We've all heard enough of the Democratic primary process to hold us for at least 3 election cycles, but as it was over so quickly comparitively, we saw little of the Repubilcan contest.

If you live in a state that had a "pro-forma" primary, do you feel like you got shafted out of your voice?
Do you feel the "all or nothing" nature of the Republican contests properly represented the results of the people's vote?
Do you see McCain as the best choice out of the field, or do you feel someone else better fit where you think the party and country should go?
Do you think it might have been better to have the extended contest that the Democrats have had, or are you satisfied by the truncated nature of what happened?

I've been curious, since all the attention has been on the Democrats for so long, what the overall Republican mindset has been. I'm interested to hear what our "locals" might have to say.

Conservative, not Republican but I’ll bite (and a BigMac guy so rebutting the Ron Paulies)

If you live in a state that had a "pro-forma" primary, do you feel like you got shafted out of your voice?
Nah-my guy won.

Do you feel the "all or nothing" nature of the Republican contests properly represented the results of the people's vote?
Nah-beats the happy happy joy joy the democrats just went through. Besides the media would have been busy pounding on the repubs throughout.

Do you see McCain as the best choice out of the field, or do you feel someone else better fit where you think the party and country should go?
I like BigMac and wonder what would have happened had he made it in 2000.
Of the candidates running liked Huckabee. Romney is Clinton without the pantsuit and a CEO of one of the banks currently in crisis from bad loans. Absent Teddy Roosevelt or Robert Mitchum suddenly running BicMac works for the ones running.

Do you think it might have been better to have the extended contest that the Democrats have had, or are you satisfied by the truncated nature of what happened?
See above. The media would have had a field day.

I hate the Republicans,

but

I prefer John Mccain over Obama or Hillary, since Mccain is honest and straight about his opnions (which are gakky conversative opinions). But Obama and Hillary are wolves in sheep's clothing, their foregion policies are not gonna be much different to the Republicans, they just seems to be the "good guys" on the surface.

But I am not an American, so my words really mean gak in this case :(

McCain, while a Republican, is not a Conservative. Many conservatives don't like him because he believes, and acts, moderate ideals. One of the great coup's of the Conservative movement is the co-opting of the Republican party. Republican =/= Conservative. He'll have to kiss some conservative booty to get the nomination to be sure, but that is the nature of the election system here.

I'm not sure that McCain is the absolute best choice, but he is a good one for sure. This is the first time in a long time I think that we have two decent candidates running for office. There are things I agree and disagree with both of them, but generally I think they are both good candidates.

Ahtman wrote:McCain, while a Republican, is not a Conservative. Many conservatives don't like him because he believes, and acts, moderate ideals. One of the great coup's of the Conservative movement is the co-opting of the Republican party. Republican =/= Conservative. He'll have to kiss some conservative booty to get the nomination to be sure, but that is the nature of the election system here.

I'm not sure that McCain is the absolute best choice, but he is a good one for sure. This is the first time in a long time I think that we have two decent candidates running for office. There are things I agree and disagree with both of them, but generally I think they are both good candidates.

I don't like liberals either, cause they are full of hypocricies as well.

McCain may not be conservative by American standards but he sure is by Irish ones.
But hey, nothing wrong with that.
I thought it was interesting the way things worked out from my limited perspective. McCain seemed unpopular within the party, but he came out on top due to popularity with voters. Am I right in this? This to me is a good sign that democracy in america might be regaining some of it's vigor. If the Republicans in general didn't like the way the party was headed and voted a black sheep like McCain in, and it worked, then that's great.
Do any of the posters here have any more light to shed on this stuff for me? I'm always interested to read the political discussion here.

McCain is a maverick. Generally a moderate who is known for reaching out to conservative democrats to get things done. He hates pork/earmarks and his campaign contributions from special interests are suffering as a result (in comparison to Obama).

BigMac! BigMac! BigMac!

If you live in a state that had a "pro-forma" primary, do you feel like you got shafted out of your voice?

> By the time my state came around it didn't matter.

Do you feel the "all or nothing" nature of the Republican contests properly represented the results of the people's vote?

> It doesn't matter, it is the rules. Just as presidents are chosen by the Electoral college and not the popular vote.

Do you see McCain as the best choice out of the field, or do you feel someone else better fit where you think the party and country should go?

> I actually like Paul. Sure, he'd probably use the Grand Canyon as the country's landfill if he had his way, and he is an anti-Choice advocate who advocates pulling out of the UN, but his civil liberty focus and foreign policy positions override my main concerns. Paul could actually accomplish very little in way of a legislative agenda, but his veto power and command of the executive are very attractive.

Right now the Republican party needs to figure out who its constituents are. Is it the war hawks who want perpetual war? The religious zealots who want the Bible everywhere and laws passed telling me how I need to behave in the privacy of my own home? Is it the 'financial conservatives' who just want gov't out of capital?

I don't have as many issues with McCain as I do most other Republican candidates, but John McCain 2000 is not the same as John McCain 2008. I understand he needs to kiss conservative ass to mobilize the base, but he is still too morally and militarily conservative for me. He has no chance of transforming the Republican party. He's running on more of the same Republican tenants as all Republicans since 1980. Unfortunately for me, that is not a modest foreign policy coupled with a sensible domestic agenda of shoring up American infrastructure, improving America's resilience to catastrophic events, and sheparding my country's moral agenda in a post-superpower world. Nor is it a financially conservative spending approach that balances realistic tax policy with the challenges of entitlement programs and an inefficient, bloated military planning for yesterday's war.

Do you think it might have been better to have the extended contest that the Democrats have had, or are you satisfied by the truncated nature of what happened?

> The whole idea of the Democaratic party moving state primaries up was to decide on their candidate earlier than in the past. That didn't work out. So I'm not sure your conclusion is valid.

Da Boss wrote:McCain may not be conservative by American standards but he sure is by Irish ones.
But hey, nothing wrong with that.

Oh absolutely. Like many things, the US has decided what political terms mean for the rest of the world are not good enough for us so we use them in a different way, as to sow confusion and anger. Some time I'll post the chart from Poly Sci.

