New question for the masses...

We've heard over the last two years or so about the lack of a "call to sacrifice" by the White House. Historically, "calls to sacrifice" have included conserving tires, nylons, and any other home products that were needed for the war effort. Men enlisted in the military in droves during World War II. Women left the home for the first time to enter traditionally male-dominated blue-collar jobs. Finally, and perhaps most importantly in today's conflicts, there was a call to conserve fuel ("Was this trip really necessary?"). All this was done to support the US war effort and to bring about victory faster. And, this will often put "economic progress" (outside of defense contracting, of course) on hold for the duration of the war. However, as I said, there have been no calls for such a sacrifice this time around, even with the bulk of the conflict revolving around the most oil rich areas of the world. So, the question for all is...

"Is the sacrifice of economic growth and progress to win a war worth it?"

""Is the sacrifice of economic growth and progress to win a war worth it?""

Yes. But the Democratic party and the American people are not mature enough to do so.

I don''t think it''s the same issue. A lot of time calls to sacrifice are a direct result of either a direct or perceived crisis of resources. Just not the case this time. In World War II for example, or lack of a standing force of armor and planes necessitated public sacrifice of both materials and of course time. Right now neither 9/11 or the war in Iraq need directly influence the daily life here in the US. Victory is not dependent on what we sacrifice, aside for the valient sacrifices of our troops who put in, I think, the most notable sacrifices of all ... their time, their commitments, and their lives. I don''t think with a multi-million person standing military that is entirely voluntary, you can really say Americans aren''t willing to sacrifice.

In other words, I don''t think day-to-day sacrifice will win this war. I know it''s been argued that the economy outweighs the need to do more directly, but I think that''s just an unproven hypothesis at this time. I''ve said it before, I''ll say it again ... we can only conjecture about what material was held back, and more importantly _why_ it was held back.

I don''t know very much about this, but isn''t this Iraq military movement a very small percentage of GDP compared to the amount that was spent on WWII? From my understanding, since WWII, the US economy has boomed, and we can now wage an extensive war without it too seriously effecting our home ecomony, except in speculative ventures (like stocks going up when Saddam''s sons are announced dead, which may not seem odd to anybody else, but it seems really odd to me).

They didn''t ask for rationing during Vietnam, did they? I wasn''t around back then.

"Ulairi" wrote:

Yes. But the Democratic party and the American people are not mature enough to do so.

So what is the Republican party made up of then, if not American people? And if they are, then are they too not mature enough to do so?

"One_of_47" wrote:

So what is the Republican party made up of then, if not American people?

Anti-Castro Cuban-Americans? Financially well-off Mexican-Americans? Angry Anglo-Candian-Americans? Reefer-addicts who filled the wrong circle on the registration form?

"One_of_47" wrote:
"Ulairi" wrote:

Yes. But the Democratic party and the American people are not mature enough to do so.

So what is the Republican party made up of then, if not American people? And if they are, then are they too not mature enough to do so?

They''re in power. If the Democrats were in power it would have gone like this: The Republicans and American people are not mature enough to do so.

Don''t blame me, I voted for Kodos.

From my understanding, since WWII, the US economy has boomed, and we can now wage an extensive war without it too seriously effecting our home ecomony, except in speculative ventures

I guess you didn''t hear about the 455 billion deficit announced a few weeks ago.

"Mex" wrote:
From my understanding, since WWII, the US economy has boomed, and we can now wage an extensive war without it too seriously effecting our home ecomony, except in speculative ventures

I guess you didn''t hear about the 455 billion deficit announced a few weeks ago.

Do you have any idea on how small that number is? That is a small deficit and lower than the deficit we had under Carter.

"Ulairi" wrote:

They''re in power. If the Democrats were in power it would have gone like this: The Republicans and American people are not mature enough to do so.

Which brings us back to the Saudi question and why some say the Administration is hesistant to be more forceful with them over members of their government supporting terrorism. Would it then be a lack of ""maturity"" to not confront terrorists in Saudi Arabia for fear that it would be too big of a sacrifice for the economy?

Isn''t that also a government deficit? It''s not a reflection of the spending power of the country. Okay, I''m not an economist, so I really really have no idea what I''m talking about now.

Yes. It would be the same way no matter who is in power. I cannot recall the name off hand (I know the name) but there is no more loyal opposing view anymore. The parties care more about obtaining and keeping power.

I''m a Classical Liberal and it just so happens that the Republican party does a better job in my view of promoting Liberalism than the Democrats do after Clinton left.

"Ulairi" wrote:

They''re in power.

Yet that still didn''t answer my question.... 8)

"Elysium" wrote:

Don''t blame me, I voted for Kodos.

""Well, I believe I''ll vote for a third-party candidate.""
""Go ahead, throw your vote away!""

Holy crap did that make my day! I *love* the underlying message in that episode.

Ummmmm.....I''ve got a sacrificial request for you.

Why don''t we sacrifice some of those old growth forests and boring wilderness areas so we don''t have to be dependent on countries in the Middle East or even worse, Canada, for oil.

"Lawyeron" wrote:

Ummmmm.....I''ve got a sacrificial request for you.

Why don''t we sacrifice some of those old growth forests and boring wilderness areas so we don''t have to be dependent on countries in the Middle East or even worse, Canada, for oil.

Because we''re the only nation on earth that refuses to use resources. We''re that stinking rich.

We''re that stinking rich.

Mooohaahaaaa.....we shall exploit the lands of others!! The capitalist way!

"Lawyeron" wrote:
We''re that stinking rich.

Mooohaahaaaa.....we shall exploit the lands of others!! The capitalist way!

Damn straight! PAX AMERICA!!!