Congress from enacting any law curtailing or supporting any religion. Losing the 1st Amendment would be a tragic loss, more tragic than losing the 4th was. Ultimately, following this strategy will radically alter our national character, as I mentioned above. Ben Franklin had a saying about that which no doubt you've heard. And keep in mind, your chances of dying in a terrorist attack are far, far less than your chance of being struck by lightning. We've dealt with that risk for all of history without resorting to totalitarianism over it. Personally, if we're going to face worst case scenarios here, I would much prefer the occasional terrorist attack over turning this country into the type of police state that would arise if we followed your recommendations.

I am not for converting the whole world to be like us either. Nor am I for bombing them. In the conflicts I've had in my life, I've found both of those approaches -- become like me or suffer the consequences -- to be complete and utter failures.

GFYBIGGUY said at November 13, 2007 7:42 PM:

You know what is another large problem? Alcohol. Why don't we kick all of the Guinness drinking Irish out of or country. The idea of kicking the Muslims out of America is typical of someone who has no real clue about the Islamic religion. Do you not understand the concept of extremists? These fanatic Muslims are but a small number of actual Muslims in the world. Yet through the portrayal in our media the ignorant are meant to think that they are the only type of Muslims there are. America is a country that was built on the concept of freedom of religion, as much as the right would like everyone to be a moral Christian, this is not the case and never will be. As stated by other posters by kicking Muslims out of America we are taking our own freedoms away and thus giving the terrorists a moral victory. So to wrap it all up your statement is absurd and GFY!

Randall Parker said at November 13, 2007 7:53 PM:

Paul,

As I see it we have two choices:

1) Build barriers at our borders.

2) Build barriers all over our interior.

So far we've elected to do #2. Airports are full of internal barriers. Entrances to buildings have barriers. We have more and more internal security. Rather than keep out the people who most create the need for the internal security we keep them coming in supposedly in the name of freedom. So Britain, for example, has to have thousands of police working at surveillance of fundamentalist Muslims.

On the failure to turn Muslims into Jeffersonian democrats: I think it says a lot more about Muslims. The countries we've kept distance from (e.g. Syria, Algeria) stayed as undemocratic as the ones we developed closer relationships with.

Pakistan's repeated failure at democracy: Not the result of our rhetoric or diplomacy. We didn't cause a succession of democratically elected Pakistani governments to become hopelessly corrupt leading to military takeovers.

We don't lose religious freedom by keeping out members of a religion that is also a political system. Fundamentalist Islam is incompatible with freedom. In order to fully embrace freedom for fellow citizens a Muslim effectively has to ignore parts of the Koran. Some do. But not all.

Randall Parker said at November 13, 2007 8:00 PM:

GFYBIGGUY,

How do you know how much I know about Islam? You have no idea. You just do not like the conclusion I've come to about it.

Islam was founded by a military conqueror who used terrorism as a tactic. His most literalistic followers are aping his tactics.

When I see someone preach about how peaceful the real Islam is deep down I think their claims are being made to fulfill a need to defend their own dreams of what they want the world to be like, rather than what it is. If there are religions that are not compatible with liberalism (and there are) then liberalism's pretensions of the One Right Way for all of humanity and liberalism's pretensions of universalism collapses.

No, the desire for freedom does not beat in all hearts. No, most people do not really respect the rights of others to disagree on issues that matter the most to them. No, religious freedom for oppressive religions is not compatible with a free society when the members of the oppressive religions start approaching a majority.

Liberalism has overreached in its claims of what it can accomplish and in its claims of the depth and breadth of its appeal. The world is mostly not a liberal place. Our continued pretend that it is will lead us to disaster.

Philadelphia Steve said at November 14, 2007 6:54 AM:

Most American's "knowledge" of Islam is appalingly low.

I was sitting with a friend, watching our hometown Eagles drop another football game a few weeks ago. He saw our (hobbeled) quarterback, Donovan mcNabb (likely soon to be an ex-Eagle, but that is another discussion) take off his helmet. Donovan had that headcap that a lot of the NFL players wear over their hair, particularly the African American ones. He asked me, "Is that some sort of Muslim thing?"

And he meant it. I explained it is just another NFL fashion statement, a derivative of the old "do rag".

But that is the level of knowledge of Islam that exists in America. Remember, President Bush had to have it explained to him that there is a difference between Shia and Sunni Islam just on the very eve of his invasion of Iraq: And Trent Lott gave a speech saying he did not understand the difference as recently as 2006.

That is like saying you want to address the conflicts that existed in Northern Ireland, but did not understand if there was any difference between Catholics and Protestants.

