The Iraqi Elections

[Guest MikeSC]

The only salient point I can attack in the Allawi one: There is so little information and proof on that rumor, how can you really believe it? How do you know it was in cold blood? Seriously, if they were caught fighting against coalition forces and admit to it, that's treason, punishable by death. The article in question (If I remember it well enough, since it was pretty damn vague) never said if there was already a trial or not, nor did they actually have proof that it happened.

 

It's been widely reported. Maybe I should have said "accused" rather than impying that it was fact, given witness testimony, it all seems very likely.

 

Allawi Shot Inmates in Cold Blood, Say Witnesses

 

Allawi shot prisoners in cold blood: witnesses

 

Did Allawi Shoot Inmates in Cold Blood?

 

Govt should explain Allawi claims: Brown

 

I'm not saying it's "America's fault" but rather noting their track record for being largely hypocritical. In this case the so-called endorsement of human rights. You can't scream 'human rights' while condoning and participating in it. Or as people like Mike would have many to believe, bombing a third world country that poses no immediate threat as the equivalent of bombing Germany in World War II. Human rights is such a lovely justification.

Given witness testimony? You mean two anonymous sources? Yeah, THAT sounds really credible.

 

No chance of a story generated by anonymous sources possibly going south, eh?

 

But, hey, allegations are MUCH worse than actual reality.

-=Mike

[Justice 0]

It's been widely reported. Maybe I should have said "accused" rather than impying that it was fact, given witness testimony, it all seems very likely.

 

Allawi Shot Inmates in Cold Blood, Say Witnesses

 

Allawi shot prisoners in cold blood: witnesses

 

Did Allawi Shoot Inmates in Cold Blood?

 

Govt should explain Allawi claims: Brown

I do find it somewhat funny that a large majority of those sites are Australian. At any rate, the story died in about 2 days because the claim is based on two eye witnesses who we know nothing about (And therefore makes it hard for me to trust their motives or even the culpability of them actually WITNESSING such a crime) and nothing else. If they could offer up like, some actual proof, I'd be okay. Of course, that has yet to happen. *Awaits conspiratorial response about other witnesses being hushed up*

 

I'm not saying it's "America's fault" but rather noting their track record for being largely hypocritical. In this case the so-called endorsement of human rights. You can't scream 'human rights' while condoning and participating in it. Or as people like Mike would have many to believe, bombing a third world country that poses no immediate threat as the equivalent of bombing Germany in World War II.  Human rights is such a lovely justification.

 

See, I love this. Once again, you try using flawed logic.

 

So, apparently, fighting a war immediately makes us human rights offenders. I can understand that people die in war, but just because we wage war (Or, just bomb third world countries for fun, as you delightfully pointed out) does not mean that we are human rights offenders. In all honesty, it's stupidity: We go in and stop Saddam, a huge human rights villian, and we are suddenly as bad as he is? What? Seriously, with the massive scandals in the UN dealing with Iraq (That you seem to love to ignore when talking about the huge imperialistic hegemony that the US is apparently forcing upon the world), how else could we have resolved the situation? Saddam hadn't changed since the Gulf War: The Duelfur report tells us this NUMEROUS times. How else are we supposed to deal with him, especially when he has puppets like Russia and France on the Security Council for him?

 

This is insane. With all your babblings of a New World Order and that the World should have a say in our politics, you honestly seem to have no grasp of how things actually work in the reality and how things are actually done. To tell you the truth, you are becoming pretty cliche.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

((We go in and stop Saddam, a huge human rights villian, and we are suddenly as bad as he is? What? Seriously, with the massive scandals in the UN dealing with Iraq (That you seem to love to ignore when talking about the huge imperialistic hegemony that the US is apparently forcing upon the world), how else could we have resolved the situation?))

 

I think that if the administration would have "framed" the war as removal of a human rights villain then the war would have been much more widely accepted. Instead, the war was justified on grounds that Iraq was a huge, immediate threat with close ties to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The "removal of a human rights villain" justification was sort of introduced after the fact.

[Guest MikeSC]

((We go in and stop Saddam, a huge human rights villian, and we are suddenly as bad as he is? What? Seriously, with the massive scandals in the UN dealing with Iraq (That you seem to love to ignore when talking about the huge imperialistic hegemony that the US is apparently forcing upon the world), how else could we have resolved the situation?))

 

I think that if the administration would have "framed" the war as removal of a human rights villain then the war would have been much more widely accepted. Instead, the war was justified on grounds that Iraq was a huge, immediate threat with close ties to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The "removal of a human rights villain" justification was sort of introduced after the fact.

Actually, human rights was one of the big justifications Bush used here. He didn't use it with the UN because, clearly, they would not have given two shits.

 

And the phrase "immediate threat" was never used by Bush. He, in fact, said that the day Saddam becomes an imminent threat, we'll see mushroom clouds. We can't AFFORD for him to become one.

-=Mike

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

((Actually, human rights was one of the big justifications Bush used here. He didn't use it with the UN because, clearly, they would not have given two shits.

 

And the phrase "immediate threat" was never used by Bush. He, in fact, said that the day Saddam becomes an imminent threat, we'll see mushroom clouds. We can't AFFORD for him to become one.

-=Mike ))

 

There was still a strong implication that we were in immediate danger. Perhaps the public should have been more savvy and recognized that Bush was not saying these things explicitly though. I think Bush's rhetoric was misleading.

 

I would agree that we could not afford to let Saddam become such a threat, though. But haven't reports shown that the sanctions were doing a pretty good job of keeping him from becoming such a threat?

[Guest MikeSC]

((Actually, human rights was one of the big justifications Bush used here. He didn't use it with the UN because, clearly, they would not have given two shits.

 

And the phrase "immediate threat" was never used by Bush. He, in fact, said that the day Saddam becomes an imminent threat, we'll see mushroom clouds. We can't AFFORD for him to become one.

-=Mike ))

 

There was still a strong implication that we were in immediate danger. Perhaps the public should have been more savvy and recognized that Bush was not saying these things explicitly though. I think Bush's rhetoric was misleading.

 

I would agree that we could not afford to let Saddam become such a threat, though. But haven't reports shown that the sanctions were doing a pretty good job of keeping him from becoming such a threat?

No. Sanctions were routinely violated by Saddam for years and the UN was all too happy to do nothing about it. He also intended to resume his WMD programs when the sanctions were lifted, something France, Germany, and Russia all favored.

-=Mike

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

((No. Sanctions were routinely violated by Saddam for years and the UN was all too happy to do nothing about it. He also intended to resume his WMD programs when the sanctions were lifted, something France, Germany, and Russia all favored.

-=Mike ))

 

"According to Duelfer, the UN inspections regime put an "economic strangle hold" on Hussein that prevented him from developing a WMD program for more than twelve years."

 

Source: Los Angeles Times

 

Perhaps we would have been better off focusing on the "War on Terror" proper and then deal with Saddam if and when he actually tried to resume his WMD programs. Nation building on two seperate fronts is proving difficult and our forces are being spread thin.

 

I think the Duelfer report kind of justifies Kerry's "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time" critique of the war.

 

On a side note, do you think it is irresponsible of us to continue to cut taxes when we are engaged in two wars?

[Guest GreatOne]

"According to Duelfer, the UN inspections regime put an "economic strangle hold" on Hussein that prevented him from developing a WMD program for more than twelve years."

 

Source: Los Angeles Times

Note the cute little quotes around it.

 

Perhaps we would have been better off focusing on the "War on Terror" proper and then deal with Saddam if and when he actually tried to resume his WMD programs.  Nation building on two seperate fronts is proving difficult and our forces are being spread thin.

 

Saddam was/is part of the War on Terror like it or not via his support and harboring of AQ and similar cells.

 

I think the Duelfer report kind of justifies Kerry's "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time" critique of the war.

 

How can Iraq be the 'wrong war' when even you speculate we would have had to deal with him later? And who knows if we get the next Carter in the WH and this becomes an even BIGGER problem than now? Gotta think long-term here.

 

As pointed out before, Clinton used Bush Sr. not pursuing Saddam to HAMMER him in the '92 debates. Every interview with Bush Sr thereafter over the years usually had two whiny 'Why didn't you go get Saddam' questions (especially if you remember the Bernard Shaw interview), and military action in Iraq actually WAS US policy even before Bush came in, hell Mr. 'Wrong war-place-time' even signed the 'plea for military action'. Which btw was originated by the raving lunatic Gore (in reference to his 'speech' back in May, on my birthday no less)

 

On a side note, do you think it is irresponsible of us to continue to cut taxes when we are engaged in two wars?

 

Well which is it? All the Clinton fanboys (including MTV) used Bush Sr's 'Read my lips' quote against him. Now CUTTING taxes is wrong all the sudden?

 

Mind you, the people who used 'read my lips' ad nauseum weren't interested in the Gulf War going on as rationale, the same that's being used now about why lowering taxes is 'irresponsible'

[Guest MikeSC]

((No. Sanctions were routinely violated by Saddam for years and the UN was all too happy to do nothing about it. He also intended to resume his WMD programs when the sanctions were lifted, something France, Germany, and Russia all favored.

-=Mike ))

 

"According to Duelfer, the UN inspections regime put an "economic strangle hold" on Hussein that prevented him from developing a WMD program for more than twelve years."

 

Source: Los Angeles Times

 

Perhaps we would have been better off focusing on the "War on Terror" proper and then deal with Saddam if and when he actually tried to resume his WMD programs. Nation building on two seperate fronts is proving difficult and our forces are being spread thin.

 

I think the Duelfer report kind of justifies Kerry's "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time" critique of the war.

 

On a side note, do you think it is irresponsible of us to continue to cut taxes when we are engaged in two wars?

Umm, read up on the Oil-For-Food scandal, which Duelfur spells out in more than a little detail. We know that roughly $10B was skimmed off the money to go for bribes. We know that Saddam never lacked money and we know that he was striving to procure nuclear materials in Africa.

 

And, no, it's not irresponsible to cut taxes while at war. Economic growth is never irresponsible.

-=Mike

[cbacon 0]

edit: wrong thread.

[cbacon 0]

I do find it somewhat funny that a large majority of those sites are Australian. At any rate, the story died in about 2 days because the claim is based on two eye witnesses who we know nothing about (And therefore makes it hard for me to trust their motives or even the culpability of them actually WITNESSING such a crime) and nothing else. If they could offer up like, some actual proof, I'd be okay. Of course, that has yet to happen. *Awaits conspiratorial response about other witnesses being hushed up*

 

Well, while your theory of a 'lone article' pretaining to the issue was debunked, of course believing that such a story could hold some merit would prove contradictory to Iraq's 'democratic' puppet regieme, so i'm not surprised it gets no sold. Either way, it's a matter of opinion on how much of this story we want to believe, obviously there will be some bias given our political differences.

 

So, apparently, fighting a war immediately makes us human rights offenders. I can understand that people die in war, but just because we wage war (Or, just bomb third world countries for fun, as you delightfully pointed out) does not mean that we are human rights offenders.

 

Fighting a war with an ever-changing objective that has caused no resolve for the citizens of Iraq, while tens of thousands of civilians are killed is a huge human rights offence. Had the war been justifiable then you could say that they didn't die in vain.

 

In all honesty, it's stupidity: We go in and stop Saddam, a huge human rights villian, and we are suddenly as bad as he is? What? Seriously, with the massive scandals in the UN dealing with Iraq (That you seem to love to ignore when talking about the huge imperialistic hegemony that the US is apparently forcing upon the world), how else could we have resolved the situation? Saddam hadn't changed since the Gulf War: The Duelfur report tells us this NUMEROUS times. How else are we supposed to deal with him, especially when he has puppets like Russia and France on the Security Council for him?

 

But the justification for removing Saddam and invasion of Iraq was the 'war on terror'. In other words, to remove an imminent threat, one of which showed no signs of posing a threat towards the US, notwithstanding the whole WMD fiasco. It should also be pointed out that Saddam was less of a threat in 2003, than he was in 1998. . Murder is murder. Just because thousands died under Saddams regieme doesn't make it any less of a crime than being killed via US air strikes.

 

The UN maybe guilty in their dealings, but dosen't override the fact the US occupation of Iraq has not proven worthwhile except for the US themselves. Saddam, or not. It's ironic that many of the Iraqi's that are fighting against the US are the one's that cheered Saddam's capture. Seems like the same old in Iraq, fighting off a nother occupier of their country. You have to wonder what these intentions are when discussions of invading Iraq occur merely a day after 9/11.

 

 

This is insane. With all your babblings of a New World Order and that the World should have a say in our politics, you honestly seem to have no grasp of how things actually work in the reality and how things are actually done. To tell you the truth, you are becoming pretty cliche.

 

To tell you the truth, i'm not trying to convince you. You can talk about reality, but if reality is that of a repeated lie solidified as belief, then its an improper use of it's context. The fact that many have no grasp of coming to terms with the fact that they just may have been duped in a society of 'free thinkers' is a serious epedemic.

 

No matter how direct or obvious, the knee jerk reaction that cries 'lunacy' won't be far behind. It won't take convincing by anyone, but to witness it first hand. The New World Order thread, speficially makes note of Dick Cheney and co's intentions for future Middle East endevaours and even uses an event like 9/11 as a pre-text for imperialism. You don't need me to tell you this though. Nothing in that doctrine has anything to do with the world events of today now does it? The world vote article has conveniently been taken of taken context, and i've explained it numerous times, so i need not say anything more about it. You can prefer to live in a dream world rather than comes to terms that you've been had, after all, it's much easier that way.

[Justice 0]

I do find it somewhat funny that a large majority of those sites are Australian. At any rate, the story died in about 2 days because the claim is based on two eye witnesses who we know nothing about (And therefore makes it hard for me to trust their motives or even the culpability of them actually WITNESSING such a crime) and nothing else. If they could offer up like, some actual proof, I'd be okay. Of course, that has yet to happen. *Awaits conspiratorial response about other witnesses being hushed up*

 

Well, while your theory of a 'lone article' pretaining to the issue was debunked, of course believing that such a story could hold some merit would prove contradictory to Iraq's 'democratic' puppet regieme, so i'm not surprised it gets no sold. Either way, it's a matter of opinion on how much of this story we want to believe, obviously there will be some bias given our political differences.

Huh? What are you talking about? It's the exact same article for each one, basically. The report was given to one reporter and was never able to be confirmed. It doesn't matter how many different papers report it, since in all essence each article has the exact same info (or lack thereof). Two shady witnesses who refuse to reveal their identity does not a very believable story make. But hey, it appeared all over for about a day befoer the press dropped it, right? That makes for something... right?

 

Fighting a war with an ever-changing objective that has caused no resolve for the citizens of Iraq, while tens of thousands of civilians are killed is a huge human rights offence. Had the war been justifiable then you could say that they didn't die in vain.

 

...

 

Jesus, is it that hard to say "We are fighting for a democratic Iraq?" Of course the objective changes after we won the ground war; rebuilding is a much different process than simple fighting. I wouldn't call that 'ever-changing' objective.

 

Perhaps I don't see many more objectives outside "Helping stabilize Iraq to become a functioning democracy". Maybe you could name a few of them that wouldn't fall under that one?

 

But the justification for removing Saddam and invasion of Iraq was the 'war on terror'. In other words, to remove an imminent threat, one of which showed no signs of posing a threat towards the US, notwithstanding the whole WMD fiasco. It should also be pointed out that Saddam was less of a threat in 2003, than he was in 1998. . Murder is murder. Just because thousands died under Saddams regieme doesn't make it any less of a crime than being killed via US air strikes.

 

See, this is hilarious. The justification for removing Saddam was completely justified by WMDs at the time: No other agency in the world said that Saddam didn't have weapons pre-war. If you can find something that says so, please, bring it up. I doubt you will, though. Most of the info itself came from the UN and their previous inspections.

 

So... I suppose that we were the murders back in WWII, right? And Korea? And Kosovo? Yeah... that makes sense.

 

No, wait, it doesn't. Murder isn't simply murder. The death of a human being during war to save a civilian life, in the minds of most normal people, is a completely justifiable thing. The fact that you can't see that a soldier killing an insurgent isn't murder is idiotic, nor that you don't understand that accidents that occur during war aren't murder either shows how out of touch with reality you really are: If someone on a slick highway accidentally lost control and hit another car, killing someone, are they truly a murder? No. No intent and there was no control over the incident. The same can be said many, many times in war: Through no fault of their own, soldiers may inadvertantly kill a civilian. Faulty intelligence on a bombing run, accidentally shooting someone who suddenly pops out of a car with a camera mistaking it for an RPG. Seriously, if you call those murder, then I honestly can't take you seriously anymore.

 

The UN maybe guilty in their dealings, but dosen't override the fact the US occupation of Iraq has not proven worthwhile except for the US themselves. Saddam, or not. It's ironic that many of the Iraqi's that are fighting against the US are the one's that cheered Saddam's capture. Seems like the same old in Iraq, fighting off a nother occupier of their country. You have to wonder what these intentions are when discussions of invading Iraq occur merely a day after 9/11.

 

?

 

The Iraqis are having the first democratic elections ever. Many Iraqis believe while it may be hard right now, that in the long run Iraq will be much better off than it was before under Saddam. The Iraqis believe they are honestly on a better path than they were before.

 

I bolded the one part because that's basically a lie. Many of the insurgents right now are foreigners from other countries. The Iraqi insurgents themselves have been fighting us the entire time. To say that they cheered when we brought down Saddam and then turned on us isn't very true at all: If they are fighting against us now, they likely supported Saddam before or was from out of country.

 

How have we benefitted? Have we been pipping oil to an 'undisclosed location' this entire time? We haven't benefitted. If anyone, the Iraqi people have benefitted more than the US as a whole.

 

To tell you the truth, i'm not trying to convince you.

 

That's reassuring, because you frankly are horrible at making arguments.

 

You can talk about reality, but if reality is that of a repeated lie solidified as belief, then its an improper use of it's context.

 

Yeah, I know. That's generally why I DON'T believe you.

 

The fact that many have no grasp of coming to terms with the fact that they just may have been duped in a society of 'free thinkers' is a serious epedemic.

 

I'm sorry, I've have the wool pulled over my eyes this entire time. Yes, I'm not a free thinker, I'm yet another capitalist slave owned by the corporations and sold at business meetings. Thank you oh so very much for such an enlightenment.

 

Or, maybe, I'm not. Maybe you are too concerned with finding some sort of underlying conspiracy with your inane views that you've truly lost your grasp on the reality of the situation. Your hatred of America is pretty damn obvious, and it really colors your views pretty badly.

 

No matter how direct or obvious, the knee jerk reaction that cries 'lunacy' won't be far behind.

 

You know that the 'knee-jerk reaction' quote IS a knee-jerk reaction, right?

 

Probably not, but lets continue anyways.

 

It won't take convincing by anyone, but to witness it first hand.

 

Yeah, I'll remember that you were right all along when I'm in my food line serving the man. Thanks a bunch!

 

The New World Order thread, speficially makes note of Dick Cheney and co's intentions for future Middle East endevaours and even uses an event like 9/11 as a pre-text for imperialism.

 

Of course, that's you using your hatred of the Bush administration to completely twist whatever honest intentions for good completely out of it. You watch so many of your own propaganda that you have to believe that obviously Cheney and the rest are trying to subvert the world to a consumer-slave economy when, perhaps, they would rather the US actively use their military and policy power to better the world.

 

Naw, too much of a stretch, eh?

 

You don't need me to tell you this though.

 

Then why do you CONSTANTLY tell me this?

 

Nothing in that doctrine has anything to do with the world events of today now does it?

 

Now that you've completely twisted it so that it lacks the basis of truth anymore, yeah, I'd say so.

 

Then again, you think that Michael Moore makes good points, ask us to debunk it, do so, and then simply scan the article dismissively saying 'I'm sure it's the same stuff' without actually READING it. Who doesn't want to see here?

 

The world vote article has conveniently been taken of taken context, and i've explained it numerous times, so i need not say anything more about it.

 

It's not as though you haven't taken anything that could have a very shady accuracy and used it for your own needs. Oh wait, this entire thread has examples of that. My bad.

 

You can prefer to live in a dream world rather than comes to terms that you've been had, after all, it's much easier that way.

 

Yeah, I'll live in dream world while you fight the man! Go, freedom fighter, go!

 

No, wait... You're the one living in the dream world. A world where all the people who think differently of you obviously have been brainwashed by the government, where the United States always is doing something wrong and is hiding ulterior motives in some darkened room, and that the ultimate objective for the Bush Administration is to subvert the world into a bunch of slaves. Does this not sound a bit out there?

 

Seriously, where is fk_teale when you need him...

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Note the cute little quotes around it.

 

?

 

Saddam was/is part of the War on Terror like it or not via his support and harboring of AQ and similar cells.

 

This is pretty debatable. I think you're stating a somewhat rare opinion as fact. I guess a credible, accepted citation is in order to support this bold statement.

 

How can Iraq be the 'wrong war' when even you speculate we would have had to deal with him later? And who knows if we get the next Carter in the WH and this becomes an even BIGGER problem than now? Gotta think long-term here.

 

Lots of things and lots of people could become a problem later. Heck, I think the way Putin is seeking authoritarian control of Russia seems like it could become problematic later. I would suggest that we should focus on more immediate problems.

 

Well which is it? All the Clinton fanboys (including MTV) used Bush Sr's 'Read my lips' quote against him. Now CUTTING taxes is wrong all the sudden?

 

Mind you, the people who used 'read my lips' ad nauseum weren't interested in the Gulf War going on as rationale, the same that's being used now about why lowering taxes is 'irresponsible'

 

You didn't really address the problem. I am not a partisan--just someone who wants what's best for the country and the world. I understand what you're saying and I think attacking Bush Sr. over his tax policy may have been wrong. I just think continuing to cut taxes during expensive wars and when the deficit is high may be irresponsible. People used to sacrifice during wars. I don't feel as if we're being asked to sacrifice anything--sort of living in a fantasy world where we can fight wars and nation build and still lower taxes. I'm assuming you're a conservative--does this not strike you as fiscal irresponsibility?

[Guest MikeSC]

I do find it somewhat funny that a large majority of those sites are Australian. At any rate, the story died in about 2 days because the claim is based on two eye witnesses who we know nothing about (And therefore makes it hard for me to trust their motives or even the culpability of them actually WITNESSING such a crime) and nothing else. If they could offer up like, some actual proof, I'd be okay. Of course, that has yet to happen. *Awaits conspiratorial response about other witnesses being hushed up*

Well, while your theory of a 'lone article' pretaining to the issue was debunked, of course believing that such a story could hold some merit would prove contradictory to Iraq's 'democratic' puppet regieme, so i'm not surprised it gets no sold.

Dozens of articles with no new info, nor any corroboration, isn't exactly a groundswell of info.

 

I was unaware that unfounded accusations made a regime a "puppet" regime, but hey, you have a hard-on for despotic regimes.

Either way, it's a matter of opinion on how much of this story we want to believe, obviously there will be some bias given our political differences.

I prefer to wait for, you know, evidence and corroboration.

 

If Powerplay and myself stated that Yassir Arafat raped donkeys, it wouldn't necessarily make it a fact.

So, apparently, fighting a war immediately makes us human rights offenders. I can understand that people die in war, but just because we wage war (Or, just bomb third world countries for fun, as you delightfully pointed out) does not mean that we are human rights offenders.

Fighting a war with an ever-changing objective that has caused no resolve for the citizens of Iraq, while tens of thousands of civilians are killed is a huge human rights offence. Had the war been justifiable then you could say that they didn't die in vain.

We fought to remove Saddam.

 

We did so.

 

Now we have to give Iraq a chance to serve as an actual gov't.

 

To leave them would be downright evil --- but I doubt the suffering of people of a darker hue than yourself would cause you any concern.

In all honesty, it's stupidity: We go in and stop Saddam, a huge human rights villian, and we are suddenly as bad as he is? What? Seriously, with the massive scandals in the UN dealing with Iraq (That you seem to love to ignore when talking about the huge imperialistic hegemony that the US is apparently forcing upon the world), how else could we have resolved the situation? Saddam hadn't changed since the Gulf War: The Duelfur report tells us this NUMEROUS times. How else are we supposed to deal with him, especially when he has puppets like Russia and France on the Security Council for him?

But the justification for removing Saddam and invasion of Iraq was the 'war on terror'.

Which is still quite accurate, shockingly enough.

 

Believe it or not, you can have multiple reasons to do something.

 

When we bailed out Europe and rebuilt their economies --- BTW, you're welcome for that --- we did it for a wide array of reasons.

In other words, to remove an imminent threat, one of which showed no signs of posing a threat towards the US, notwithstanding the whole WMD fiasco.

Never said he was an imminent threat. Man, the British press IS pretty shitty about reporting things.

 

And, personally, I don't see why Vladimir Putin would lie about Saddam having plans to attack us.

It should also be pointed out that Saddam was less of a threat in 2003, than he was in 1998. .

Come back with a real source, 'K?

Murder is murder. Just because thousands died under Saddams regieme doesn't make it any less of a crime than being killed via US air strikes.

So, the Brits were as bad as Hitler for killing Germans during WW II?

The UN maybe guilty in their dealings, but dosen't override the fact the US occupation of Iraq has not proven worthwhile except for the US themselves.

I suppose you'll list these benefits to the US, as they are not clear to any Americans...

Saddam, or not. It's ironic that many of the Iraqi's that are fighting against the US are the one's that cheered Saddam's capture.

And you can prove that, right?

Seems like the same old in Iraq, fighting off a nother occupier of their country.  You have to wonder what these intentions are when discussions of invading Iraq occur merely a day after 9/11.

Except they didn't. But, hey, you've been making shit up for a while now. This is par for the course.

This is insane. With all your babblings of a New World Order and that the World should have a say in our politics, you honestly seem to have no grasp of how things actually work in the reality and how things are actually done. To tell you the truth, you are becoming pretty cliche.

To tell you the truth, i'm not trying to convince you. You can talk about reality, but if reality is that of a repeated lie solidified as belief, then its an improper use of it's context.

Good lord, why does the European left have such a hard-on for Nazi comments? Is it the anti-Semitism that is so rampant that makes Hitler seem reasonable to the lot of you?

The fact that many have no grasp of coming to terms with the fact that they just may have been duped in a society of 'free thinkers' is a serious epedemic

Notice how you don't speak German? You're welcome for that. And funny that when WE are the biggest dog on the block, we don't feel the need to hold an empire over which the sun never sets, unlike a certain country whose leftists love to pretend has some moral superiority over us.

No matter how direct or obvious, the knee jerk reaction that cries 'lunacy' won't be far behind. It won't take convincing by anyone, but to witness it first hand. The New World Order thread, speficially makes note of Dick Cheney and co's intentions for future Middle East endevaours and even uses an event like 9/11 as a pre-text for imperialism.

Again, irony is a European referring to ANYBODY with power as "imperialist".

You don't need me to tell you this though. Nothing in that doctrine has anything to do with the world events of today now does it? The world vote article has conveniently been taken of taken context, and i've explained it numerous times, so i need not say anything more about it. You can prefer to live in a dream world rather than comes to terms that you've been had, after all, it's much easier that way.

No, you just make the same hackneyed European leftist cliches borne out of an utter lack of understanding of the world.

How can Iraq be the 'wrong war' when even you speculate we would have had to deal with him later? And who knows if we get the next Carter in the WH and this becomes an even BIGGER problem than now? Gotta think long-term here.

Lots of things and lots of people could become a problem later. Heck, I think the way Putin is seeking authoritarian control of Russia seems like it could become problematic later. I would suggest that we should focus on more immediate problems.

Um, we have WHAT right to try and stop Russia? If Iraq posed no threat to us, can you explain the over-powering threat Russia presents us?

Well which is it? All the Clinton fanboys (including MTV) used Bush Sr's 'Read my lips' quote against him. Now CUTTING taxes is wrong all the sudden?

 

Mind you, the people who used 'read my lips' ad nauseum weren't interested in the Gulf War going on as rationale, the same that's being used now about why lowering taxes is 'irresponsible'

You didn't really address the problem. I am not a partisan--just someone who wants what's best for the country and the world. I understand what you're saying and I think attacking Bush Sr. over his tax policy may have been wrong. I just think continuing to cut taxes during expensive wars and when the deficit is high may be irresponsible. People used to sacrifice during wars. I don't feel as if we're being asked to sacrifice anything--sort of living in a fantasy world where we can fight wars and nation build and still lower taxes. I'm assuming you're a conservative--does this not strike you as fiscal irresponsibility?

Because the left is so pussified that you can't ask them to sacrifice anything.

 

They demand that we scan ALL passengers on airplanes equally --- since, obviously, 90+-year old women are quite the terrorist threat.

 

The left lost its nerve to do anything with Vietnam. Ever since, they've simply become spineless jellyfish who need to be put to the side when the world needs adults.

-=Mike

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Um, we have WHAT right to try and stop Russia? If Iraq posed no threat to us, can you explain the over-powering threat Russia presents us?

 

I wasn't suggesting that we should try and stop Russia. I was just suggesting that an authoritarian Russia could become a problem down the road. Not an immediate threat--just as, arguably, Iraq was not an immediate threat.

 

Because the left is so pussified that you can't ask them to sacrifice anything.

 

They demand that we scan ALL passengers on airplanes equally --- since, obviously, 90+-year old women are quite the terrorist threat.

 

The left lost its nerve to do anything with Vietnam. Ever since, they've simply become spineless jellyfish who need to be put to the side when the world needs adults.

 

The political right is the side that is intent on cutting taxes during war presently. But the country as a whole is not sacrificing is what I was trying to say.

 

You kind of twisted a serious non-partisan question into an angry partisan diatribe. Your little blurb about scanning passengers on airplanes is tangentially related to the question at best.

 

How about we analyze questions on an issue-by-issue basis instead of as ideologues? As Rudolph Giulliani said, neither side has a monopoly on virtue.

[Guest MikeSC]

Um, we have WHAT right to try and stop Russia? If Iraq posed no threat to us, can you explain the over-powering threat Russia presents us?

I wasn't suggesting that we should try and stop Russia. I was just suggesting that an authoritarian Russia could become a problem down the road. Not an immediate threat--just as, arguably, Iraq was not an immediate threat.

When Russia begins paying terrorists and planning to attack us, then yes, we'll deal with them.

Because the left is so pussified that you can't ask them to sacrifice anything.

 

They demand that we scan ALL passengers on airplanes equally --- since, obviously, 90+-year old women are quite the terrorist threat.

 

The left lost its nerve to do anything with Vietnam. Ever since, they've simply become spineless jellyfish who need to be put to the side when the world needs adults.

The political right is the side that is intent on cutting taxes during war presently. But the country as a whole is not sacrificing is what I was trying to say.

 

You kind of twisted a serious non-partisan question into an angry partisan diatribe. Your little blurb about scanning passengers on airplanes is tangentially related to the question at best.

It's actually directly related. If they oppose something as minimally invasive as passenger screening at airports after what happened on 9/11, there is NOTHING they'll agree to do.

 

Not one damned thing.

-=Mike

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

I agree with your stance on the airplane screening issue but disagree with its use in this debate.

 

On my question of cutting taxes during war, though.

 

-First you said it was not irresponsible because it would spur economic growth.

 

-Second you condemned the left or, "them", as you say, for not wanting to ever sacrifice.

 

So should we or shouldn't we sacrifice by not having tax cuts during war?

[Guest MikeSC]

I agree with your stance on the airplane screening issue but disagree with its use in this debate.

 

On my question of cutting taxes during war, though.

 

-First you said it was not irresponsible because it would spur economic growth.

 

-Second you condemned the left or, "them", as you say, for not wanting to ever sacrifice.

 

So should we or shouldn't we sacrifice by not having tax cuts during war?

1) Cutting taxes at ANY point is not irresponsible. Economic growth is never irresponsible.

2) Arguing that we need to have people sacrifice is impossible as the left refuses to do so.

-=Mike

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

1) Cutting taxes at ANY point is not irresponsible. Economic growth is never irresponsible.

2) Arguing that we need to have people sacrifice is impossible as the left refuses to do so.

 

1)So it would have been responsible to cut taxes during WWII? Sometimes you simply have to have funds--war seems to me like one of those times.

 

2)Again your ideology is clouding your argument. The RIGHT is cutting taxes during war. It seems to me like the right is the side that is refusing to sacrifice in this case. Aren't conservatives supposed to stand for fiscal responsibility?

 

I am suggesting that we are living in a fantasy world where you can fight multiple wars, nation build, and continue to cut taxes. The growing deficit is real. Bush may refuse to put our military security in the hands of other countries (which I think is comendable) but he may be putting our financial security in the hands of foreign creditors.

[Guest MikeSC]

1) Cutting taxes at ANY point is not irresponsible. Economic growth is never irresponsible.

2) Arguing that we need to have people sacrifice is impossible as the left refuses to do so.

 

1)So it would have been responsible to cut taxes during WWII? Sometimes you simply have to have funds--war seems to me like one of those times.

Absolutely. Would've helped things, as the tax rate was confiscatory at that point. Give people more money to buy war bonds.

2)Again your ideology is clouding your argument.  The RIGHT is cutting taxes during war.  It seems to me like the right is the side that is refusing to sacrifice in this case.  Aren't conservatives supposed to stand for fiscal responsibility?

We're trying to deal with an economic recession as well. If going into debt is needed to fight this war, so be it. This is the cost of not taking care of a problem before it becomes unmanageable.

I am suggesting that we are living in a fantasy world where you can fight multiple wars, nation build, and continue to cut taxes.  The growing deficit is real.  Bush may refuse to put our military security in the hands of other countries (which I think is comendable) but he may be putting our financial security in the hands of foreign creditors.

Americans are the biggest owners of the US debt. Bonds and all...

-=Mike

[jesse_ewiak 0]

No Taxes For Anybody! The Government Can Live On Pixie Dust!

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

We're trying to deal with an economic recession as well.

 

I think more limited tax cuts that weren't so top heavy would have been better for dealing with the recession. Low and middle income people would be more likely to actually spend the money from the tax cut. These are the people who are more effected by the recession. People with high incomes have enough economic security that a recession is less likely to have much of an effect on them.

 

I am concerned that the debt created by the tax cuts is eventually going to be alleviated by cutting social programs that serve as a safety net for low income people.

[Guest MikeSC]

We're trying to deal with an economic recession as well.

 

I think more limited tax cuts that weren't so top heavy would have been better for dealing with the recession. Low and middle income people would be more likely to actually spend the money from the tax cut. These are the people who are more effected by the recession. People with high incomes have enough economic security that a recession is less likely to have much of an effect on them.

 

I am concerned that the debt created by the tax cuts is eventually going to be alleviated by cutting social programs that serve as a safety net for low income people.

The tax cut was for all people. An across-the-board cut will seem to help the wealthy more since they pay such a disproportionately large percent of the burden.

-=Mike

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

The tax cut was for all people. An across-the-board cut will seem to help the wealthy more since they pay such a disproportionately large percent of the burden.

 

I wasn't suggesting that it wasn't for all people. I was suggesting that maybe it shouldn't have been. I think the tax cuts for the rich may have been unnecessary and that more targeted tax cuts would have been effective in dealing with the recession without incurring such great debt.

 

And again, I would repeat my assertion that the debt created by the tax cut might be used as an excuse to cut programs that serve as safety nets for lower income people. In essence we will be paying for a rich person's tax cut by slashing a crucial government program.

[Guest MikeSC]

The tax cut was for all people. An across-the-board cut will seem to help the wealthy more since they pay such a disproportionately large percent of the burden.

 

I wasn't suggesting that it wasn't for all people. I was suggesting that maybe it shouldn't have been. I think the tax cuts for the rich may have been unnecessary and that more targeted tax cuts would have been effective in dealing with the recession without incurring such great debt.

 

And again, I would repeat my assertion that the debt created by the tax cut might be used as an excuse to cut programs that serve as safety nets for lower income people. In essence we will be paying for a rich person's tax cut by slashing a crucial government program.

He cut income taxes. If you pay 'em, ya paid less of them. The percentage the rich had cut was less than the percentage the middle class had cut. Class warfare is ugly and a useless political thing to engage in.

 

And, considering how wasteful most social programs are, slashing would be in order.

-=Mike

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

He cut income taxes. If you pay 'em, ya paid less of them. The percentage the rich had cut was less than the percentage the middle class had cut. Class warfare is ugly and a useless political thing to engage in.

 

And, considering how wasteful most social programs are, slashing would be in order.

 

I didn't say that he didn't cut income taxes nor did I try to argue that the tax cuts were more beneficial to the rich. Once again, I suggested that maybe the tax cuts that did go to the rich (because some tax cuts DID go to the rich) weren't necessary and ultimately will ultimately do more harm than good. Tax cuts solely for middle and lower classes may have ended the recession without incurring so much debt.

 

The class warfare thing--standard conservative talking point but what does it really mean? Social classes exist. Should we just ignore this? Are you suggesting that what I was saying was some type of class warfare?

 

Some social programs may be wasteful, but I think they are important. Instead of cutting them altogether, wouldn't it be better to streamline them or otherwise get rid of the "waste"? The free market system is good but not inerrant and some people are left behind in our system. When government waste occurs, isn't it better to deal with the waste rather than scrap the whole program?

[Guest MikeSC]

He cut income taxes. If you pay 'em, ya paid less of them. The percentage the rich had cut was less than the percentage the middle class had cut. Class warfare is ugly and a useless political thing to engage in.

 

And, considering how wasteful most social programs are, slashing would be in order.

I didn't say that he didn't cut income taxes nor did I try to argue that the tax cuts were more beneficial to the rich. Once again, I suggested that maybe the tax cuts that did go to the rich (because some tax cuts DID go to the rich) weren't necessary and ultimately will ultimately do more harm than good. Tax cuts solely for middle and lower classes may have ended the recession without incurring so much debt.

And why should the rich be treated differently than everybody else?

 

As much as some people don't like it, the rich power this country. They supply the jobs, they supply the capital to create new businesses, etc. Soaking the rich is a recipe for economic disaster.

The class warfare thing--standard conservative talking point but what does it really mean?  Social classes exist.  Should we just ignore this?  Are you suggesting that what I was saying was some type of class warfare?

Taxing the rich more won't make the poor rich. It will simply equalize misery, which is a real bad thing.

 

Rather than griping that some people got "more", people should learn to do the most with what they have. Hearing "I only got a $300 tax cut" is just offensive. You don't want it? Then give it back. Don't gripe because somebody who pays many times more than you every year gets a "bigger" cut.

Some social programs may be wasteful, but I think they are important.  Instead of cutting them altogether, wouldn't it be better to streamline them or otherwise get rid of the "waste"?  The free market system is good but not inerrant and some people are left behind in our system.  When government waste occurs, isn't it better to deal with the waste rather than scrap the whole program?

And how can you do that?

 

Social Security needs MASSIVE overhauls or else it becomes insolvent (the way its set-up prevents it from being maintained). So, what can be done? Privatizing it would be the best option, but that's the victim of scare attacks. Raising the retirement age is impossible. Cutting benefits is impossible (even though you get FAR more out than you ever put in).

 

What can be done?

-=Mike

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

And why should the rich be treated differently than everybody else?

 

As much as some people don't like it, the rich power this country. They supply the jobs, they supply the capital to create new businesses, etc. Soaking the rich is a recipe for economic disaster.

 

The theory behind the progressive income tax is that the rich can bear more of a tax burden than poorer groups. More taxes for a rich person may prevent them from buying some sort of luxury good but more taxes for a very poor person may prevent them from buying a necessity.

 

And how can you do that?

 

Social Security needs MASSIVE overhauls or else it becomes insolvent (the way its set-up prevents it from being maintained). So, what can be done? Privatizing it would be the best option, but that's the victim of scare attacks. Raising the retirement age is impossible. Cutting benefits is impossible (even though you get FAR more out than you ever put in).

 

What can be done?

 

I would agree that there are problems such as these in government programs and maybe the programs we have in place aren't the best. These are problems that we are going to have to deal with and hopefully partisan politics won't keep us from doing so.

 

You didn't seem to disagree with my point that some sort of responsibility needs to be taken when the market fails and leaves some people behind (?).

[Guest MikeSC]

And why should the rich be treated differently than everybody else?

 

As much as some people don't like it, the rich power this country. They supply the jobs, they supply the capital to create new businesses, etc. Soaking the rich is a recipe for economic disaster.

The theory behind the progressive income tax is that the rich can bear more of a tax burden than poorer groups. More taxes for a rich person may prevent them from buying some sort of luxury good but more taxes for a very poor person may prevent them from buying a necessity.

 

And the progressive income tax is a terrible idea that simply inspires people to not pay their "fair share". A flat tax is suitable. The rich will still pay a lot more than the poor.

 

And the rich not buying luxuries kills jobs, knocking more people into economic distress.

 

Also, keep in mind, allowing the rich to keep more of their money inspires investment --- which tends to be the catalyst in creating jobs.

And how can you do that?

 

Social Security needs MASSIVE overhauls or else it becomes insolvent (the way its set-up prevents it from being maintained). So, what can be done? Privatizing it would be the best option, but that's the victim of scare attacks. Raising the retirement age is impossible. Cutting benefits is impossible (even though you get FAR more out than you ever put in).

 

What can be done?

 

I would agree that there are problems such as these in government programs and maybe the programs we have in place aren't the best. These are problems that we are going to have to deal with and hopefully partisan politics won't keep us from doing so.

 

You didn't seem to disagree with my point that some sort of responsibility needs to be taken when the market fails and leaves some people behind (?).

Nobody does --- but the programs are never efficient. Which is why Bush's faith-based initiative was a great idea. Allow faith-based charities to handle charity, as they are infinitely better at it than the gov't.

-=Mike

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

And the progressive income tax is a terrible idea that simply inspires people to not pay their "fair share". A flat tax is suitable. The rich will still pay a lot more than the poor.

 

Lots of working poor people can barely afford food and a place to live. It would be nearly impossible for some to spare even a small part of their income for taxes. If you imposed a flat tax, you would have to raise the minimum wage or find some way to make sure people don't starve. Poverty in the US in real.

 

And the rich not buying luxuries kills jobs, knocking more people into economic distress.

 

Also, keep in mind, allowing the rich to keep more of their money inspires investment --- which tends to be the catalyst in creating jobs.

 

We have to find some kind of balance between economic growth and quality of life. Is it more important to make sure people have as high an income as possible or access to all of life's necessities?

 

Nobody does --- but the programs are never efficient. Which is why Bush's faith-based initiative was a great idea. Allow faith-based charities to handle charity, as they are infinitely better at it than the gov't.

 

Why do they have to be inefficient? I don't mean to be corny, but WE are the government...you and me. And personally, I would rather my money go to the government than Sun Myung Moon (sorry for the sarcasm but I guess this message board is rubbing off on me).

 

Sarcasm-the tool of the weak