Interesting analogy. Yes, the surge only addressed the symptom, and it then relied on the Iraqi government to solve the real problem. However, addressing the symptom (violence) was certainly necessary to allow for the Iraqi government to solve the real problem....which they didn't.
In our case, can't we alleviate the symptom.....and then get down to the business of solving the real problem OURSELVES? I'm sure the people that are still alive today in Iraq thanks to "the surge" are pretty happy that we addressed the "symptom". What will the people who are economically destroyed think about our refusal to address our own symptoms? On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 8:33 AM, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > gMoney wrote: > > Then I guess you are more of a gambler than I am.... > > > > The problem is that the bailout is the equivilent of "The Surge". > > Unfortunately Republicans have eliminated logic from that debate. > > But just as the The Surge only deals with the symptoms of the problem > - doesn't actually solve the problem - the bailout only deals with the > symptoms. > > That is, the bailout just starts shooting at terrorists as they come > out of their house. It doesn't stop terrorism. > > So, just as with the surge, you can always throw people and money at > the problem and attenuate the symptoms, but that NEVER solves it. > > The Surge didn't solve the underlying political problems in Iraq and > the bailout won't solve the underlying debt problem. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;207172674;29440083;f Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:271567 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