And that level of ignronance goes from American living rooms right to the top of the Bush Administration.

And that level of ignorance is beatig the drums for another war in Iran.

Philadelphia Steve said at November 14, 2007 6:56 AM:

Re: "Liberalism has overreached in its claims of what it can accomplish and in its claims of the depth and breadth of its appeal. The world is mostly not a liberal place. Our continued pretend that it is will lead us to disaster."

And Conservatism's "reality" in Iraq has been better?

Remember, Conservatives predicted that "Iraqi oil would pay for the occupation".

But, of course, that is different, isn't it?

TJ said at November 14, 2007 7:21 AM:

Differences in islam? You mean like the Sunnis prefer truck bombs while the shiites prefer IEDs, right? Maybe the differences are over when an honor killing is permissable or when beating you are beating your wife, it is advisable to use an open or closed hand? Any lack of knowledge of islam, the right or wrong "response" to muslim behavior or whether the war in Iraq is good/bad, etc... does not change the fact that islam is a violent cult that is incompatible on every level with civilized, Western society(or any other society throughout islam's existence), whether it is flying planes into the Twin Towers, beheading Thai Buddhists, castrating animists in Darfur, shooting women in the back of the head in a soccer stadium in Afghanistan or executing gays in Iran(if there are any left).

Philadelphia Steve said at November 14, 2007 10:47 AM:

Re: "Any lack of knowledge of islam, the right or wrong "response" to muslim behavior or whether the war in Iraq is good/bad, etc... does not change the fact that islam is a violent cult"

Glen Beck wold be proud of that statement.

As I recall, thecommendant of Aushwitz was a "good Christian", and eliminated another religious groups who were not compatible with "Western Values".

Or is that too "different"?

What would you Conservatives do? Launch another "Crusade" (George W. Bush's words) to eliminate all Muslims fromt he world? Would you kill Muslim Children so they could not grow up into Terrorists? That is, I believe, what you are saying when you declare Islam to be "the enemy". When you want to eliminate that religioun from the world.

TJ said at November 14, 2007 11:14 AM:

Philadelphia Steve,
I reread my comment carefully and I didn't find any references to genocide, eliminating muslims/islam(or anyone else too "different"), Crusades, not even a "Bomb Mecca!" I also fail to see what Auschwitz has to do with the discussion at hand except that many muslims either deny the Holocaust and/or seem to feel that the Nazi's didn't get the job done. Your commentary also reminded me that many muslims were in Nazi units (many in the Balkans), including the Mufti of Jerusalem. If you disagree with my statements about brutal, inhuman and well documented muslim behavior(wife beating, terrorism, torture, anti-gay/anti-woman behavior, honor killings, etc...), including the active jihad in Darfur, Thailand, the Phillipines and in the Middle East, Europe and the US. Other than flinging around accusations of crypto-naziism, hating other religions and "different" things, being a Conservative or pointing out Christians behaving in less than a Christian manner, I fail to see what your comment adds.

Bring Them Home! said at November 14, 2007 12:16 PM:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071114/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq

Antiwar Democrats doing their best to bring the conflict to an end!

Paul said at November 14, 2007 3:19 PM:

Randall,

You said:
"As I see it we have two choices:
1) Build barriers at our borders.
2) Build barriers all over our interior."

Randall, this statement is a function of your lack of imagination more than anything else. There are many other things we can do, starting with developing a more legitimate foreign policy, one that does not alienate all our allies except for Israel, and does not cast us as The Great Satan to 1/5th the world's population. With policies like those, it's no wonder that we need protection.

However, focusing purely on the only two options you can think of, option #1 does not eliminate the need for option #2. If we build barriers at our borders, we will still need internal barriers. No sort of border protection will ensure that every single person within our territory will be a happy American out shopping at the mall. It will merely further transform the "Shining City on the Hill" into a fortress/police state.

It's true what Philadelphia Steve said, that understanding of Islam in America is appallingly low. This post is one very vivid illustration of this lack of knowledge. It reminds me of the episode of South Park, where Cartman is convinced the Muslim kid in his class must be a terrorist. Mr. Garrison tells him, "Eric, not all Muslims are terrorists," to which Cartman replies, "No, but most are." From what I can tell, this post was informed primarily by that episode of South Park. It relies on the basic premise that the percentage of Muslims who are violently fundamentalist is so significant that it makes sense to pass a law against all of that religion's adherents entering the country. Fact is, we're looking at something like less than 1%. If you want to ban an entire group for the actions of less than 1% of its members, then where do you stop? Maybe we should repatriate all black males to Africa? Maybe we should lock up all gay men to stop the spread of AIDS? Maybe we should outlaw Catholicism to protect kids from pedophile priests. And keep in mind, if you do keep out all the Muslims, you won't keep out this less than 1%. They can simply say they're Christian or Hindu, and in they come. So, you're promoting that we dump the 1st Amendment for absolutely no benefit whatsoever.