Da Boss wrote:I thought it was interesting the way things worked out from my limited perspective. McCain seemed unpopular within the party, but he came out on top due to popularity with voters. Am I right in this? This to me is a good sign that democracy in america might be regaining some of it's vigor. If the Republicans in general didn't like the way the party was headed and voted a black sheep like McCain in, and it worked, then that's great.
Do any of the posters here have any more light to shed on this stuff for me? I'm always interested to read the political discussion here.

McCain was mostly disliked by the political pundits who like to pretend they talk for all Republicans, but more Republicans voted for moderate McCain. The part of the Republican party that wants a Citizen Kane size painting of Jesus posted in Congress is not happy about it, and the burn it all part as well (Ron Paul). The reality is that most Americans are fiscally conservative and socially liberal. I thought it was great that the people kept voting for McCain while the TV and Radio people kept saying that Republicans didn't like McCain and that he wasn't going to get it. Apparently their little circles of listeners don't make up as much of the party as they think.

Indeed.

Thanks for that. Yeah, as I said, the perspective I have is mostly from online or TV pundits, who represent extremes more often than not. I was curious as to what the "on the ground" republican would think.
I'm also glad to see that people don't listen to pundits.

jfrazell wrote:McCain is a maverick. Generally a moderate who is known for reaching out to conservative democrats to get things done. He hates pork/earmarks and his campaign contributions from special interests are suffering as a result (in comparison to Obama).

BigMac! BigMac! BigMac!

The pro-choice lobbying group I get spam from says his voting record is 125/130 (or in another place, 115/119) against choice and reproductive freedom.

http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/elections/statements/mccain.html
http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/assets/files/mccain_fact_sheet.pdf

I’m still not clear on how he qualifies as a maverick anymore, unless it’s by appearing on The Daily Show. Back in 2000 his campaign was built around him being a straight shooter, telling truth to power. He was genuinely centrist, and I had multiple centrist and liberal friends and acquaintances who found him very appealing, several of who did vote for him.

Then the Karl Rove campaign machine drove him and his dreams into the muck, in part by claiming he wasn’t a “real” conservative, though manipulations of racism and allegations of adultery and having illegitimate kids were also prominently featured. Smears on his war record were also a classy touch.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080128/banks
http://www.bartcopnation.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=8&topic_id=522
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/10/mccain-embraces-rove_n_85881.html
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/03/08/the-oreilly-factor-karl-rove-points-to-mccains-adopted-daughter-as-example-of-mccains-worthiness/
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/8/26/31853/5881

Since then McCain has largely been a pretty good lapdog to the Bush administration and the war machine. He’s definitely the best option out of the cavalcade of scumbags (and one great loon- my Libertarian streak still loves Ron Paul) the Republican party put forward this time, but I’m not sure how he’s not a conservative. I think saying he’s not is mostly just holdover from the religious right, and calling him a maverick is just a leftover media catchphrase that’s no longer accurate.

Still, I love the idea of a series of town hall-style genuine debates. That’s just cool.

Ah Ve Meeeet Agaaaain Mister Manniie...

No democrat commentary here this is a repub/conserv knifefight. Kindly return to your seat until the main repub/demo event.

I won't open the DailyKos or Huffington after they left up posts hoping for Tony Snow dies from cancer, and questioning whether McCain suffered while in the Hanoi Hilton.

Besides-townhalls won't happen. Obama can't handle unscripted verbiage. He always does poorly and McCain does well. He does better in the side by side press conference format.

Interesting note Rezko was convicted on multiple counts today...

I don't see how being pro-LIFE makes him no longer a maverick. Lots of dems are pro-life (like the Catholic vote) while many repubs are pro-choice.

I can say that since both Obama and Clinton are against gay marriage they must not be very good liberals but that wouldn't really be true. Hell, I'm for gay marriage and I'm a conservative Republican.

Also, McCain knows better than just about anyone the horrors of war so if he feels that this war is necessary I'm going to believe him. He knows the cost of entering a war and he has the resolve to do what he believes is necessary.

In the end, I'm voting for the person who best represents what I believe in and of the two front-runners, that's McCain. I wanted either him or Giuliani so I got my wish.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Ozy-

Sorry if I wasn't clearer. I was saying that calling him a "maverick" or a centrist, when his espoused views and voting record hew pretty close to the party line, is a misnomer. The voting record on that one particular issue is just one example. The pro choice groups are specifically working on this labeling issue because they don't want voters to mistakenly think the guy's actually pro-choice.

Argument by authority doesn’t do it for me when the costs are thousands of innocent lives and trillions out of our treasury. If McCain had been the architect/planner of the war at the beginning his experience might have inclined me to trust him more. As he was not, and as the reasoning behind the war has since been demonstrated to be both fraudulent and mistaken (depending on the participant), his continuing support for it has just served to detract from my prior respect for his experience.

Jfraz-
I just linked some sites that had examples of what I was talking about re: Rove and the smear campaign. Just some first page Google results when I searched for McCain, Rove, and 2000. No particular credence or respect implied to any of them in particular. I did link to The Nation as well.

BTW, which is worse? Leaving up hateful posts on a high-traffic public forum, or paying for attack ads on network TV that impugn a decorated veteran’s military service?

America is still going to be evil after this election. I feel sorry for Iran :( they need to hire some space marines to help em

Mannahnin wrote:Ozy-

Jfraz-
I just linked some sites that had examples of what I was talking about re: Rove and the smear campaign. Just some first page Google results when I searched for McCain, Rove, and 2000. No particular credence or respect implied to any of them in particular. I did link to The Nation as well.

BTW, which is worse? Leaving up hateful posts on a high-traffic public forum, or paying for attack ads on network TV that impugn a decorated veteran’s military service?

DailyKos and Huffington are rabid foam at the mouth sites. I visited them in the past and quickly went away. Just as I won't visit whatever Klan/Ron Paul sites are available I'm not going to visit that drivel and citing to them will just get your average person to shake their head.
Again, save your arguments for other threads-I'm sure they'll come.

And Kittenslayer, I know you weren't serious, else you'd be a troll and I'd have to reply with a great big "go yourself."

The reality is that most Americans are fiscally conservative and socially liberal. I thought it was great that the people kept voting for McCain while the TV and Radio people kept saying that Republicans didn't like McCain and that he wasn't going to get it. Apparently their little circles of listeners don't make up as much of the party as they think.

