| Posted: 05 Oct 2006 01:49 Last Edited By: Tim |
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 2018
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
Just thought of the perfect solution. No laws go on the books to promote religion and no laws go on the books to hold back religion.
So if some teacher puts up a religious display, no harm no foul. It wasn't mandated by the government. If some judge puts up the 10 commandments in his court that's his deal. No biggie.
But if a judge orders 10 commandments be put in somebody's home then that's a government mandate.
Simple, now we can fire the ACLU.
It's all about common sense. Live and let live right?
With this mentality, loved ones of dead relatives can have crosses no matter where their loved ones are buried, and if they don't want a cross no problem they can just change it for something else.
Little kids won't have their Bibles taken away at lunch. Win win situation.
I just have a really hard time understanding how the ACLU can actually ever make a winning case to a logical thinking individual that cares about the rights of others. I can't imagine making people go against their religious views, as long as they don't involve killing me of course. I draw the line on religious expression that gets expressed with violence.
__________________
|
| Posted: 08 Oct 2006 08:25 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 264
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
I take issue with that so who can I call? Right, the ACLU.
(Hypothetical) That teacher works for the state. If I don't think the ten comandments are correct or apply to me, then why should I pay taxes to have my Hindu kid in that school?
Tim, I have no idea why you have such a hate-on for the ACLU. If you met one of these people you would be amazed to find that they usually are very logical, hard working lawyers that have put a lot of time into what they think. Nor does the body they so ften argue before, the Supreme Court of the United States, come to its decisions lightly.
They are responsible for Brown vs. the Board of Education, the end of bans on interracial marraige and are currently trying to bring an end to this looney wiretapping (which the Supreme Court found unconstitutional). It doesn't get more patriotic than that, so I hope they stick around and keep fighting injustice!
|
| Posted: 09 Oct 2006 19:25 Last Edited By: Tim |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 2018
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
Well why do you ignore all the looney tunes things they do like fighting against crosses in burial plots for policemen?
I hate the ACLU because I believe that most of their agenda is in support of freedom. It's against it. I don't like any rat fink organization telling me how to live. It's just in my nature I guess. Honestly, I am a little rebellious against crap. Makes me want to grab a cross and march up and down in front of an ACLU headquarters singing Amazing Grace How Sweet the Sound with a 10 Commandments plague under the other arm. But that's just my old flesh talking. I know that wouldn't be a productive Christian response necessarily. It'd just make me happy.
Besides even if the ACLU did anything good, you have to remember the Devil comes across as an angel of light before socking it to you.
By wiretapping if you are referring to the Bush telephone thing, I would like to know an alternative. Maybe you posted it on farther down on the board, but I haven't seen it yet. Please let me know a better way, and I'll support it.
__________________
|
| Posted: 14 Oct 2006 05:38 Last Edited By: Danny |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 264
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
Tim, you don't like any organization that disagrees with you. That is no way to govern a nation.
I was unaware that the ACLU was "fighting against crosses in burial plots for policemen". You're going to have to cite that one. The last time we had this debate, they were arguing against crosses on government property.
I imagine if a policeman is buried in any plot not sanctioned by the state and the family wants a cross over his or her grave, thats what its gonna be. The ACLU would have no power over that private matter. If they did seek as much, I'd be against it, but I'd still be grateful for the good things the ACLU has brought America regarding Civil Rights.
That being said, every cemetary I've ever seen has a cement cross or two except for Arlington, and there may be one or two in there I'm not aware of.
This whole Devil in sheeps clothing thing is a great example as to what you aren't getting about government and logic in general. I mean Tim, you could be the Devil for all I know. You set up a good website right? And here you are, trying to "sock it to" America's rights. The President could be the Devil. I'm sure you thought he was great when you voted for him then BAM, he sucks at being President! The ole one two! ANYTHING could fit that analogy. The pizza to heartburn corelation could fit that. Once again, bad logic.
Finally, you asked for a solution to the wiretapping issue.
Here's my solution: How about W just follows the law, like every President (including Reagan) before him since Carter has done regarding wiretapping(when the laws were implemented).
There is even a secret court in place to determine legality and through which they could obtain warrents quickly so no one would know the spooks were wiretapping.
Alberto Gonzales defended his position against obtaining these warrents (only two requests EVER turned down) by saying "well, we didn't think they'd grant them for what we were asking". So they broke the law, because they knew the court that deals only with spying would think they were crossing the line.
Please Tim, try this simple exercise: imagine how you would feel if I told you the above were the actions of the Clinton administration. Exactly, you'd flip out.
The reason we HAVE laws against this is to protect your security as well as mine from a closer and more powerful enemy: the federal government.
The government did not just collect calling records from suspected terrorists legally (with a warrent), which is fine and encouraged, they have collected the phone records and calls from several phone companies for ALL Americans, ILLEGALLY. That is snooping on your own people without oversight and the sort of thing that moved the founders to revolution.
Do we even need to have this conversation about a government not held accountable by the law? Are you that far gone?
I mean hey, a prison society is the ultimate security. I'm willing to take my chances WITHOUT big brother.
Do you accept one branch of the government bucking legal authority to spy on its own citizens? If so, then you are a partisan, not a patriot.
|
| Posted: 14 Oct 2006 06:00 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 264
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
PS: I don't think I went far enough in proposing an alternative. I recently finished the graphic novel adaptation of the 9/11 report and I think we need to follow the reccomendations made by the 9/11 commission.
We need to hunt terroists down with clever intelligence operations. Perhaps the one good thing about fighting non-state based terroists is that they are not missed as a government. They leave no power gap. So we dispatch black ops to put a bullet in Bin Laden's brain, not a huge military occupation over territories that turn people there against us.
We need to begin a worldwide secular education project to get these societies building themselves up
and forego the jealous destruction of jihadist terrorism. If we leave the world behind, we can expect them to hate us whether that is fair or not.
We need to advocate OUR freedom and legal system more than ever. We need to prove to the world that it is fair and that the Americans ONLY deal in justice. We DO NOT need to suspend Habeous Corpus as soon as we are attacked like we have no honor or principles. We can't cower under the bed and beg our leader to break any rule he wants to "save us".
We need to act like the City on the Hill. We need to lead by example. That is how we beat Communism and that is how we will beat terrorism. Too bad it didn't happen in the first 7 years of the fight, but we had some stumbles with McCarthyism and Vietnam during the Cold War. Just like then, if we don't take the easy road and turn into what our enemies want us to be, we will win because we're better. Americans are sick of this BS. A change is coming.
|
| Posted: 14 Oct 2006 18:40 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 2018
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
Hunting down terrorist and educating the world to America's view points are great. I like that.
Quote:
DO NOT need to suspend Habeous Corpus as soon as we are attacked like we have no honor or principles. We can't cower under the bed and beg our leader to break any rule he wants to "save us".
He's not breaking every rule. Just hovering around the edge. I don't see a problem trying to listen in to conversations of people you think might want to kill innoccent people. Because if they are killers they don't have any rights in my book.
If as I said before phone conversations begin to be used for political gains or abused for non lethal crimes. Then I'm going to be possibly upset. But I keep saying this, how else can you find out what these guys are up to. They are among us. They have no distinct boundaries necessarily. They have hangouts and countries they live at , but they are also all around us. How do you find them and shut them down before they hurt people. Personally, if I was Prez I would just about do anything to get these jerk offs before they hurt anybody else.
__________________
|
| Posted: 14 Oct 2006 19:00 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 2018
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
Just thought of something else too, we like comic book heroes right?
What are comic book heroes but vigelantes. It could be argued they walk all over the rights of supervillains.
Just a thought, maybe a crazy one, but a thought.
__________________
|
| Posted: 15 Oct 2006 03:19 Last Edited By: Danny |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 264
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
Oh, he is not hovering. He is breaking the law. We had standards set up to determine what is legal and what isn't with regard to wiretapping and Bush never even cracked the rule book. That may make him seem cool and tough, but because he is the President and this is not a comic book or a movie, it is a criminal act betraying the trust of the nation.
As far as the political gain bit, you need to think back ten years to how the Tim of '96 felt about Clinton. Did he ever do anything illegal? Did you ever think he had alterior motives? Did it piss you off? It should have. I hope you spoke up.
Now fast forward ten years from now. The Republican Revolution left the country in crappy shape and some moron on the far left has raised taxes to combat the black hole of a deficit Bush left us as a farewell gift. We're still in Iraq and the public sentiment is anger at everyone that voted for the stupid thing or agreed to it.
One day, the Washington Times reports that the President authorized the CIA to monitoring old internet conversations. Conservative bloggers think the liberals are using it to find out who the most ardent supporters of this bungled war were, so they're put first in the draft. Then the story dies off when some politican goes after an intern or page or congressional robot or something. But the legal loophole remains. A little miffed that the government might spy on you? I would be.
Maybe that sounds implausible, but I never thought we'd actually be dumb enough to occupy Iraq since the President's own father said it was a no win situation or that the country would elect that bonehead twice, or once, or whatever. I was wrong and here we are "hovering" toward the Age of Apocolypse. Bush is not just bravely ignoring the naysayers to keep you safe, he's also erasing Joe Citizen's right to privacy. If his interest was really in beating terrorism, he'd have gone through the courts and gotten what he needed (as Presidents have always done) to preserve your liberty as well. Why didn't he? You tell me.
This joker will be gone in two years and we're all going to have a lot of catching up to do on the terrorism deal. Either you support leaders who can be held accountable under the law or you can elect a nanny and wait for it to turn into big brother.
|
| Posted: 15 Oct 2006 22:01 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 2018
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
The whole Bush thing depends on whether or not you trust the guy or you don't. I didn't trust Clinton, so yeah, everything he did I suspected. I'm not blind to Bush policies mind you, I just start out at a different reference point than you. You were probably suspicious of him from day one. Bush hasn't had had a war to cover up sex yet.
Iraq has a lot to do with fighting the war over there instead of over here. We are taking all their resources to doing their killing there, not here. Second if we come out of this with another democracy in the world, that's a big score and a potential well placed ally in the middle east.
It's like playing chess. You play your game, Bush plays his. You can't tell who will win till the game is completely over, and if you can easily tell what a player is doing then he's not playing very intelligently.
__________________
|
| Posted: 16 Oct 2006 16:46 Last Edited By: Danny |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 264
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
|
Quote:
Bush hasn't had had a war to cover up sex yet.
WHAT??!! What war was THAT? Clinton launched missiles at an Al-Queda training camp the same day as he went on TV to admit to the world that he messed around with Monica Lewinsky. He missed Bin Laden by about 45 minutes, likely because OBL was tipped off by Pakistani officials. This was an attempt to kill the terrorist leader.
And you're correct, the Republicans went crazy with wag the dog accusations. Why? Because THEY DIDN'T TAKE BIN LADEN SERIOUSLY, just like our fearless leader pre-9/11. Wag the dog huh?
I wish Clinton had launched a rocket at Bin Laden everytime the Republicans made a big deal about the intern thing. In the end, national security matters. How is Monicagate effecting your life today?
Finally, I cannot believe that you actually belive that line about "fighting them there, so we don't have to fight them here". It amazes me that anyone believes that, and if you look at Bush's polls, largely they do not.
How are we taking Al-Queda's resources? Show me an example of this. We've fueled their recruitment, and they've managed to pull off huge bombings in our two main allies' major cities, prompting Spain to leave Iraq. We've got a huge mess on our hands, and they are staging a comeback in Afghanistan while we're distracted. Then of course, the big one- we have not caught OBL.
You are totally blind to Bush's shortcomings Tim. What Do you disagree with him on? How are we any better off than we were on 9/12?
|
| Posted: 16 Oct 2006 19:03 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 2018
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
First can't say I remember precisely when Clinton bombed a country, but according to my swiss cheese brain it wasn't just Osama it was like a new place I never heard of every time the heat got bad over the sex thing, but it just goes back to the fact that a President needs to live a moral life to be taken seriously when he does attack some other country. Not cool to have doubts over a Prez's moral compass.
Quote:
How are we taking Al-Queda's resources? Show me an example of this. We've fueled their recruitment, and they've managed to pull off huge bombings in our two main allies' major cities, prompting Spain to leave Iraq. We've got a huge mess on our hands, and they are staging a comeback in Afghanistan while we're distracted. Then of course, the big one- we have not caught OBL.
Anybody stupid enough to join those guys would have done it anyway. What you want to give them a bozo button and ignore them. They are coming at us in Iraq. We are engaging the enemy there. Nuff said.
Quote:
You are totally blind to Bush's shortcomings Tim. What Do you disagree with him on? How are we any better off than we were on 9/12?
I guess I might be more judgemental if the poor guy didn't already have enough heat from libs 24 hours a day. I don't think anybody has gotten so much heat.
Guess I'm one to root for the underdog. If everybody loved the guy and thought he could do no wrong then I might start objecting a little bit here and there. At least then I wouldn't feel guilty about making fun of his speech making abilities.
I just don't think the level of antagonism toward Bush is anywhere near fair or impartial.
The good things Clinton was nearly worshipped for are ignored like the current state of the economy. Besides the high gas prices for a few months, the economy has been pretty good.
Bush and the Republicans just put a wrench in the works of online gambling. Maybe now people will spend money on regular things again. That helps my online affiliate program sites.
Clinton gave Korea nuclear power, now we are dealing with it with sanctions at least.
My taxes are lower. What else do you want?
__________________
|
| Posted: 17 Oct 2006 00:03 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 264
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
Dude, you have no idea what youare talking about with Clinton. You have got to stop letting these conservative nutjobs brainwash you. Please, read ANY history book about his presidency. Then come back and tell me when he bombed a country to distract the media. In wars we won without casualities and stop genocide he bombed and the R's went nuts. When we did the only successful containment of Iraq, they bitched. When he went after Bin Laden they screamed "wag the dog". Clinton was a lot of things, but he was a successful military president. Your boy ain't. In 8 years, we'll be lucky to put the lid on Afghanistan, never mind Iraq.
As far as this "anybody stupid enough to join bit", that is the last desperate talking point of a President with a 30% approval rating. It is a fact, we poured fuel on a fire there. No Iraqi had been involved in terrorism against the US ever, before we showed up. Now there are plenty. Gee, whatever could they be so mad about? Would you look for answers if Iraq had invaded TN, killed relatives and friends whetehr they were right or wrong? Tim, you aren't even looking for answers NOW.
So the mean ole liberals are keeping Bush down? Poor guy. He only had all three branches of Government, his own cable news network plus the biggest rally round the flag even since the Civil War and the entirety of red america to support him every day. This Presidency should have been a cake walk. Any half competaent person could have put Bin Laden's head on a stick, have the rest of the world doing whatever we ask and gotten the whole country changing their fuel source. Instead we got an unwinnable war that if we're responsible, we'll ahve to babysit from NOW ON. And the liberals, well they have... the internet, it must have been their fault right?
Clinton gave the Koreans nukes now? You need a history class. We've been fighting those people since the 50's. You might as well say Santa gave them nukes.
Online gambling? Great, another way for the government to control us. Glad they're making more laws to help you.
I think lowering taxes is great, but how high do you think your taxes will go when we've got to pay off the deficit of this war? Ever think that far ahead? If you ever need to buy a used car, please come see me.
Seriously Tim, you try to look at any fact and turn it into some odd pro for Bush. But kids are still dying over there by higher numbers all the time, the violence keeps getting worse, Bin Laden is still on the loose and new threats that Bush isn't capable of dealing with come up more all the time. You have got to be embarassed that you voted for the guy that steered this country off a cliff, but eventually you're going to have to admit he was a HUGE MISTAKE.
|
| Posted: 17 Oct 2006 01:12 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 2018
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
Ok the Clinton bombing I remember commenting to my wife back in the 90's when he started bombing that it looked like he was out to cover up the sex thing.
I think you protest too much against Bush. Makes you sound a little partisan, actually. You aren't even willing to admit that it's even possible you could be wrong about the guy.
I didn't think of Bush has being weak. I was kind of picturing more of a Rocky Balboa type underdog that comes back to win in the end. I guess I can understand not being popular with the in crowd. Bush is hardly popular with the cool types after all in Hollywood because Lord knows knowledge begins and ends with them. Reminds me of high school.
Quote:
Clinton gave the Koreans nukes now? You need a history class. We've been fighting those people since the 50's. You might as well say Santa gave them nukes.
This I know without any doubts. Yes, we have had problems with them since the Korean War, so why did the big dummy give them the ability to develop nuclear power in the 90's?
Quote:
Seriously Tim, you try to look at any fact and turn it into some odd pro for Bush. But kids are still dying over there by higher numbers all the time, the violence keeps getting worse, Bin Laden is still on the loose and new threats that Bush isn't capable of dealing with come up more all the time. You have got to be embarassed that you voted for the guy that steered this country off a cliff, but eventually you're going to have to admit he was a HUGE MISTAKE.
When you admit you're going way overboard on this Bush hate rambling. How can you look at his presidency with a fair balanced look if you are so emotionally enraged. You don't even pretend to be an impartial judge of character. Even republicans didn't hate clinton that bad well maybe a little.
I think maybe that's it, right libs are just retaliating for Clinton hatred with their own brand of unreasoning biased. Is that it?
Where's the love man?
__________________
|
| Posted: 17 Oct 2006 01:50 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 264
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
No, I back up my arguments with facts. Something you said to your wife 10 years ago doesn't make anything a fact. So you were wrong with the rest of the then isolationist Republican party? So what?
This Clinton giving them nukes thing will require a souce. Find where he gave them nukes. I'm all ears. Besides, they DO have WMD, they ARE a strategic location, and they are WITHOUT a democracy. Why didn't W go after them? Oh right, because he's incompetant.
Hey I mean, Reagan designed the perfect litmus test. Are we better off today than when we elected this person? Clinton took us from recession to the longest peace time economic boom in history. The world loved us, and the Bush folks thought he was "obsessed" with this Bin Laden character. I wish he had had a third term.
On the other hand, Deputy Numbnuts gets points on the economy, but if you'll remember for most of his presidency- it has sucked. He lied about the urgency to go to Iraq. he tried to hide pictures of flag draped coffins. He violated our rights. HE LOST THE WAR.
I mean when is a person partisn and when is a person right? So what if people hate Bush? He's given people reason to hate him! Is 70% of the country partisan? Are my Reagan loving friends partisan? Get back to me on this one.
Besides Tim, I'm waaay more of a liberatarian than I am a liberal. I just think this inbalance of power has been disasterous for the country and it is largely the democrats' fault for not being better politicans. If you asked me who decent democrats were, I'd reaaaaally have to think about it. On the other hand the republicans of the last ten years are either crazy or total vermin, with a small band of moderates who the rest of the R's hate. So it isn't like I'm thrilled with either side.
All the same, I really wish you would look into this stuff a little closer since you enjoy talking about it so much. It isn't enough to watch Fox news or even CNN. You've got to read history, you've got to take a class here or there and you've got to keep an open mind. Sure I think Bush is lousy, but that has nothing to do with my political views. Many life long republicans think he's a blight on their party.
I hardly began life all that far left, but I have moved to the center and now I think ideology is for the birds. Trust me, one side does not have all the answers and your side is currently making you look bad for voting for them. If the preachers have brain washed you away from the democrats for good, fine. But at least read up on why they say what they say.
|
| Posted: 17 Oct 2006 16:50 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 2018
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
Ok here's one, I just did a search for Clinton Korea Nuclear and here's what I got.
http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/cliBntMon.htm
and another one http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/1/7/164846.shtml
another one http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=5368
I just skimmed through these, but I believe they have the info your looking for.
Quote:
Clinton took us from recession to the longest peace time economic boom in history. A lot of that success was due to the past Reagan years, second Clinton left a legacy of dishonesty. How many big businesses during the Clinton years cooked the books to make their stocks look better?
Sure the world loved us, but I'll take respect over love any day, and being a push over doesn't get that for you.
Quote:
If the preachers have brain washed you away from the democrats for good, fine.
Sorry Danny you have to be assuming a lot by that statement. Personally, I don't think there are many people on the planet that question things as much as I do. I just keep coming back to the same conclusions based on what I see.
Do the Democrats have a plan for getting out of Iraq other than just leaving? I haven't really heard one, have you?
I don't fully trust any party, but the republicans happen to have more candidates generally that vote the way I believe in. They certainly have their faults of course. They are politicians. Just seems to me when I listen to a Democrat rail against the other guy it's just basically "I know you are but what am I" kind of crap. Name calling and generalized statements that you are bad and I'm good just don't cut it. I don't hear any actual plans from those guys.
__________________
|
| Posted: 25 Oct 2006 18:59 Last Edited By: Danny |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 264
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
WHAT A BUNCH OF BS!!!!!
Ok, hi everybody. I've been on a much deserved vacation back home.
Now Tim. Do you REALLY expect me to say "Oh, well...since you did a search and ignored every result that you turned up except for the most right-wing-nut-job Clinton hating websites listed, Clinton must have handed these people the nukes, despite the fact that they waited until NOW to detonate a bomb."
C'mon. No one is that dumb. You can't really believe this.
Here is an article from A MAINSTREAM NEWS COMPANY (notice the contrast with nut job websites that have "Clinton Criminal" in the title).
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/east/12/15/nkorea.us/i ...
Notice that the bomb making started up as soon as Bush turned off their supplies. Even North Korea does things for a reason. Bush aggravated the situation and here we are IN HIS TERM, not Clinton's, with a nuclear test on our hands.
I tend to believe that what goes on in a President's term is on his watch. Your job is your job. I can't blame people that were in my job before me for problems I have now; I am here to fix them.
Likewise, I can't take credit for their success if it happened before or after I was here.
Case in point- your assertion that Reaganomics paved the way for the Clinton economy. Okay if you believe that Tim- I don't. But by YOUR logic, the record setting economy of right now must be Clinton's doing. Hey, you said it.
I’m thrilled that our economy is doing so well now. I credit, as usual, the economic policies of the time and the circumstances of our time, plus the usual up and down of economic cycles. The underlying theme of the good numbers right now is that caution was exercised on the part of Americans and companies who buckled down this summer, bracing for the worst and fortunately, the worst didn’t happen. My examples follow as such:
In the case of policy, Ben Bernake seems to have been a good pick on Bush’s part thus far. He’s not a supply-sider, which makes me think Bush is only playing dumb at least some of the time. Of course, the notion that low interest rates speed up the economy has long been a fact that flies in the face of supply side dogma. For Bush to recognize this in appointing Bernake (who has also raised rates, exercising caution before the summer) proves again that the economy is truly what matters in American politics and worth ditching one’s ideology to preserve.
Likewise, I think Bush’s tax cuts would be great if they weren’t setting us up for a fall. I love low taxes, but they have to be supplemented by a cut in spending. If you grow the size of the government ten fold and engage in stupid government programs without justification, (read: IRAQ), then you’re going to go into debt with the Chinese and Saudi Arabians and have to raise taxes to compensate or devalue your currency. Low currency value hurts our buying power, drives prices up and guess what? Recession.
For this reason, I actually feel a bit sorry for the 2008 winner. Even Carter had it easier than whoever has to be there when Bush’s chickens come home to roost. That is not to say however, I will apologize for whoever that is because the guy from 2001-2009 was a total moron. It will be up to 2009 person to fix. So mark my words, the only way out of this is private sector innovation combined with federal grants to get us off of oil. The smart D or R will recognize this and act on it.
Speaking of the devil, oil is a huge reason we’re doing well. It was in the 50’s and 60’s, it was in the 90’s and it is now. The fact that oil prices are again low is a combination of a few things. First of all, our companies bought up a lot of oil and OPEC pumped a lot of oil this summer in anticipation of hurricane season and to fund the war in Lebanon. Hurricane season didn’t really happen, and drove the price down for now.
Obviously as well, economic cycles go up and down. I credit the innovations and buying power of the American public. There are enough cool things coming out right now that people are going to buy things, even if the usual factors affecting consumer confidence suck. We’re in the middle of another stage of the tech revolution, the repackaging and refining of our technology, so I don’t think the economy CAN get but so bad, no matter how dumb our president or how bad our oil policy.
Now to change gears, you may wonder why I think Clinton was good with the economy. First of all, his foreign policy WAS his economic policy, and in a political climate where he was allowed to do very little, he always made the smart choice, even if that entailed just not screwing up. Notice how even with dealing in cagey middle east problems, Clinton exercised caution and the economy grew. Why was oil only a dollar a gallon for 10 years despite Saddam ripping off the UN, repeated Al-Quaeda bombings, increasing trouble in Palestine and Africa? Because Clinton didn't misstep. He got closer to a deal in Palestine and killing Bin Laden than Bush ever has. He kept the lid on Iraq and Iran.
Contrast this with now, and the Middle East is a total mess, mostly because we've got a hand in everything. Bush's "road map to peace" elected Hammas, Iran and N korea are seeking Nukes after W threatened them with invassion, Iraq has us in a costly war the likes of which Saddam never could have dreamed and we have no clue where Bin Laden is.
Secondly, you say the world should respect us, but clearly they don't. Bush's is the incredible Hulk of world politics. He is great at smashing things, but thats all he knows how to do. As a consequence, the people of the world have radicalized against us. Spain withdraws troops. The UK fires Tony Blair. Venezula keeps Chavez in power and Columbia elects his clone. Palestine elects Hammas. Iraq is in a civil war. North Korea has developed a nuke. Iran elects a nut case. Nothing is being done about genocide and oil problems in Africa. No one is backing us up against these problems and clearly we can't do this all on our own. We are out of troops right now. If you don't believe me, ask one of the guys who's been to Iraq 4 times to fight.
So the opinion of the world DOES MATTER. Right now, they either think we're Nazi's or just morons. The 20th century shows that we have to lead the world with a good example. Reagan said and proved that we are the city on the hill and must lead as such. What you really mean when you say respect is FEAR. No one has EVER governed succesfully by fear, as if that were not the exact opposite of the Christian ethic you claim to endorse.
Third, Clinton overcame the limitations of his own party. He sponsored and pushed through NAFTA and other free trade policies, pissing off democrats and labor, but paving the way for Wal-mart and Microsoft to make HUGE gains worldwide, bringing the entire world more prosperity while bringing us cheap goods and subsequently, tech jobs like your own. He could have vetoed welfare reform, but instead he worked with Republicans and pushed hard to get the first balanced budgets in our lifetimes.
I would love to know how Enron or World Com is Clinton's fault. Bush campagined in an Enron jet. You think the books were cooked in the 90's? How about record profits from oil companies in the midst of the 2005 hurricane season? How about no bid contracts to Halliburton for Iraq? What happens when Halliburton loses money as it is allowed to do less and less in Iraq? (I have delivered and defended my research on Iraq's financial reconstruction before an auditorium full of scholars, you?) You keep coming back to the same conclusions because everything you've ever bothered yourself to learn about politics and economics was written by Karl Rove or Rush Limbaugh.
Regarding a plan for fixing Iraq, unlike your boy- the Democrats have a plan. Check out what Joe Biden or Jim Webb have laid out on Meet the Press or on their websites. They reccomend the same thing I do- splitting Iraq up ala Germany after WWII and getting local countries including Iran and Syria involved in something positive for once. Of course, the GOP is totally confused on this issue, with morons like George Allen railing against Iran and Syria having a hand and W agreeing today that they should be involved. Have you turned on the news? W doesn't even know what to call his policy, as "Stay the Course" has pissed off the voters so much that he has decided not to utter the words anymore. James Baker has studied the Iraq problem and decided not to release the results until after the election. WHY?!!! Because they conflict with EVERYTHING BUSH HAS DONE SO FAR.
Of course, you won't be familliar with the D's plan because you don't know something until Limbaugh or Fox News tells you, so when Baker rides in to fix the W administration's total lack of ideas, you just remember who had the idea first.
Finally, how can you say the D's only say "I know you are but what am I?" You used this Pee Wee Herman defense a few weeks ago when you were backed into a corner by me. You're right, just saying preachers have brain washed you against the D's is WAAAAAY too general. The websites you recomended to describe 8 years of N Korea policy show you are brainwashed by a wide variety of right wing sources, but you never contrast this with anything that might disagree with you. You are not interested in reality, which neither side is going to give you on its own. Well, if you are looking at the polls, the rest of the country isn't going to with you to fantasy land. You need to rethink your news gathering methods, your all encompassing ideology and most importantly, your objective. Stop rooting just for the GOP and start pulling for your country.
|
| Posted: 26 Oct 2006 21:29 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 2018
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
I don't know a lot of people my argue that CNN is a leftwing nutjob reporting agency.
N Korea is backing down now from their testing thanks to Bush's peaceful strategy of bringing China to the table. A strategy he talked about in his last election bid. I heard it myself during one of the debates.
I don't root just for the GOP just the ones I like. Hey I even voted for 2 Democrats this time around. Well one didn't have anybody running against him, but our Demon governor, I mean Democrat governor has been better than our last Republican gov so 
So don't paint me as completely partisan. I stand by my ideas, and ideology, not necessarily a party. I vote for the individual that stands for my beliefs. So I could switch parties in a heart beat if they went with my way of thinking. Probably not going to happen with the Dems as a whole though. Most of them are so left winged it's beyond reason the kind of things they vote for.
__________________
|
| Posted: 27 Oct 2006 17:19 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 264
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
Now CNN is a left wing nutjob reporting agency. Is this not the channel that made Tucker Carlson and Robert Novak household names? (ugh.) Same old strawman. Everytime reality has a liberal bias, you guys jump all over the media and say they aren't telling your side of the story- they must be left wing. It could never be that you're simply wrong, as you were in your Clinton=NKorean nukes assertion.
So it took Rush Limbaugh and his carefully screened calls and complete avoidence of televised debate to expose bias and demagogery on the channels that have debates every day? It took the creation of Fox News, a channel that is unabashedly right wing to give you the "fair and balanced" version of events?
Mind you that Fox News was also created as the media hounded not the first president to have an affair, nearly out of office. So the media couldn't have been THAT biased in Clinton's favor. Iran Contra was 10X as bad as a blowjob, and the media couldn't throw Reagan out with a Democraticly controlled congress. Could it really have been THAT biased?
No, the mainstream media has always been checked by competition. I've worked in it and the idea that you might get called biased scares them quite a bit- they don't want anybody to stop watching. So what is their motive? Why don't editors fire reporters that report storys that favor the left when it costs those editors readers? If the mainstream media IS left, then why? They're on the scene reporting what goes down. Maybe you just disagree with the way things really are to support your own worldview, or don't have a good understanding of the way life works where there is news, namely cities.
Regardless, claims of a biased media every time you disagree is a lame argument, not withstanding websites that are titled "Clinton Criminal" or "Bush Hater.com". The media is just another part of the market and for every Tim, there should be a Danny, unless the Tims report the way they feel and the Dannys report the facts they find.
Case in point, the CNN article. What you have there can't really be so biased against Bush inspiring N Korea to get the bomb. After all it was written in 2002 and the mood detailed in the article was "Oh shit, now they're gonna try and get the bomb, because this dummy won't talk to them anymore". And look what happened. If you're thrilled W's getting China to lay pressure on them to stop- you should be, I know I am. Its good news if NKorea will lay off because of international pressure- but if you read the article, thats exactly what we had before in the 90's. Bush hasn't gotten any tougher, because there are no good options with which to do so, even fewer now because we're bogged down in Iraq. So after letting them get the bomb the Bush Adminstration crawls back to the Clinton policy of mulitlateral pressure with its tail between its legs. Only took 6 years and a nuclear test to learn. Also, those loons still have bomb technology and could just tell China what it wants to hear. That tech isn't going anywhere.
Regarding your voting, I don't know why you would figure someone is good enough to get your vote then call them a demon, but I guess these are politicans. What that makes the Republican you refer to I don't know.
Look, I'm not the Democrats' biggest fan either. I hope they only win on Nov 7 by enough of a margin to bring the country back to the practical center and away from the brink of oblivion. I do disagree with them on abortion, gun control, on the lack of reform in education, and the general nature of afirmative action, gay rights and immigration. This may sound crazy Tim, but were some of the less important issues stripped away and we were both forced to hammer out a policy seriously- I bet we'd agree waaaaay more than we disagree. We are after all, both Americans.
If I had it my way, we wouldn't have political parties since they clearly make such a mess of things. I have voted most often for D's because I hate the way the Republicans of my voting lifetime have exploited religion, morality and fear to win and justify an unsuccessful agenda. I hope the coming election will get us out of this political hell the whole country has been in since prob Vietnam.
|
| Posted: 27 Oct 2006 18:24 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 2018
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
We might find ourselves agreeing in a lot of areas Danny, but the big difference is you seem to have a hostility toward religion that I think is created by some sort of personal reasons.
You seem to get really ticked off on religious issues for some reason. I just don't get it.
It is probably likely that there are politicians who exploit religion for their own gain, but is not also very likely the other side exploits atheism, gay rights, and all that other garbage for it's political power grabs?
What are we supposed to do? Automatically vote against any guy who says I believe in Jesus, because he must be a crook? Only a crook would mention religion. Could it be that there might actually be some sincere people out there? Has to be some honest folk running for office.
You didn't say anything about the quotes I found. Guess you missed them. Got to hear what you have to say about these.
“What students would learn in American schools above all is the religion of Jesus Christ.â€
--George Washington in a speech to the Delaware Indian Chiefs May 12, 1779
"To the character of hero and patriot, this good man added that of Christian. Although the greatest man upon earth, he disdained not to humble himself before his God and to trust in the mercies of Christ.â€
{Quote by Gunning Bedford, signer of the Constitution} I believe in reference to Washington
"It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and Bible."
"It is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favors." - Washington
"Is it necessary that any one should [ask], “Did General Washington avow himself to be a believer in Christianity?" As well may we question his patriotism, his heroic devotion to his country. His mottos were, "Deeds, not Words"; and, "For God and my Country." {Quote by Nelly Custis-Lewis, Washington's adopted daughter}
"I leave you, hoping that the lamp of liberty will burn in your bosoms until there shall no longer be a doubt that all men are created free and equal." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume II, "Speech at Chicago, Illinois" (July 10, 1858 ) , p. 502. - Seems to me without this particular line of reasoning that there would be no freedom in America. What would Lincoln say today that we were all evolved equally?
__________________
|
| Posted: 27 Oct 2006 18:31 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 2018
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
Oh yeah if you were wondering I voted for the governor Democrat because the last republican governor tried to create a state income tax in TN. We have been fortunate enough to avoid it.
The latest Republican didn't even have as much as one commercial that I could see so I guessed that he must not be all that great either. The Democrat didn't mess things up too bad around here so I figured might as well vote for him.
The Demon thing was just a joke I use against my Democrat buddy. He won't admit but the main reason he's a Democrat is because his daddy was a democrat and his daddy was a democrat and on and on. I know his dad big, big Democrat. My friend even talks about trying to pull his party back to conservative ideas somehow. He's actually gotten into this political stuff going to rallies and all that stuff. But you just can't get him to consider being a Republican. That would go against his geneology.
He does admit however that no matter what he's not voting for Hilary. Thank God even heridity isn't strong enough to overcome his sense of logic and morality. As he says she will only create more devisiveness in America.
__________________
|
| Posted: 27 Oct 2006 21:22 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 264
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
I'm on limited time here- thats why I haven't gotten back to you on the Washington quotes.
Check this out. You said the Democrats didn't have a plan soooooo: http://www.planforiraq.com/
I'll answer the rest sooner or later. There's a lot going on around here.
|
| Posted: 28 Oct 2006 00:08 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 2018
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
|
Quote:
Keep Iraq together by giving its major groups breathing room in their own regions. - planforiraq.com
Don't know if that would make a difference reading it , it sounds like they think they can reason with the guys that are doing all the shooting. I don't think they are going to be all that reasonable seeing as how they like to shoot their own countrymen and all.
Quote:
Increase, not end, reconstruction assistance but insist that the oil-rich Arab Gulf states fund it and tie it to the creation of a massive jobs program and to the protection of minority rights. Now that would be nice if they would do that. Never hurts to ask, but I'm not sure they are going to go for it.
All in all sounds like they just want to split the country up and make peace agreements. That has about as much chance of working as Bush's actions, maybe. It all hinges on whether or not you can stop the wack jobs from killing one another. I'm not sure I'm confident that this plan takes into account the possiblity of just complete unreasonableness of certain terrorist groups in that area that might not want to play ball with anything.
They have a government and a Constitution. Isn't the problem wacko terrorist coming into the region that are causing most of the violence. How is seperarting the country going to stop that?
I'm asking now, not arguing this point. Just want to know what you think.
__________________
|
| Posted: 28 Oct 2006 10:18 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 264
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
Well, we're chosing between bad options in Iraq. If something is unlikely because it depends on good will in the Middle East, we should have thought of that before we went there. More on that in a minute.
Your friend could be a democrat ONLY because he believes in certain things for which they stand. But no offense, that is most likely not the case for you, me or him. We all were taught this stuff by somebody. We can only try to learn past the biases of our first teachers.
Of course, with the exception of Reagan Democrats and FDR Republicans, both subjects of political paradigm shifts, people do get very tribal about political parties in the US. Its too bad, but thats how it is. Washington, since we're talking about him, warned against this, but he might as well have tried to hold back the ocean. I ABSOLUTELY believe that political parties got us into the stupid decision to invade Iraq and are now forcing us to lose for lack of a reasonable plan. All we are generally presented with is a false choice between irrational extremes.
About the Democrats in the White House, if HClinton is the nominee then there is the potential for me to have a very VERY tough day in Nov 2008. I just hope McCain can get through the Republican primary without making me hold my nose too much. I'm bracing myself.
Look, she has some good points (married to smartest/horniest successful person of his generation) and is by no means as bad as Bush but she is probably the last person I would hope to run in 08. I wanted Mark Warner but he's out. Next, maybe Evan Byah (sp?) will get over his odd last name and lack of momentum. People I know and care less about are all third.
Since we're talking about him, Biden himself is a longshot. He's practical, he's generally a good guy and he has the balls like nobody since Johnson (terrible, terrible pun). Unfortunatly however, he is a multiple term senator (unelectable) from Delaware- the blandness and short on electoral votes Capital of the east coast. Also, something about he stupidly plaugerized Winston Churchill in a speech or something. I can't remember. Also his hair is weird, and that can become a liability- no, I'm serious. Bush gets a lot of milage out of normal looking hair. He'd be at %4 if he looked like Cheney. Biden should not be taking notes from Trump on this issue.
But on to Iraq. Well, here's the thing- what we're doing just isn't working. I don't care if someone is Bush 43's blood relative (41), Laura or Barney, one has got to admit the guy has led us into a bad spot. It is getting worse the longer we stay on this disasterous course. Even James Baker has been called into to unveil a secret plan AFTER the election. (Never mind who dies until then...).
So, you know I don't agree with W on this thing at all. What you might not know is that I think the prevailing democrat voter plan (to bail, fast as possible) is not AS bad as this no-plan strategy of W's- but it completely ignores our moral debt to the Iraqis, our living troops, our dead troops, our maimed troops and it doesn't plan for the future AT ALL. Somebody in that +50% that wanted us to go is now in that +50% that wants to bail and these people should be doing a lot of soul searching.
The worst thing about just leaving is its impractical thinking, before anything else has been tried. We can't just pray that Iraq will suddenly have the good sense to forget how they were killing each other and totally reject the influence of the Death to America gang. Somehow, some Americans have convinced themselves that if we leave the Sunnis to Bin Laden and the Shitte's to Iran- while both are fighting over oil- that everything will be cool. Retarded.
So FINALLY to answer your questions:
I do not think our problem is a migration of terrorists as if Iraq even needed new people to be mad about things. Maybe that was an issue in the first two years when W did not plan to secure the borders (#1 requirement of a nation state), but anybody who wanted in is there by now. Besides- the problem is the homegrown hate.
The history of Iraq is full of contempt for foreign invaders. Believe it or not, Iraq matches the Biblical description of the Garden of Eden, so if you take nothing else away from that- we know people have been running around in there for a long time and fighting over it. Only God knows why.
So since whenever, they've delt with Macedonians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs, Persians, Turks, the British and then most famously- us and the British again. As you might imagine- THEIR story doesn't begin with this constitution, it begins with everyone having a contempt for somebody depending upon which Iraqi we're talking about. Worse, the stated policy of British colonialism was to make the LEAST powerful group the leaders- so they would always want the Brits to stay. Thats how Saddam's brand of Sunni- who lives on no oil and is the smallest group, was keeping a tight lid on the place with extreme violence. They knew if they let up, they'd be exterminated. That may be coming no matter what now.
I know it is tempting to only see certain actions as evil or crazy. Saddam or Bin laden are always called "evil" or "madmen" or both. Ok- but their followers at one point were just normal people and somehow were conviced the same of US. Calling anyone who has been giving us trouble there "terrorists" was using the wrong label. The "terrorist" label was an attempt to tie this thing to Bin Laden without saying so. That doesn't make the insurgents victims or angels, but at least they have a motive we can work with, unlike Al-Quaeda. If we don't work with that motive, the enitre country turns against us.
The problem now is that every time we shoot an Iraqi uncle or father or cousin or whoever for trying to blow up our people or for killing eath other, we get 5 more people who want revenge on us. So you can see where this has got to stop and we are ill equiped to do so.
Unfortunately, it isn't as cut and dry as a constitution in global politics. This plan gives a detailed acount of how we could split up the groups doing the fighting and keep them away from each other. By doing so in partnership with other countries in that region, even Iran and Syria- we can initiate what all people REALLY want deep down, a better future for their kids. We just try to take their contempt for each other (AND US) out of the equation. Also, by staying in some capacity- we can make sure the influence of other states is POSITIVE, not the harmful stuff we'd get if we leave OR stay on the current course. It might tie them up in something other than various hate America projects.
Just like you can't reason with little kids fighting, we've got to do our best to separate the two, get some fake apologies out of everybody and send them to different parts of the house to cool off. Will Al-Queada try to complicate this? Don't they always? I won't be any worse than what they're doing now, or what they would do if we just leave.
So I think this is the best we've got. It was actually what I was hoping for before I heard Biden and Jim Webb pushing it. I considered it when I was thinking about previous intractable situations and remembered what we did with Germany after WWII. Not that this is the same, but it might work in a different way. I bet that when Baker unveils his plan it is very similar.
|
| Posted: 28 Oct 2006 16:14 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 2018
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
Ok I respect the fact you believe it's the best we got, to the point I won't even argue with you on it.
But I still am not going to bash Bush for his approach either. Just call me somewhere in the middle of this at this point.
Here's the question, and I don't think anybody can honestly say unless they are time travelers and have seen alternate time lines, what would our crazy post 911 world be like if we had never went to Iraq?
Nobody expected 911. It couldn't have been predicted at least by your average American. I know I didn't see it coming. That day I actually feared for the sake of the entire country. I left work early and got in touch with my wife to come home too. It was scary stuff.
I just don't see how anyone can emphatically without any doubt say that Bush's plan of attack was unreasonable with the information he had available at the time. Even now I still think it makes sense to engage the enemy overseas instead of here. At least we have a foothold over in their world. We need to continually look at the info we have and go from there. Even you admit we can't turn tail and run.
I'm all for getting Iraq to police itself, but you know I think there is a lot of corruption over there.
Here you will disagree with me, but the only hope a country filled with violence can change is if the hearts of the people change. I think they need the gospel of Christ, personally. They need a non-violent outlook on life like turning the other cheek, and loving your neighbor as yourself.
The cycle of revenge has to be broken somehow.
Maybe we should just readdress what value Iraq is to us set up a base of military operations for military purposes and start working on getting the Iraqis involved in commerce. Get them too busy working to kill each other. Just get the troops out of the direct line of fire, and plant seeds for economic development and wait it out.
__________________
|
| Posted: 28 Oct 2006 22:14 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 264
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
But neither 9/11, nor the post 9/11 era has anything to do with Iraq. We have got to get past that to move forward and win this war. They are different things, no matter how bad the President wishes they were connected. If we live in a different era now than we did (that is almost certainly so) it has a lot more to do with the 2003 invasion.
Unfortunately, too much is also made of this "new era". Most Americans think they are touched by this stuff, but in reality they are only touched by a harsher news report every day. Only the city of New York and the families of our military people have actually expereinced a change (other than fear) since 2001.
Honestly Tim, and I know this goes against everything everyone in the mainstream, left wing and right wing media has told us thus far but 9/11 was a pretty isolated incident. I know we should never forget, but not letting it dominate our thoughts completely would be the best thing we could do- so we ould develop some clear fixes for all this stuff. Now bear in mind this is not to minimize the loss of people on 9/11, nor to say we shouldn't watch out to prevent another one, it is about formulaing a clear strategy. Try to keep an open mind.
Ya gotta figure:
*On 9/11, somewhere around 3,000 people died.
*About 3,500 will die in car crashes each month, even this month, everywhere in the country- not just NYC.
*Waaaaay more people have died in Iraq. We'll be crossing the 3,000 mark for just our soldiers soon, with no end in sight.
*Though 9/11 proved it can be done, it is still extremely hard for foreign terrorists to hit US soil- last time was the unsuccessful WTC bombing in 1993.
*Bin Laden's own people thought such a blatant attack was a dumb idea. They didn't want the full fury of the US on them to begin with. His own son left the organization, thinking it was as huge blunder.
*Bin Laden's entire justification for attacking us was Muslim anger regarding military bases in Islamic holy land. By fighting a war there with an unnconnected country, we make him look right to the average muslim. Its no longer about them attacking first and us doing the only reasonable thing. Now it looks like we were just waiting for an excuse to go colonial.
You wanted to know why I find Bush's reasoning to go to Iraq is so bad. Here's what I knew in 2003 that was readily available to everyone to see, but was overridden by 9/11 fervor:
*For a nation to attack the US with a nuke by conventional measure, they need an Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile (ICBM). Only the 5 nations on the UN security council have these plus maybe Israel. We are concerned that North Korea might develop one. Saddam could work for the rest of his life and not figure it out. It just wasn't doable for him. Not even the Bush folks bought it us as a possibility.
*Second Strike Capability would prevent Saddam from attacking the US, just like it did the Russians. Even if he ever could have develop one ICBM, he would be annihhiated just for having it, to say nothing of launching it.
*There is no benifit for Saddam to fund, celebrate, or participate in a terrorist attack on the US for any reason. If he did help and didn't take credit, he gets nothing but the risk that we might find out and nuke him. If he did help and did take credit, we destroy him with a nuke. When Condi Rice used the term "Mushroom Cloud" to describe the possibility of Saddam attacking us, since she's a professor of international relations, I knew she was lying.
also:
*Iraq has always been trouble to govern and nation building is a bitch. I knew then that these three groups would begin jockying for power and oil. Anybody who has read any history of the middle east knows that.
*7 out of 10 americans at the time thought 9/11 was caused by Saddam. With this sort of mass misconception, how could they make a good decision? Bush has waited until 2006 to publicly state that Saddam had nothing to do with it.
By attacking Iraq, we gain neither a foothold, nor do we prevent terrorism here. Since the 2003 invasion, 9/11 style bombings have occured in the UK and Spain and almost occured over the Atlantic. the war in Iraq did nothing to deter these, in fact since the countries hit were part of the coalition, one can only assume they were a response to the invasion. It doesn't matter if we try to "keep them busy". Al-Quaeda fighters can leave Iraq whenver they feel like it and the place stays the same, then come back and attack again if they like. We're the ones who can't leave. Furthermore, if we keep up our bad image to the common Iraqi, who knows for damn sure that he didn't cause our 9/11, then we make Bin Laden seem correct to them.
So with all that in mind, what would my response to 9/11 have been- without knowing anything that I know now? Fight terrorism WITH terrorism. We buy off SOMEBODY, any desperate Middle Easterner or desperate Middle Eastern government, to get in good with Al-Quaeda, walk up to Bin Laden calmly and put a bullet in his brain. We send Delta Force in the middle of the night to kill him. We establish nearby bases and carpet bomb the hell out of every suspected location. Somehow, the common nut manages to kill our leaders here all the time in the face of the best security money can buy- I see no reason why we couldn't do that to him.
And the difference? Bin Laden wasn't the leader of a state, so there is no mass chaos after he dies. Al-Queda members would also be hunted down and recruiting others to their cause as marked men would be nearly impossible.
Of course, we'd have to also make sure this didn't happen again. So we offer massive education funds to countries willing to renounce terrorism, islamic fundamentalism and military buildup. We invest in massive security programs here. We do everything we can to get off of oil. We'd gain valuable trade partners, goods get cheaper, and save untold trillions by having our own energy source. Of course we'd make money off that too- since the rest of the world would want our technolgy.
But thats the past and there's nothing we can do about it now.
Funny you should say that about getting everyone working. I like your thinking. In 2004 I researched and presented a lecture about the Iraqi economy and why it was in terrible shape. Because our idealouge president tried to take Iraq's state run autonamous ecnomy and turn it into a tax free, lassiez-faire corporate paradise overnight, every Iraqi business had shut down and they were all out of work. Iraq was running itself in 2002, as it had to because of the sanctions, but it looks like the great depression there now from an economic standpoint. I didn't know at the time that Bush had appointed a 24 year old campaign worker to rebuild the Iraqi stock market, but I did know that Al-Sader's militia traded their AK-47's for money once the Americans overed them a check.
When we sent in Halliburton not just to help our troops but also to rebuild Iraq, we KILLED their economy. They make a lot of cement there, but we imported (way costlier) our own people and cement to make the Bremmer walls that surround the green zone. iraqi cement plants have had nothing to do and sit empty. The people there are all out of work, since you might say consumer confidence there is at an all time low.
So the solution we both are proposing is a "New Deal" program for Iraq. I'm not saying that government and business always mix, but when an economy falls off the map- thats what it is good for. We pay Iraqis to do every job we can think of- building roads is always good- as far from Baghdad as possible. We invest in their small businesses. We pray it works.
As for your plan of wait it out- I'm not gonna go for that though. Iraq has been a mess since pre-history, so I'm not going to wait around for them to suddenly like each other. This is why I proposed the Biden plan, which would work perfectly with the economic innitative. We separate the place along the ethnic and regional lines already there, promise the Sunnis at least a cut of the oil and get them focused on economic, not violent competition. This is in stark contrast to the unrealistic pushing of straight democracy on these people, which they clearly were not ready for.
Now all that being said, these are grown people over there Tim. Its gonna be hard enough to change their ideas about not fighting and building up the country instead. If you want to go over as a missionary and try to change their religion, thats cool with me, but I think you're going to meet a lot more resistance than I've ever given you. There have been Christians in Iraq for 2000 years but they are getting the hell out. We should prob leave religion out of this one.
|
|
|