You said:
"We don't lose religious freedom by keeping out members of a religion that is also a political system."

If we take your statement above and expand it to its logical conclusion, Christianity will also be outlawed. As for Islam being a political system... please. It's a religion. Sure, it has become a political system for some, just as Christianity has. But for the vast, vast majority, it is simply their own relationship with their god. Therefore, passing a law that discriminates against it would require elimination of the 1st amendment which directly and expressly prohibits any such legislation.

Like I said, American history is replete with examples of cowards who are begging to give up their freedom for a little temporary (and often illusory) security. I thank our lucky stars that every time in the past, the cowards have been defeated and good 'ol American ingenuity has saved the day. This time will be no different. Eventually, we will return to a sane foreign policy, and this threat will fade, and you can go back to fretting about the War on Christmas.

Randall Parker said at November 14, 2007 5:28 PM:

Philadelphia Steve,

1) Bush is not a conservative. He's quite radical in fact. He's a fundamentalist Christian radical.

2) Neoconservatism as practiced today is not a form of conservatism. It is a blend of liberalism married to a very hawkish view of the Middle East driven mainly by a desire to protect Israel.

Of the political categories that you might be familiar with I'm closest to the paleocons. Though I'm really closest to the evolutionary conservatives. Neither group thought the Iraq war was a good idea.

I've been calling for withdrawal from Iraq for years. A lot of liberals won't go that far and the Democrats are split in the war.

Randall Parker said at November 14, 2007 6:08 PM:

Paul,

The idea that a religious system should be separate from a political system is a Western invention of fairly recent vintage. The Koran is quite clear that Islam is a political system. Islam is not compatible with a separation between mosque and state. The state must rule according to Koranic demands. The Koran even specifies the Jizyah tax that Muslim governments should levy against non-believers as specified in At-Tawba 29:

YUSUFALI: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

PICKTHAL: Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.

SHAKIR: Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.

The Koran lays out many rules and demands of a political nature and requires that Muslims try to rule non-Muslims rather than let them live as equals or to live under the rule of non-Muslims.

Islam is very different in its base text as compared to Christianity because Jesus never ruled or sought to rule and Jesus did not seek to overthrow Roman rule. By contrast, Mohammed was a warrior king who conquered huge territories and his descendants conquered even more territories.

My knowledge about Islam is not "appallingly low". I've read parts of the Koran and lots of analyses of the religion. I've also read what the fundamentalist Muslims say about their religion today. Fundamentalist movements such as Tablighi Jamaat want Muslims to act and think more like Mohammed and that of course leads toward governments ruling according to Muslim law and toward Dar al-Islam treating the rest of us as Dar al-harb (the house of war).

Paul said at November 14, 2007 6:23 PM:

Randall, yes, your knowledge of Islam is indeed appallingly low. Maybe you've been shown the juicier bits of the Koran to read, and have analyzed the words of the religion's chief psychos. One could come to much the same conclusion about Christianity by reading Leviticus and listening to Pat Robertson. But would that mean you understood Christianity? No. A religion is chiefly defined by the manner in which its adherents practice it. For example, you might conclude that Christianity is the "slavery religion" since the Bible dictates the manner in which one can keep slaves. However, you have to ask yourself: do many Christians keep slaves? No. Therefore, that wouldn't be an accurate characterization of Christianity, as read from its chief book.

Given that, Islam is very compatible with a separation between mosque and state. Just look at the hundreds of millions of Muslims who do not live under a Muslim government. For example, Muslims in the US and other Western countries, as well as India. Look at their political preferences. Are they clamoring en masse for Sharia law? Or, instead are they just doing their jobs, raising their families, and thereby doing the same things everyone else is doing? I can tell you, up until Bush Jr, my Pakistani in-laws were right-wing Tories, having voted for Thatcher and every Tory PM that came along, and holding American Republicans like Reagan in glowing regard. (Now, sadly, they've identified the Republicans and any UK politicians who go along with them as their enemy, thanks to our boy president.) My in-laws' style and preferences are by no means exceptional.

