Well said, and I agree with you. You broke it, you bought it. Trying to patch things up is the responsible thing to do.

But I think there's a very important question which has to be asked. Is any progress being made? Is the US actually bringing peace, stability, and a representative government to Iraq and the broader region? Or is it actually one of the obstacles impeding the achievement of these goals?

If this is the case, and if changes in methods, tactics, or institutions can't reverse the trend, wouldn't a pullout be the least-worst scenario for all involved?

I don't have the answers to these questions, and I'm not trying to place any leading suggestions about the problem, but I do think that decision-makers should keep these questions, and the possibility of a pullout, in mind when considering the problems in Iraq.

Dude, check my first post in the thread. I detail how the US medical system, with the least government involvement in the developed world, is among the least efficient.

You do have a point that the US government often does a terrible job of administrating public programs. That's a failure of your government, not a failure of public health care systems in general. There are a great deal of public or partially public health care systems that work much more effectively than the US private system.

It may not be easy, but it is possible to get better performance out of your government. They say that in democracies, people get the government they deserve...

I only used Ron Paul as the subject of a counterexample of your attack. Portraying the Democratic agenda as even socialist is laughable, and trying to imply that it's advancing towards communism is just stupid. That was the strawman I referred to. And if that's not what you were trying to say, then why did you even mention it? Not even really communist regimes like China, Vietnam, and the former USSR stuck to 100% government control. And much of the hardships people in communist countries faced was due to the brutality and incompetence of the regimes in question rather than communism itself. (Don't mistake that for a defense of communism!)

If government stopped supporting airlines, they would fail. FAIL. They're too greedy and incompetent to do otherwise, unless they jacked up the price so high the industry would be reduced to a shadow of its former self before it reached a capitalist equilibrium. Maybe you're OK with that -- in which case I respect you a little more for sticking to your ideological guns -- but that is irrelevant to and doesn't change the fact that airline service in the US was more punctual, courteous, and all-around better before privatization. At least, that's what I've heard; I'm not old enough to testify to that personally.

Looks like it is above the average when looking at performance vs the private sector.  But there are two major pieces of data we're missing here to get the full picture.  Perhaps you can fill them in.  If they compare favorably to the best simiilar privately-run program I'll visit the Crow Eating Thread.

1. How much does this program cost compared to similar private programs?

2. How many, if any, private-sector programs are better than the government one?  90 out of 100 is far from unbeatable, especially if the average is 75. 

I think you guys are missing the bill on what Ron Paul wants to do. He wants to put as many troops as he can back not everyone. Our fighting force would be halved in Iraq there would still be plenty of support. And how about the other 129 countries we are "protecting." Seriously we aren't protecting jack. We are forcing our values and beliefs around the world.

The way I see it this country with it's current leadership and 90% of all candidates running for office we are basically playing the role of Germany before WWII when Hitler was taking over Poland and the other countries. The only major difference is that we aren't stapling the United States of America on each country we are in. Grant it there are some countries where we aren't doing that but no matter how we slice it we are doing it in all regions of this planet.

Another way we are like Germany in WWII is that our military is spread so thin right now that if a country invaded tomorrow we would barely be able to hold off until our military actually arrives to save our arses. Our borders are way to weak right now.

Frankly we need a leader that will fix this country, taxes need to be cut, our world protection need to end, we need to get our money back from every country that borrowed from us, we need to tax imports harder, open our oil reserves to cut fuel prices or force a move to alternate fuels like hydrogen or straight air power, and pull us out of 7 trillion dollar hole.

Name one democrat that has the abilty and mind set to pull half of all that off. Name one republican other then paul would. name one candidate that gives a damn about our country and not how they look on stage that can actually lead this country correctly. I dont want some damn retarded b**ch, or a guy who cross-dressed and cheated on 2 of his wives. I want someone who has knowlegde and real world experience.

IIRC you point out WHO numbers. Big deal.

But yes, the U.S. government does a horrible job a lot of the time. And I guess we do deserve it, since we stupidly stick to the two-party system that has failed us time and time again. Fortunately, the people of this country are hardworking enough to overcome the bullshit pushed on us by politicians of both "major" parties.