Viewing the election from this side of the pond I find this idea tremendously reassuring, and much closer to the ideals and grandeur of America that I grew up with than the version we've had presented by both sides of the media in the last few years.

I'll also say, even if it has mainly been about the Democrat candidate, I've been touched/impressed with the vigour and enthusiasm that the populace have shown for their democratic process. Wish we were even half as motivated over here.

jfrazell wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Jfraz-
I just linked some sites that had examples of what I was talking about re: Rove and the smear campaign. Just some first page Google results when I searched for McCain, Rove, and 2000. No particular credence or respect implied to any of them in particular. I did link to The Nation as well.

DailyKos and Huffington are rabid foam at the mouth sites. I visited them in the past and quickly went away. Just as I won't visit whatever Klan/Ron Paul sites are available I'm not going to visit that drivel and citing to them will just get your average person to shake their head.
Again, save your arguments for other threads-I'm sure they'll come.

"Rabid foam at the mouth sites" is an argument ad hominem. There CAN still be useful data there, even if there's garbage there other times. Saying the sites are bad doesn't make the data bad. Putting your fingers in your ears and ignoring info because a site you don't like posted it is just silly. Sure, you have every right to be skeptical of info from a site you distrust, but every source of info has an appropriate level at which it can be used, with appropriate critical thinking applied. Again, I did a quick google for articles using a few keywords, so I could post a few links for the benefit of international readers who might not be aware of what happened in the 2000 Republican primaries. DailyKos and Huffington post are not necessarily bad sources for that particular data.

Ron Paul's not a racist. He did something tragically dumb and let other people (including some pretty scummy racists) keep putting his name on a newletter he turned over to other management and stopped thinking about. Relating RP to the Klan demonstrates that you've uncritically swallowed some bad data.

I didn't say Ron Paul was a racist (didn't mean to anyway). I was comparing RP and other crazy loon right wings sites I'm not going to visit anytime soon.

And yes where the statement is posted matters. Its silly to think all souorces are equal. I'm not going to listen to anything posted from a terrorist site because its prima facae suspect and I'm not going to slither through the vomitous filth to get to the supposed statement.

Same goes for Huffington and DailyKos.

By that reasoning you’d disbelieve a statement on a “terrorist site” that the sky is blue. Or that water is wet.

I didn’t say anything even vaguely like “all souorces are equal”. If that’s what you got out of my last post, I don’t know what to even say to you.

You’ve demonstrated on other subjects that you’re capable of critical reasoning; why are you unwilling to apply it here? The only way to get a genuinely informed opinion in politics is to read sources from all sides and apply critical analysis to all of them; even the ones you agree with.

I'm not a Republican, I'm a registered independent and really more of a Liberterian. Sorry, the Rep Party lost me years ago and put the nail in the coffin with Bush the younger. But, as an ex-Rep and conservative, I'll answer.

If you live in a state that had a "pro-forma" primary, do you feel like you got shafted out of your voice?
Didn't have one anyway, so no.

Do you feel the "all or nothing" nature of the Republican contests properly represented the results of the people's vote?
No. Clinton was crowned early and then lost. Someone else could risen up to win the nomination. But, it's better than the mess the democrats have now. Hillary's speech on Tuesday was a piece of work, 'we fought to hard for me to quit now. Tell me what you think I should do.' Appeal to the people, then don't drop out yet even though you lost, because your supporters don't want you to. I think she's hoping McCain wins so that she can run again in 2012 and remind all the 'little people' that she didn't give up on them.

Do you see McCain as the best choice out of the field, or do you feel someone else better fit where you think the party and country should go?
I thought he was the best in 2000. I don't like that he's now what, in his 70's? I was a Ron Paul fan, and didn't mind Romney or Huckabee, they both had flaws and strengths. I think McCain is the best choice for dealing with the Mess-o-Potomia (as Jon Stewart calls the mess in the middle east),The Bush administration totally mis-managed the war in Iraq, in many ways. They don't have enough troops. They didn't have enough at the start of the war. I think they expected to be greeted as liberators, not conquerors. They don't have the right people in place overseas. They contracted out WAY too much of the war effort. Interogators should not be contract employees, they should be Federal government employees. While the economy and rising gas costs are important, I think peace in the Middle East is the most important because it'll have the longest effect on the world. McCain at least seems to understand 'we broke it, so we bought it'. If the US pulls out of Iraq now, it'll be worse off than before the invasion and degrade into a feudal state and become a bigger mess.

I don't think the President controls the economy as much as people want to think he does. The economy is cyclic and has lows and highs, it'll rebound. I think the President can effect how low the low is and how high the high is, and how long each will last, but the economy is just going to behave in certain ways. I don't think McCain has the best track record for tackling the economy, but I can live with that.

I'll vote for McCain, even though I'm not sure he's the best person to be president, he does seem the best candidate.

One thing really bothers me about Obama. His lack of a voting record in the legislature. Not the lack of experience, I think experience helps but isn't everything, but because he doesn't have much of a record, you don't really know what he stands for. Would he have voted against sending troops into Iraq? and why? 'Everyone' thought they had WMDs. If Clinton had voted against sending troops in, she might have lost re-election to the Senate.

Do you think it might have been better to have the extended contest that the Democrats have had, or are you satisfied by the truncated nature of what happened?
Neither works well, but the republican way worked better.

Mannahnin wrote:By that reasoning you’d disbelieve a statement on a “terrorist site” that the sky is blue. Or that water is wet.

Yep.

I didn’t say anything even vaguely like “all souorces are equal”. If that’s what you got out of my last post, I don’t know what to even say to you.

This is true. I'm just not interested in looking at those cites as their veracity is beneath my minimum personal cost/benefit level. I'm not going to cite Townhall or similar sites either (the right wing side).

You’ve demonstrated on other subjects that you’re capable of critical reasoning; why are you unwilling to apply it here? The only way to get a genuinely informed opinion in politics is to read sources from all sides and apply critical analysis to all of them; even the ones you agree with.

1. The post is about what repubs think of the process and McCain (I unilaterally added in conservatives and BigMac supporters). Its not the proper forum for McCain vs. Obama.

2. I'm not going to wade through hate blogs that are generally worthless and not supportable. I'm not looking at leftwing/rightwing/monnbeam websites. They are just not valuable in a debate with multiple perspectives besides the true believers. Its like the Kerry Navy stuff in 2004 (whatever that was I didn't pay attention). Someone would have to show me 3rd party supportable media reports-not some special interest wacko blog. I wasn't convinced by that crowd and I'm not going to be convinced by other crowds trying a similar thing in this election.

3. You realize you have like 500 N's in your dakka name? Thats really cool although I always mispell it.

dietrich wrote:
I don't think the President controls the economy as much as people want to think he does.

QFT

I'd go so far as to say the President has no control over the economy beyond the illusion of control, which in economics can sometimes be enough. Markets do what they are going to do, regardless of speech's or legislation. If it is going down, or up, there is little to do but place blame or accept the glory.

Half the things people ask for out of the President he has no authority to do.

Mannahnin wrote:...his continuing support for it has just served to detract from my prior respect for his experience.

I did want to address this particular point. While I support anyone's right to disagree with McCain on Mess-o-Potamia, I do not support questioning his motives. Unlike Barack or Hillary or Bush or Cheney or 99% of his peers, McCain has one son who has served in theater, and another who very well might (as does Jim Webb). If he is supporting it, he believes in it. He has much more on the line with regards to the conflict than does the Democratic candidate (who I believe in as well), so I think his conscience in supporting the war is clear. It doesn't make him right, but it does speak to his integrity. It doesn't hurt that he supported the surge at it's most politically unpopular as well, knowing it was hurting his campaign. You may disagree with the man, but he isn;t playing politics with the war. Something i am not quite as certain of on the democratic side.

reds8n wrote:

The reality is that most Americans are fiscally conservative and socially liberal. I thought it was great that the people kept voting for McCain while the TV and Radio people kept saying that Republicans didn't like McCain and that he wasn't going to get it. Apparently their little circles of listeners don't make up as much of the party as they think.

Viewing the election from this side of the pond I find this idea tremendously reassuring, and much closer to the ideals and grandeur of America that I grew up with than the version we've had presented by both sides of the media in the last few years.

I'll also say, even if it has mainly been about the Democrat candidate, I've been touched/impressed with the vigour and enthusiasm that the populace have shown for their democratic process. Wish we were even half as motivated over here.

You might get your chance. You gotta crawl through a lot muck to get the plebians motivated And I agree that most Americans are socially centrists or liberal. Seriously, wtf cares about gay marriage? And pro-choice/pro-life is old hat, Ragnar. Both parties have controlled everything at least once since Roe v. Wade, and abortion is still legal. Neither party has the stones to even address the legality (or illegality of it). Much better to fundraise off of it. Get the rubes to donate to save feminist rights or babies. That said, the majority of Americans are moderates with leanings. The nuts on both sides get airtime, but most of us consider both extremes, well, nuts.

Ahtman wrote:

dietrich wrote:
I don't think the President controls the economy as much as people want to think he does.

QFT

I'd go so far as to say the President has no control over the economy beyond the illusion of control, which in economics can sometimes be enough. Markets do what they are going to do, regardless of speech's or legislation. If it is going down, or up, there is little to do but place blame or accept the glory.

Half the things people ask for out of the President he has no authority to do.

Also agree. The President signs crap into law. He doesn't propose it. He's an executive, not a legislator. He needs vision - that's why I like Barack.

But he needs to counter-balance the legislators - that's why I like McCain. The Dems whined forever about how bad it was for one party to control the House, the Senate, and the Presidency. I agree. Of course they sing a different tune when it could be them doing the controlling.

I'd also love a town hall, unmoderated forum. I'll be interested to see how this national campaign goes. Both politicians have made strong overtures to improve the dignity of the process.

Do they have the courage of their convictions? We'll see.


And McCain is easily the best choice of the old, white party. They need some new blood, back to conservative principles. Less tax, smarter spending.

Jfraz- Limiting your sources of data to ones you consider reliable or trustworthy is not a bad strategy, but water doesn’t stop being wet just because someone you distrust says it’s wet. Gathering as much info as possible, and assessing it all critically and in context, is always the best approach. I’m not trying to turn this thread into another Obama/McCain discussion. We’ll have more of those later. The above point holds true in all circumstances, including a discussion of the Republican candidates and process.

Dietrich- Not “everyone” thought Iraq had WMDs. While Congress went along with it, some of our allies (like France) were skeptical of the evidence, with (as it turns out) very good reason. The weapons inspectors didn’t think he was hiding any active program or weapons either. Some folks did speak out against the war before it happened. Reference the quote in my sig.

Ahtman- Spending trillions on a pet project has a direct impact on the economy. Re-writing energy regulatory laws in a way that allows companies to defraud and gouge consumers and states (see: Enron) has a direct impact on the economy. The president doesn’t control the economy, and if he has an uncooperative congress, neither one tends to be able to do much. But for six years Bush had a cooperative congress, and spent a downright ridiculous amount of money, often on pork or on projects (like the war) that are actually injurious to our country.

Chuck- Fair points all. I’m just saying that I think available evidence has always indicated that the war was a bad idea, and even if you think “we broke it, we bought it” is the only course of action at this point, McCain supporting it early and on an ongoing basis is a demonstrated failure of the very expertise for which we’d be counting on him.

Mannahnin wrote:Ahtman- Spending trillions on a pet project has a direct impact on the economy. Re-writing energy regulatory laws in a way that allows companies to defraud and gouge consumers and states (see: Enron) has a direct impact on the economy. The president doesn’t control the economy, and if he has an uncooperative congress, neither one tends to be able to do much. But for six years Bush had a cooperative congress, and spent a downright ridiculous amount of money, often on pork or on projects (like the war) that are actually injurious to our country.

And Obama will have a cooperative Congress. I firmly believe, and history bears this out, that corruption comes from influence and power, not from partisan beliefs. Why were the Republicans elected to the House in a landslide in 1994? Democratic corruption. Why were the Democrats so strong in 2006? Republican misanthropy. It's cyclic, and complete control of the process yields enough power/influence to hasten the degradation of the controlling party's ethics. It will happen again with all Dems, and the Republicans will take over. And so on and so forth.

Also, Enron's lawbreaking began and primarily occurred during the Clinton administration. Their discovery and prosecution occurred during the Bush administration.

Mannahnin wrote:Chuck- Fair points all. I’m just saying that I think available evidence has always indicated that the war was a bad idea, and even if you think “we broke it, we bought it” is the only course of action at this point, McCain supporting it early and on an ongoing basis is a demonstrated failure of the very expertise for which we’d be counting on him.

I don't think we can properly place this war in context in 2008. I know our media forces us into judging decisions the moment they are made, but it's a bad idea in something so gigantic in it's effects.

And many more politicians supported it in 2003 than John McCain, most of them based on the same inaccurate information. So Barack opposed this war when it was somewhat unpopular, which is a credit to his integrity. If he had been wrong about the WMD (which he had no more inherent reason to be right about than McCain had to be wrong), we'd be talking in the other direction. It wasn't genius. It was luck.

We should also note, he was running at the time in a district where saying the potential war was bad was a non-loser for him.

I agree in general re: power and corruption. From my perspective, a lot of what’s gone on in the last eight years is pretty egregious and above and beyond the usual. A lot of the 90’s Enron stuff actually goes back to Bush Sr.’s administration too, though I will certainly concede that a lot of bad stuff happened during the Clinton administration as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron
http://www.citizen.org/documents/Blind_Faith.PDF

And many more politicians supported it in 2003 than John McCain, most of them based on the same inaccurate information. So Barack opposed this war when it was somewhat unpopular, which is a credit to his integrity. If he had been wrong about the WMD (which he had no more inherent reason to be right about than McCain had to be wrong), we'd be talking in the other direction. It wasn't genius. It was luck.

Here is where I have to completely disagree with you. There was plenty of intelligence data, and information from the inspectors, to indicate that there were most likely no WMDs. No conclusive PROOF, but you can’t prove a negative. The burden of proof is on the person claiming something exists, especially when you’re talking about initiating a course of action as serious and destructive as a war. It was not genius, but it was certainly not luck either. Most likely he just gave the information the time and analysis it deserved, and that many (most?) in Congress sadly did not. Certain other people had previously come to the same conclusions, before it became politically desirable to them to start a war.

• "He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq..." - Colin Powell, 24 February 2001
• "The sanctions, as they are called, have succeeded over the last 10 years, not in deterring him from moving in that direction, but from actually being able to move in that direction... And even though we have no doubt in our mind that the Iraqi regime is pursuing programs to develop weapons of mass destruction -- chemical, biological and nuclear -- I think the best intelligence estimates suggest that they have not been terribly successful." - Colin Powell, 15 May 2001
• "We are able to keep arms from him [Hussein]. His military forces have not been rebuilt." - Condoleezza Rice, 29 July 2001

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/wariniraq/i/iraq_overview_2.htm

Actually WMDs were irrelevant. Our planes were being shot at by Iraqi forces patrolling the no fly zone. That in itself is causus belli.

Again, it was McCain who pushed for the surge before the surge was cool.

Just because you’re provoked into doing something stupid doesn’t mean you should do that stupid (+self-destructive + awful) thing.

Mannahnin wrote:Dietrich- Not “everyone” thought Iraq had WMDs. While Congress went along with it, some of our allies (like France) were skeptical of the evidence, with (as it turns out) very good reason. The weapons inspectors didn’t think he was hiding any active program or weapons either. Some folks did speak out against the war before it happened. Reference the quote in my sig.

You are correct, not even everyone in the US thought they had WMD. But, 'everyone' in the government seemed to side with the opinion that they did. And 500 years ago, everyone knew the earth was flat too.

McCain's support of the surge is very much a 'if we're gonna do it, do it right' attitude. He's said that if the public won't support the war, and we're going to withdraw before Iraq is stable, then we should withdraw everyone tomorrow and not wait a few more years and bury a few more thousand kids. But, if we want to make Iraq stable, then the surge was the answer and we need to stay until it's stable, however long that takes.

I said at the time, my issue wasn't as much with "invade or not invade?" but "is the US public going to accept having troops in Iraq for at least 20 years?" Which, at the time even, I knew the US public wouldn't put up with it. And it will take at least 20 years before Iraq is stable. The only two times that a new democratic government has been built from the ashes of a conquered nation were with Germany and Japan at the end of WW2. And our policy makers appear to have failed to take that into consideration. Winning the war was easy, winning the 'peace' is harder.

And as Jon Stewart pointed out, the major reasons given for invading Iraq (oppressive dictator, no civil liberties, tortured and killed own people, harboring terrorist, funding terrorists, WMDs), could be said about a number of other countries - North Korea and Iran for certain, and even some of our so-called allies, such as Saudi Arabia. Why didn't we invade all of them too?

And certainly the President can influence the economy. But, Congress passes the spending bills, the President can only veto them. Spending at the Federal level needs a complete overhaul. But, I still think the economy is cyclic and that has more effect than the President, or even Congress.

Mannahnin wrote:I agree in general re: power and corruption. From my perspective, a lot of what’s gone on in the last eight years is pretty egregious and above and beyond the usual. A lot of the 90’s Enron stuff actually goes back to Bush Sr.’s administration too, though I will certainly concede that a lot of bad stuff happened during the Clinton administration as well.

And a lot of the great economy in the 90's was due to efforts under the tgovernments of Reagan and Bush I. Hence my point...you can't judge things immediately. I disagree that anything in the last eight years set new standards of corruption. Being somewhat up on my history...it hasn't. That doesn't excuse the rampant incompetence or corruption seen from 2002-2008. I just places it in history a little better. I know demonizing Bush is a fun exercise for the left, but it's counter-productive.

Mannahnin wrote:Here is where I have to completely disagree with you. There was plenty of intelligence data, and information from the inspectors, to indicate that there were most likely no WMDs. No conclusive PROOF, but you can’t prove a negative. The burden of proof is on the person claiming something exists, especially when you’re talking about initiating a course of action as serious and destructive as a war. It was not genius, but it was certainly not luck either. Most likely he just gave the information the time and analysis it deserved, and that many (most?) in Congress sadly did not.

I'll address the Obama side first. I don't think he had access to the same data Congress did. WHy would he? He wasn't a Senator yet, and we don't allow state politicians to run around with Top Secret information. I think he was making a judgment call. Which leads me to your first, and most critical, point. The burden of proof.

As you point out, this is where we completely disagree. I do not believe the decisionmaking calculus is the same as you do. You appear to be utilizing a Cold War paradigm, where Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) guaranteed our safety (so to speak). In the Cold War, we were dealing with a legitimate government. We could counter moves they made and vice versa. Hence, MAD was the blanket that made it a bloodless conflict. That paradigm was shattered on 9/11, having been eroding quite a bit during previous administrations (back through Reagan). When dealing with ideologies, not states, there is no MAD theory to protect the citizens from attack. Therefore, the "wait and see" approach regarding possible catastrophes is no longer such a suitable idea. At least not to my security-minded self. In Iraq, we had a country known to a) have possessed and used chemical weapons, either currently or in the past, b) be openly belligerent to the US and its interests, c) continually disregard the UN, and d) support ideological attacks (both on us and our allies). Therefore, I'd postulate the burden of proof fell on them to prove they were NOT a threat. Again, the calculus had changed. They refused to allow weapon inspectors (when they obviously had nothing to hide, that we currently know), and they remained defiant. These are not the acts of the innocent. Therefore a calculated judgment was made. Now that we know, we can claim it was in error...but in 2003 we did NOT know, and were gambling with a new world order. We still are. I don't know exactly where you live, Ragnar...but I live in DC. My wife works in the Capitol. In effect, her risk in the gamble of the Cold War paradigm is greater than yours. I'd choose to change that equation. If there is the legitimate potential of a catastrophic threat...the POTENTIAL...it should be dealt with. That's my belief. It's a bit draconian, but there you go. You can risk your life on believing in people In the nuclear navy, we had a saying...trust, but verify.

I will always support diplomacy efforts, not once, not twice, but as often as possible. But if you have a stick and never use it...as Clinton did, people start to learn that you really DON'T have a stick.

Mannahnin wrote:Certain other people had previously come to the same conclusions, before it became politically desirable to them to start a war.

• "He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq..." - Colin Powell, 24 February 2001
• "The sanctions, as they are called, have succeeded over the last 10 years, not in deterring him from moving in that direction, but from actually being able to move in that direction... And even though we have no doubt in our mind that the Iraqi regime is pursuing programs to develop weapons of mass destruction -- chemical, biological and nuclear -- I think the best intelligence estimates suggest that they have not been terribly successful." - Colin Powell, 15 May 2001
• "We are able to keep arms from him [Hussein]. His military forces have not been rebuilt." - Condoleezza Rice, 29 July 2001

All quotes pre-911, Ragnar. Isolation was fine then.

I am no proponent of this war as it has been sold or fought. But I am waiting to judge it's totality until it is closed. We may compound the mistake of half-a**ing the effort by leaving too soon. We'll see.

Edited again for atrocious grammar.

I can't believe some Americans on here are still trying to support the war based on de-bunked theories and ignorant attitude.

I suppose you probably agree the Vietnam war was good as well.

kittenslayer wrote:I can't believe some Americans on here are still trying to support the war based on de-bunked theories and ignorant attitude.

I suppose you probably agree the Vietnam war was good as well.

I tell you, you are the king of non sequitur statements. Actually I dont know if that comment doesn't follow or if it is simply a case of speaking for others before they've had a chance to speak. What does one have to do with the other. If someone supports either one does it imply that they support the other? And what exactly does "support" mean?

We pulled our support out of Afghanistan after the Soviets withdrew instead of sticking there and helping rebuild and all that did was allow groups like al-Qaeda and the Taliban to grow and grab power. So there is a precedent to show what happens when you leave to early because it is easier and more politically expedient.

Ahtman wrote:We pulled our support out of Afghanistan after the Soviets withdrew instead of sticking there and helping rebuild and all that did was allow groups like al-Qaeda and the Taliban to grow and grab power. So there is a precedent to show what happens when you leave to early because it is easier and more politically expedient.

Soviet actions and in Afghanistan is no different to Nato's actions there right now. You guys are all arguing on the assumption that Western powers wants to "help" those countries.

kittenslayer wrote:Soviet actions and in Afghanistan is no different to Nato's actions there right now. You guys are all arguing on the assumption that Western powers wants to "help" those countries.

In what way is it the same? Is mere presence alone enough to say it is the same? This of course begs the question, since when has NATO been in Afghanistan? I mean, some of it's members are, but then that is like saying NATO is in Japan becuase there are US Marines in Japan.

I would say you are arguing the opposite, but you aren't even doing that. You are basically being the kid in a skill yard whose only response is "nu-uh". You don't make your own point, you just here someone make theirs and say "nu-uh".

As far as ignorant attitudes go, you seem to be taking the cake here. There have been people arguing both sides of it up till this point and their views, while divergent, were well argued and founded. Yours on the other hand is to jump in and try to present yourself as some enlightened being passing down bits of wisdom, and in just 7 words. I get the impression you know nothing of what you are talking about and wholly ignorant of affairs, or you are a sly internet troll. Either way, you are certainly not worth taking seriously in this arena.

Ahtman wrote:

kittenslayer wrote:Soviet actions and in Afghanistan is no different to Nato's actions there right now. You guys are all arguing on the assumption that Western powers wants to "help" those countries.

In what way is it the same? Is mere presence alone enough to say it is the same? This of course begs the question, since when has NATO been in Afghanistan? I mean, some of it's members are, but then that is like saying NATO is in Japan becuase there are US Marines in Japan.

I would say you are arguing the opposite, but you aren't even doing that. You are basically being the kid in a skill yard whose only response is "nu-uh". You don't make your own point, you just here someone make theirs and say "nu-uh".

As far as ignorant attitudes go, you seem to be taking the cake here. There have been people arguing both sides of it up till this point and their views, while divergent, were well argued and founded. Yours on the other hand is to jump in and try to present yourself as some enlightened being passing down bits of wisdom, and in just 7 words. I get the impression you know nothing of what you are talking about and wholly ignorant of affairs, or you are a sly internet troll. Either way, you are certainly not worth taking seriously in this arena.

* up please, When the Soviet Union entered Afghanistan they also claimed to destroy fundementalists and built schools infrastructures and give rights to women. They failed because of their true motive of using Afghaistan as another puppet state for their war against American and friends. Sort of the same * thats happening now there.

Don't get fething technical here *, quite a few Nato countries are in there, so it's not too far off to call it Nato.

I * in your mouth.

USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST

I am a disabled vetran who served proudly in the US Army. I served a little time in Afghansatin but was fortunate enough not to have to go to Iraq. The war in Iraq was a farce to begin with but i was douped, being a american soldier and all at the time it wasnt my place to question why but to do. Now then we are all now aware that Obama has the nomination for the Dems. I respect Mccain a great deal for his ordeal during the nam war but in good mind i cannot bring myself to give him my vote. he is backing Bush far to much on oversea policies and as a nation we cannot afford to have another war. one of my major concers is health care..........here in the US we have to pay out the ying yang for coverage unlike you brits and canadians out there who have it all taken care of by your goverments. also there is the economy another issue that i wont bother touching on. anyway i voted for Edwards and Huckabee in the primary's and neither one of them are in the mix now so in my opion ive choosen the lesser of two evils GO OBAMA!!

nieto666 wrote:I am a disabled vetran who served proudly in the US Army. I served a little time in Afghansatin but was fortunate enough not to have to go to Iraq. The war in Iraq was a farce to begin with but i was douped, being a american soldier and all at the time it wasnt my place to question why but to do. Now then we are all now aware that Obama has the nomination for the Dems. I respect Mccain a great deal for his ordeal during the nam war but in good mind i cannot bring myself to give him my vote. he is backing Bush far to much on oversea policies and as a nation we cannot afford to have another war. one of my major concers is health care..........here in the US we have to pay out the ying yang for coverage unlike you brits and canadians out there who have it all taken care of by your goverments. also there is the economy another issue that i wont bother touching on. anyway i voted for Edwards and Huckabee in the primary's and neither one of them are in the mix now so in my opion ive choosen the lesser of two evils GO OBAMA!!

Good on ya man, I support all the troops who see through the bs.

Even tho i disagree with the actions in Afghanistan as well, but i am wondering if you've met any New Zealand troops there?

You continue to prove my point that you really don't know what you are talking about. A few NATO countries is not the same thing as NATO. You also show how little you know of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the role the US played in it. You call us ignorant but show a lack of understanding of history. I suppose the hypocrisy is what bothers me most, call westerners (New Zealand a bastion of Non-western thinking is it?) ignorant but at the same time in the Video Game forum you talk of how you want to target and virtually kill American troops. A bit blood thirsty for specific people aren't you?

in the US we have to pay out the ying yang for coverage unlike you brits and canadians out there who have it all taken care of by your goverments

Just to clarify you do know we pay for that with taxes and national insurance yes ? It's not like some glorious freebie they throw to us.

But I think a level of universal healthcare is pretty much a no brainer in a modern society. I hope America does it, although i suspect the vested interest of those running the current set up will perhaps make this almost as hard of a struggle as even talking about some form of gun control.
I hope you get through your injuries with all speed and hope.

In Iraq, we had a country known to a) have possessed and used chemical weapons, either currently or in the past, b) be openly belligerent to the US and its interests, c) continually disregard the UN, and d) support ideological attacks (both on us and our allies).

But there's a fair few countries like that in the world though right ? Why Iraq specifically as the ... hmm... victim is the wrong word.. .perhaps demonstration is a better word.

That's what other people/countries get suspicious about.

I agree that leaving too soon now we're in would be a tragedy upon a mistake. I hope this time that the mistakes of the past are learnt from, it does seem that America ( and I'm sure Britain and other countries too, to varying extents) has this horrible tendency to train and/or arm fairly horrific people-- Saddam, Al-Queda etc-- only for these self same people to turn around and bite you back when they feel they don't need you anymore.

For what's it's worth I think the war was a huge mistake and Blair, Bush et al are all culpable. Yes, I understand they may have made decisions in good faith, but the decision was wrong in the end. Their jobs are to make these calls-- which they're willing to do it seems-- but no longer seem willing to be held to account for them which is, frankly, criminal.

Just in case this comes across as standard yank bash post # X : I'm very pro America in general, and whilst the events of the war have been tragic, America has been the best ally we've had or likely to have. Given all other factors being equal in a situation I think it's important to back up and stick with your friends.

Even if, of late, you don't always recognise your friend in the way they act.

kittenslayer wrote:
Soviet actions and in Afghanistan is no different to Nato's actions there right now. You guys are all arguing on the assumption that Western powers wants to "help" those countries.

Impressive. What a brilliantly moronic statement.

dienekes96 wrote:I disagree that anything in the last eight years set new standards of corruption. Being somewhat up on my history...it hasn't. That doesn't excuse the rampant incompetence or corruption seen from 2002-2008. I just places it in history a little better. I know demonizing Bush is a fun exercise for the left, but it's counter-productive.

Re: the last 8 years and unprecedented bad, please reference use of torture, habeus corpus violations, warrantless wiretapping in violation of federal law, Contempt of Congress by the White House and senior admin officials (most egregiously Cheney), deceptive use of flawed intelligence to prosecute a war, and deliberate deception of the American public to sell a war in which thousands of innocents have died and continue to die. I am quite seriously and soberly in favor of impeachment for both Bush and Cheney for high crimes and misdemeanors. Not that it will ever happen, and more’s the pity, as both parties could use the wake up call re: abuse of powers.

dienekes96 wrote:Which leads me to your first, and most critical, point. The burden of proof.

As you point out, this is where we completely disagree. I do not believe the decisionmaking calculus is the same as you do. You appear to be utilizing a Cold War paradigm, where Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) guaranteed our safety (so to speak). In the Cold War, we were dealing with a legitimate government. We could counter moves they made and vice versa. Hence, MAD was the blanket that made it a bloodless conflict. That paradigm was shattered on 9/11, having been eroding quite a bit during previous administrations (back through Reagan). When dealing with ideologies, not states, there is no MAD theory to protect the citizens from attack. Therefore, the "wait and see" approach regarding possible catastrophes is no longer such a suitable idea. .