Randall, I can tell you mean well, and I'm very glad to see that you're not a neocon and haven't succumbed to that bankrupt ideology. (Forgive me, I'd originally assumed the opposite.) However, I can tell by what you've read and what you're quoting about Islam, that you've chosen to focus on the most extreme aspects, while ignoring the moderate ones. I'm guessing this is because warmongers (politicians, bloggers, general public) have pointed these things out to you, and in your trepidation over 9/11, you have granted them more import than they're worth. You really need to meet a few representatives of the moderate Muslim multitude, to balance out your perception.

Jack Benner said at November 14, 2007 7:34 PM:

Ed,
So are Muslims the new Jews?
It seems like deja-vue all over again!

You're sinking pretty low with what was a somewhat intelligent website & debate when you resort to racial & religious hatred.
That means you've lost (the plot & the argumant!)

It's like having a talk with your kid - they see they're outmanouevred, ran out of verbal ability, resort to name calling and violence.
Surely the collective intelligence of your great nation can see how the failings have brought you to this?
If this were a business resorting to this strategy its a 'sell'.

So do some thinking and put some confidence back in the market.

Now, where's John Bolton when you need his words of (in)sanity?

Randall Parker said at November 16, 2007 8:25 PM:

Paul,

I'm big on empirical evidence.

Polls of Muslims in Britain tell me enough to want to keep Muslims out of the US:

YouGov sought to gauge the character of the Muslim community's response to the events of July 7. As the figures in the chart show, 88 per cent of British Muslims clearly have no intention of trying to justify the bus and Tube murders.

However, six per cent insist that the bombings were, on the contrary, fully justified.

Six per cent may seem a small proportion but in absolute numbers it amounts to about 100,000 individuals who, if not prepared to carry out terrorist acts, are ready to support those who do.

Moreover, the proportion of YouGov's respondents who, while not condoning the London attacks, have some sympathy with the feelings and motives of those who carried them out is considerably larger - 24 per cent.

I want to keep Muslims out in order to keep out Sharia law:

Four out of 10 British Muslims want sharia law introduced into parts of the country, a survey reveals today.

The ICM opinion poll also indicates that a fifth have sympathy with the "feelings and motives" of the suicide bombers who attacked London last July 7, killing 52 people, although 99 per cent thought the bombers were wrong to carry out the atrocity.

Overall, the findings depict a Muslim community becoming more radical and feeling more alienated from mainstream society, even though 91 per cent still say they feel loyal to Britain.

Why let in members of such a hostile religion?

Randall Parker said at November 16, 2007 8:37 PM:

Paul,

You remind me of those British who insist on looking at British Muslims in a positive light even as British Muslims view them with hostility.

Public opinion in Britain is mostly favourable towards Muslims, but the feeling is not requited by British Muslims, who are among the most embittered in the western world, according to a global poll published yesterday.

The poll, by the Washington-based Pew Global Attitudes Project, asked Muslims and non-Muslims about each other in 13 countries. In most, it found suspicion and contempt to be mostly mutual, but uncovered a significant mismatch in Britain.

The poll found that 63% of all Britons had a favourable opinion of Muslims, down slightly from 67% in 2004, suggesting last year's London bombings did not trigger a significant rise in prejudice. Attitudes in Britain were more positive than in the US, Germany and Spain (where the popularity of Muslims has plummeted to 29%), and about the same as in France.

Less than a third of British non-Muslims said they viewed Muslims as violent, significantly fewer than non-Muslims in Spain (60%), Germany (52%), the US (45%) and France (41%).

By contrast, the poll found that British Muslims represented a "notable exception" in Europe, with far more negative views of westerners than Islamic minorities elsewhere on the continent. A significant majority viewed western populations as selfish, arrogant, greedy and immoral. Just over half said westerners were violent. While the overwhelming majority of European Muslims said westerners were respectful of women, fewer than half British Muslims agreed. Another startling result found that only 32% of Muslims in Britain had a favourable opinion of Jews, compared with 71% of French Muslims.

Shouldn't we keep Muslims out of the West to protect the Jews and ourselves?

Randall Parker said at November 16, 2007 9:14 PM:

Why let in a group where more than a tenth will see it self at war with your society?

A SIGNIFICANT minority of British Muslims believe they are at war with the rest of society, the largest poll of Muslims in this country suggests.

The Populus survey for The Times and ITV News has found that more than one in ten thinks that the men who carried out the London bombings of 7/7 should be regarded as “martyrs”. Sixteen per cent of British Muslims, equivalent to more than 150,000 adults, believe that while the attacks were wrong, the cause was right.


Post a comment
Comments:
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
URL:
Remember info?

      
 
Web parapundit.com
Go Read More Posts On ParaPundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright ©