a new long political thread

[Ralph]

I don't feel any safer today than I did when Saddam was in power. Yes he is/was awful but I think if the people of Iraq want to be free then they can go pick up the tab for it. Not US soldiers. It would make sense that republicans who are typically billed as the “no free rides, do it yourself, I’m all about accountability” party would tell just that to the Iraqi people.

As far as the doctrine of pre-emption goes this is a very dangerous precedent. Imagine if I can shoot a guy in my front yard as a pre-emptive strike to secure my family. For obvious reasons, even if I know he’s bad the law says I have to wait till he comes in my house and threatens my life and even then, I have to have no alternatives, and then I can use my gun. The international community is not so different.

Even if Bush was 100% correct, and we will assume he was, he still should not have acted without any support from the international community. We didn’t need the help of other nations to oust Saddam, but now we do need help securing the country and paying for the mess. Are we going to get it? Not likely! What about in 25 years when we need help from the international community that we’ve alienated?

The US has become less and less restrained since the fall of communist Europe. I think the Soviet Union was a power check for the US. Not that the Soviet Union was great by any stretch, but they did moderate US influence around the world with the ever present possibility of igniting a nuclear war. The US has no check now. We are acting with impunity. Was the US ever in Western Europe during Soviet rule? Would the US be in Iraq today if the Soviets were around?

I’m not anti US, republican or democrat. But common sense tells me the more US abuses its status and power the less respect the country will command later on.

All that aside; what would the economy look like today if we spent a billion dollars a day on education or other public works instead of fireworks in Iraq?

 

[cherokee]

I don't feel any safer today than I did when Saddam was in power. Yes he is/was awful but I think if the people of Iraq want to be free then they can go pick up the tab for it. Not US soldiers. It would make sense that republicans who are typically billed as the “no free rides, do it yourself, I’m all about accountability” party would tell just that to the Iraqi people.


-Wow, I guess I'll try to tackle this one. The people of Iraq are still too afraid to do ANYTHING against their own gov't, even months after the fall of Saddam. Why, because for years anyone who even said a disparaging word about the gov't was liable to get his feet sawed off at best (read mass graves, torture chambers, etc) . At worst he AND HIS WHOLE FAMILY would be send to some violent death. Maybe you don't realize it but this was life in Iraq. It's a bit difficult to organize a resistance when you would be executed if found out, and all reports are that there were spies for Saddam all over the country. Therefore, how can you possibly expect them to 'pick up the tab for it'. No, the Republicans realized what a brutal guy this is and that they couldn't do it themselves.-


As far as the doctrine of pre-emption goes this is a very dangerous precedent. Imagine if I can shoot a guy in my front yard as a pre-emptive strike to secure my family. For obvious reasons, even if I know he’s bad the law says I have to wait till he comes in my house and threatens my life and even then, I have to have no alternatives, and then I can use my gun. The international community is not so different.


-Yes, but if he's waving a gun and pointing it at you and threatening to shoot and has a history of shooting people, yes you're d@mn right I would shoot him before he got one at me. So, should we have waited until the Nazis attacked the US mainland to get involved in WWII?? After all Hitler had not yet 'come to our house'.


Even if Bush was 100% correct, and we will assume he was, he still should not have acted without any support from the international community. We didn’t need the help of other nations to oust Saddam, but now we do need help securing the country and paying for the mess. Are we going to get it? Not likely! What about in 25 years when we need help from the international community that we’ve alienated?


-Ahh, yes, the 'international community'. We should put our national security in the hands of the UN, huh. Tell that to the millions of Rwandans that are dead because the UN didn't lift a finger to help them. The UN is no moral body who acts in the best interests of all involved. It is made up of member countries who have political agendas which often have no basis is moral clarity. I love how we're being begged to go to Liberia where we have no national interest, yet we were told not to go to Iraq where our interests are plenty, including national security. You know, the 'international community' also did not want to confront the Nazis until it was almost too late. As a result of the earlier non-action millions of soldiers and citizens, millions of European Jews, died in a war that was inevitable. -



The US has become less and less restrained since the fall of communist Europe. I think the Soviet Union was a power check for the US. Not that the Soviet Union was great by any stretch, but they did moderate US influence around the world with the ever present possibility of igniting a nuclear war. The US has no check now. We are acting with impunity. Was the US ever in Western Europe during Soviet rule? Would the US be in Iraq today if the Soviets were around?


-Dude, you do remember we were the good guys in the cold war right? You sound like these idiots who think we are becoming an imperialist power. Like we want to go conquer countries around the world and then colonize them with Americans. Like any American would want to go live in a sh!thole like Iraq. Yes, the US was in W. Europe in the cold war and saved their @ss from Soviet domination. If you don't think that is what the USSR was up to you had better dust off those history books 'cause you're trying to rewrite history. Yes, for saving the @ss of the Euros in the Cold War I would expect a little freaking gratitude. You would think they would remember their own predicament not too long ago and not jump to crazy conclusions like imperialism. As Colon Powell said when questiones about US motives in Iraq, throughtout the years the US had had many soldiers die in the fight for liberty around the world (including Europe) and all that they have ever asked for in return is a place to bury their fallen brothers. Shame on them for implying and sometimes coming right out and assuming the worst.-


I’m not anti US, republican or democrat. But common sense tells me the more US abuses its status and power the less respect the country will command later on.


-I suppose it would have been am abuse of power to take out Al Qaeda before 9/11 as well. You guys were so quick to say the administration should have 'connected the dots' and realize 9/11 was going to happen. Well, we had a LOT of freaking dots with respect to Iraq and I find it highly hippocritical to say we should have known better in 2001 but should ignore them today. Problem is in Europe they are governed mostly by leftist governments that are hostile to the US. The gov't in Germany went so far in promoting anti US sentiment that 1/3 of all Germans under 30 think the US gov't was behind 9/11!!!!!!!! These guys have been brainwashed so much that they really think Pres. Bush ordered the murder of over 3000 Americans. (Don't worry that it 'attacked' it's own military HQ, the Pentagon, destroyed 2 huge engines of our Economic machine, put the economy in a tailspin and caused millions of layoffs). Yeah, I'm sure that's exactly what Bush want. These guys are being conditioned that Bush is Satan himself. No wonder they are suspicious.-



All that aside; what would the economy look like today if we spent a billion dollars a day on education or other public works instead of fireworks in Iraq?

-Not a d@mn thing would be different. Education has plenty of money to proved a good education. This money is squandared in many ways. Washington DC schools get nearly 3 times the per capita funding per student than nearby private schools and guess what, their schools are some of the worst in the entire country. More dollars do not always equal more results. Besides, 90% of education is funded at the state and local NOT national level. Besides what good is this education if we cannot protect out national security. Not much if a terrorist comes here with weapons developed by Saddam. Remember, national defense is the NUMBER 1 priority of any US administration.-

 

[Timebuilder]

I decide to look in on this thread, and look at what I find:

Even if Bush was 100% correct, and we will assume he was, he still should not have acted without any support from the international community.

Hello, we had the support of a country who has a seat on the security council, and several other nations who are not on the council.

I suppose this means we did not act "without any support from the international community."

But this next one is even better:

What about in 25 years when we need help from the international community that we’ve alienated?

I almost broke a rib laughing at this one! Let me ask you: what is the United Nations without us? Who has kept the world safe, relatively speaking, from rogue nations for the past 100 years? Who has been the major source of funding to help third world countries, and been the largest philanthropist to bring food and medicines to starving children, who are of NO economic interest to anyone?

It's US, my friend. The single most fair, vigilant, and compassionate nation on the face of this spinning rock.

My, how the "hate America first" crowd has flourished. This is one of the only countries where they would be this free to do so. The fact that there are ANY other countries where they would also be free is because of the direct intervention of the United States in WWII.

That's something to support, and something to be thankful for.

 

[Ralph]

[Timebuilder, I love the US. Why do you think people hate America when we don't agree with you? As for our disagreement... I believe this sums it up. You think Iraq was a threat to America's freedoms and as such, the war was justified. I don't. I think Saddam was bad, but not really a threat to my freedoms. In fact I think the patriot act is more of a threat than Saddam was. And I think therein lies the difference of opinion. If saddam was a threat to my freedoms then I say lets blow em up!]

cherokee....

Really? Not a darn thing? Education aside lets say they money was completely wasted building large schools that are never filled. Something like the WPA (Also know as We Piddle around) program under FDR. You don't think the jobs and money that are pumped into the economy would help? Honestly I see where we disagree then. My logic is as follows.

We spend a bunch of money blowing up Iraq.

The federal government has to pay for that in lieu of some other things.

The federal government cuts funding to the states for things like education.

The states are now experiencing a budget crisis and cut funding to non-essential items like the subsidies for state colleges. As much as a 30% increase in tuition for some states like California or Florida.

State funds are cut so now many cities and counties no longer receive state funding and must re-allocate or RAISE LOCAL TAXES to pay for missed dollars.

Lots of federal, state and local government employees loose jobs in an already sinking economy.

Lots of government outsourcing is lost and the private sector looses jobs as a result.

Now Joe Blue collar (that’s us) can’t afford school, the states no longer provide as many scholarships, can’t find a job and is facing a rapidly rising cost of living as things like property and sales taxes rise to make up for budget shortfalls that started with fireworks in Iraq.

Saddam was a bad man. But that money would have gone a long way in slowing a shrinking economy.

We will recover a year or two after we pull out of Iraq (and wherever else we end up) and put that money back into our economy.

 

[Timebuilder]

Timebuilder, I love the US. Why do you think people hate America when we don't agree with you?

If disagreements over facts was the beginning, middle, and end of it, I would have no problem at all. I am reading so much recently where these critics are clearly NOT behind our actions, our president, or our mission. This is beyond an argument about who knew what when regarding a few words in a single speech. This is about whether or not you are standing with us against evil in general, and terrorism in particular.

When I read in threads like this where otherwise normal people are saying things like 'this is all a plot to get Bechtel and Halliburton into the Iraqi oil business', and Bush is making all of this stuff up for this evil purpose, I have to believe that these folks are either mentally deficient, paranoid, or haters of the American way of life.

None of those possibilities are very appetizing. A good example of such a man is Rep Charles Rangle. His comments on Sean Hannity's show yesterday make crystal clear the mind of one who either believes what he says, and must be crazy, or knows he is misleading people on a grand scale for his own political advancement and their continued dependance. If it is the latter, he should be publically criticized and mocked.

I am amazed at the ability shown by some posters to fantacize about the machinations that they describe, and ascribe, to our president and our county's motivations.

 

[Ralph]

Timebuilder, are you of the general opinion that things can be broken into good or bad and thats it? Do you think Saddam was simply bad and the US is good and as such all is right?

The idea that you are with us or against us is dangerous at best.

If I am 100% correct and you are with me or against me then I AM JUSTIFIED in doing whatever I want to because I'm right and my will is best. YIKES!

Differences of opinion aside, I enjoy the conversation and I hope one day one of us is too busy flying to spend any time on this board!

 

[Timebuilder]

Timebuilder, are you of the general opinion that things can be broken into good or bad and thats it?

(What do you think? Should I answer this? Aw, why not...)

It isn't my opinion. We can talk about that, if you like.

 

[enigma]

[B
Saddam was a bad man. But that money would have gone a long way in slowing a shrinking economy.

[/B]

Ralph, it would seem that you believe that government spending is an acceptable economic stimulus. If so, then why is the money we spend on war any different? I don't have the foggiest idea about how much we spend on war/defense, but I believe that most of those dollars are spent to pay for: soldiers and equipment and supplies.

Those soldiers are 99% US citizens, taxpayers who most likely spend most of their salary in the US economy. The equipment we use is 90% (my estimate) US made and developed. How is spending money on a Boeing or a Lockheed airplane any different in economic stimulus that building a building that will remain vacant? (your example) I also would guess that the vast majority of all supplies our military uses are also sourced from US suppliers.

So your logic doesn't hold up, either government spending is good or bad; by picking one type of spending over another, you have shown that your opposition is political, not economic. Think about it.


Personally, I think that government spending on the whole is a drain on the economy, but since you are in favor of government spending as long as it fits your politics, I argued the case from your position. If I had my way, we would fund little more than national defense at the federal level. Most of our federal spending is nothing more than voter bribery in order to buy votes for incumbents.

regards,
enigma

 

[Timebuilder]

Yowza!

(That's for you non-religious guys, in place of "amen".)

 

[greyhound]

If you think that....

1. Iraq had ties to Al Qaeda.
2. Iraq had WMD at the time we went after them.
3. Bush went to Iraq to free the Iraqis.
4. That we are safer now than before the war.
5. That GWB did not exagerate a few things to justify his war.
6. Or that Bush deserves to be re-elected...

Then you are either very ignorant, gullable, or an idiot.

When proof arrives that we were in "immediate" danger , and we could not wait any longer to recieve U.N and worlwide support.
Then we can justify the action taken by this president and then maybe, accept the reasons our country is in the shape it is in.

 

[enigma]

Re: If you think that....

When proof arrives that we were in "immediate" danger , and we could not wait any longer to recieve U.N and worlwide support.
Then we can justify the action taken by this president and then maybe, accept the reasons our country is in the shape it is in.

Help me out here greyhound, tell me who was for us, and who was against us. I don't remember that this was US against the world.

regards,
enigma

BTW, what shape is our country in?

 

[jarhead]

Greyhound

"Then you are either very ignorant, gullable, or an idiot."

In your learned and worldly experience.....right.

Maybe, just maybe, it is you who are "very ignorant, gullable, or an idiot." You don't have enough years on this planet to be a judge of such matters, with any degree of credibility.

Maybe, just maybe, the way things went down were what was right and necessary.

 

[Timebuilder]

Then you are either very ignorant, gullable, or an idiot.

I would have to be, to accept that you have some sort of wisdom on this issue, when it is entirely clear to me that you do not.

It is so sad that these kids have been so indoctrinated against the US that they see goblins in shadows, and have no sense of what constitutes our responsibility to ourselves and the world.

When proof arrives that we were in "immediate" danger , and we could not wait any longer to recieve U.N and worlwide support.

Revisionist history? It was never an issue of "immediate danger". That kind of thing happened during the cuban missle crisis, as previously discussed. In fact, we waited far too long to go into Iraq, giving Sadaam extra time to hide and export any old thing he liked, while we mistakenly pursued this emasculated course of seeking UN approval. This was a serious error in judgement.

Then we can justify the action taken by this president and then maybe, accept the reasons our country is in the shape it is in.

I can give you some reasons we are in the shape we are in right now. Pencil ready?

1) We drove our industrial production overseas by rising costs and unrealistic regulatory burdens.

2) We allowed a culture of entitilement, laziness, and immorality to permeate our schools and media. There was no objective truth or moral authority, not any more. That might make someone uncomfortable, and we can't have that.

3) We encouraged women to place their own "needs" above those of their children and families, accepting a lifestyle of latchkey kids, single parents, and welfare dependency. There was no public outcry as women sought "fulfillment" at the single greatest cost incurred by any society, the loss of a stable family.

4) We encouraged discrimination, as long as it was the "right" kind of discrimination. We lowered standards in the name of "diversity", both in the business word and in the military. Now we have a 19 year old "hero" who was the victim of an ambush after making a wrong turn on an Iraqi highway. A nice kid, yes. A soldier, well sort of. Should have been in that area? NO. But it sure makes people feel progressive about the military, just like the meals on wheels program.

That's just a few thing right off the cuff. Add in a president that can't keep his pants up while at work, a first lady that can parlay a small investment in cattle futures into a huge sum just by "beginners luck", and an inflated internet bubble that burst, and you have thirty years of slouching toward Gomorrah.

I'm glad we have the president we have now in George Bush, and a logical running mate in Connie Rice.

Ouday and Qusay are a good start. On to the next target.

 

[jarhead]

Timebuilder

Clap, clap, clap, clap, clap, clap, clap, clap, clap, clap, clap, clap, clap, clap, clap.......................A round of applause, and a toast to you sir. I have a Johnny Walker on the rocks in front of me, and I toast you (gulp) When will the kids grow up, and not sell America down the drain. I am worried for the future, with the ignorance I see in today's citizenry. Where are the people like those of yesteryear, from the founding fathers, to the people that Tom Brokaw called the greatest generation.....those who faught and died in the ultimate struggle of good vs evil....WWII?

 

[greyhound]

HERE WE GO...

Enigma, you ask " who was with/against us?"
It really wasn't an issue of who was with us or not.
Other countries would have probably gone in with us, had the Bush administration given more convincing proof and allowed enough time for that so called "proof" to be reviewed. The main reason most of the world did not agree with military action ,was the fact that this was not a U.N. sanctioned war. Had the U.N been convinced by the U.S., and given us the "go-ahead" then maybe we would have had more support from the rest of the world.
Instead, we went in prematurely, under assumptions and speculation based on faulty intelligence without U.N approval.
That was one mistake in my opinion.

Jarhead. Only time will tell if we did the right thing. But we went about it the Wrong way, is all I am trying to say.
I will not argue that Saddam Hussein had to go. He did. But was one guy worth so much carnage? ( I know he caused a lot himself)Was he such an "imminent" threat to us that we had to go about it so urgently?? That has not been proven.(WMD) Again time will tell.

Timebuilder. You are right I am young, but you have to understand this newer generation. We are not like before when everything you were told, you took as gospel. We demand proof,and justification. You will see this trend continue.
Rebellious? Maybe, but it sure beats living in the dark believing everything we are told. We don't, especially from the government.
I am ready to accept defeat if WMD is found. I'm not blinded by my pride. Again time will tell.

 

[Timebuilder]

We are not like before when everything you were told, you took as gospel.

We didn't.

We were sure that we were right, and that everyone else was wrong. This wasn't based on expereince, it was based on our own egotistical bias against those who DID have the expereince, the knowlege that we lacked. We wanted (some of us, that is) to drop flowers on the Vietnamese and "love them" into stopping the war against the South. "I'd like to teach the world to sing, in perfect harmony/ I'd like to buy the world a Coke..." went the popular soda commercial, which should have been a clue to the shallowness of our beliefs.

Even the smallest amount of actual wsdom comes at the price of time among other things, just like flight experience is often reflected in the hours of your logbook.

You will learn the what and when of questioning, and the motives of those who are "demanding" explanations. You will find that VERY often, they do not have the best interests of the United States at heart.

Good luck in your journey to wisdom. It's a long one.

 

[enigma]

Re: HERE WE GO...

Enigma, you ask " who was with/against us?"
It really wasn't an issue of who was with us or not.
Other countries would have probably gone in with us, had the Bush administration given more convincing proof and allowed enough time for that so called "proof" to be reviewed. The main reason most of the world did not agree with military action ,was the fact that this was not a U.N. sanctioned war. Had the U.N been convinced by the U.S., and given us the "go-ahead" then maybe we would have had more support from the rest of the world.

Greyhound, I say again, who was with/against us?

You seem to hold the position that we went into Iraq totally alone. That isn't the case as you seem to believe it to be, so I ask again, who was with us and who was against us?

You tell the Timebuilder that your generation demands proof and justification, yet you obviously don't know the basic facts pertaining to the argument you try and make. I won't give the answer, but I will tell you this: we did have allies, so your assertion that "other countries would probably have gone in with us" is demonstrably wrong because other countries DID go in with us.

Let me add a little insight to your way of thinking. Your generation is not the first to think that their elders were without a clue. Your generation wouldn't make a pimple on the arse of the teens of the 60's. I haven't seen a "Question Authority" bumper sticker in twenty years, but they used to exist. The bottom line here is quite simple, every generation learns the same lesson the hard way, no generation ever seems to learn from their elders, they insist upon learing for themselves. I don't expect you to be any different, I will only say that I expect to log on here twenty years from now and see you giving some young whippersnapper the same talk I just gave you. r

regards,
enigma