Obama was most likely working with more data than I had. And based on the publically-available data and the case the White House made for war, I did not agree that it was ever a good idea. I recognize that lots of folks on multiple psrts of the political spectrum did. But the weapons inspectors, while making clear that Saddam was playing games and not being entirely honest, said all along that there was no real evidence of any current weapons or weapons program, and that more time inspecting was a much better idea than war.

It seemed clear to me (and certainly others; I’m not claiming special insight) that Saddam was posturing for the sake of his dignity and to pretend greater strength than he had. He was a dictator. That’s to be expected. Again, we’re not talking about “genius” or “luck”. I think you trivialize the decision and fail to hold people accountable when you reduce it to that false dichotomy. I made a judgment based on the data available to me. So did McCain. I would expect a person of his experience and background to be able to make a good assessment of the situation. But either he did not (and his vaunted military and foreign policy expertise failed) or he chose to back the administration anyway, in which case his integrity failed.

There has NEVER been any credible evidence to support Iraq having the capabilities to directly strike us. Those quotes from Powell and Rice show their (correct) prior assessment and awareness that Iraq was not a threat to us. That fact was unaltered by any “new paradigm”.

Iraq WAS a stable (albeit tyrannical) government, whose leader’s ideology was in conflict with Al Qaeda’s. The last occasion on which we had reason to believe Iraq had supported a terrorist act against us was the attempt on Bush Sr.’s life, for which Clinton DID respond by bombing the Iraqi intelligence headquarters. Iraq evidently got the message, because they never got involved in any attacks against us again. As a side note re: Clinton never using a stick, please bear in mind he ordered the CIA to capture or kill Ben Laden. Twice, if I remember Against All Enemies (Clarke’s book) correctly. He also carried out missile attacks on Al Qaeda camps in 1998 in an attempt to get Bin Laden. Funny concept, that- applying deadly force to the actual enemy, as opposed to an uninvolved third party that we don’t like and who happens to control critical natural resources.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.asp

There being a new paradigm has no bearing whatsoever on the above information, and the decision to go to war with Iraq. Nor was I advocating a “wait and see” approach. That’s a straw man.

After 9/11 it became clear to everyone that active, aggressive action had to be taken against the terrorists. The Bush administration, which had earlier in the year told Richard Clarke that they did not want to hear his concerns about terrorism, started taking it seriously. Of course, the same DAY of the attacks, Bush personally started asking about a connection to Iraq (which the counter-terrorism folks knew was extremely unlikely), and in fact never stopped looking for one until a case could be made for war with Iraq. A case based on shaky evidence, as Iraq never was involved, and never was a direct threat to us.

However, even those of us who never bought into the Iraq sales campaign supported going after Al Qaeda itself in Afghanistan, and taking down the barbaric Islamist government that sheltered and supported him. And we supported hunting down Al Qaeda operatives worldwide. And we supported better airline and port security. And we supported increased training and support to our first responders- police and fire departments; who could desperately use additional training and funding. And we supported better security for nuclear plants and other critical targets. And we supported a tougher line of negotiation with Saudi Arabia for them to stop obstructing us in anti-terrorist efforts, as the nationality of 15 of the hijackers should have been able to give us some serious leverage. And we supported using the opportunity to reach out diplomatically to Iran, where there were spontaneous pro-America demonstrations in the street after 9/11, where 70% of the population is under 30 and are inexorably trending towards Western values. And where even the conservative Islamic government was immediately cooperative with our efforts in Afghanistan.

These are all areas for positive, constructive action which would actually reduce or eliminate threats from terrorists. None of them are isolationist. Please don’t confuse the two.

And most of these things have been neglected, insufficiently funded, or undermined by the Bush administration prosecuting this completely unnecessary, brutally destructive, ungodly expensive war of choice.

At this point, based on the present quality of life and security situation in Iraq, I am strongly inclined to believe that it’s irreparable. Even if we had done it right from day one, and even if we went in with a plan to rebuild on the same scale as Germany or Japan, Iraq was never even a good candidate for that kind of rebuilding. The country was formed within the last century out of territories taken from the Ottoman Empire after WWI. It’s always been strongly divided along religious lines. It’s not like Germany or Japan; those countries had unified identities and weren’t going to collapse into civil war. Right now we’re dealing with civil war, and we cannot “fix” that. No matter how many soldiers we send. Even if we weren’t exhausting and abusing our armed forces already in an effort to meet current troop needs.

FYI, I come from a military family. On 9/11 my father was stationed in a Pentagon office across the street from where it got hit. I’m pretty sensitive to the harm done to our men and women in uniform by this fiasco, and to harmful and shameful slights against them like Rumsfeld’s lies to the men about armor for the vehicles, and the situation at Walter Reed.

FYI, I come from a military family. On 9/11 my father was stationed in a Pentagon office across the street from where it got hit. I’m pretty sensitive to the harm done to our men and women in uniform by this fiasco, and to harmful and shameful slights against them like Rumsfeld’s lies to the men about armor for the vehicles, and the situation at Walter Reed.

Mannahnin wrote:

Re: the last 8 years and unprecedented bad, please reference use of torture, habeus corpus violations, warrantless wiretapping in violation of federal law, Contempt of Congress by the White House and senior admin officials (most egregiously Cheney), deceptive use of flawed intelligence to prosecute a war, and deliberate deception of the American public to sell a war in which thousands of innocents have died and continue to die.

Wow you're right. I never thought about that way. Oh wait, which adminstration are you referring to again-Bush or Johnson?

Let's not forget the Alien and Sedition Acts. Two Presidents in and the Constitution was already tossed aside.

Democrats control Congress since 2006-have earmarks and pork projects gone down?

Only congressman to have his office raided for bribe money (found in the refrigerator) R or D?

Campaign contributions from the Chinese funnelled through a monastary to the guy who invented the internet.

Dead people voting for Kennedy costing Nixon the election.

President threatening to put the SC in jail and tried to stack it by doubling the number of justices (vetoed by his own party): FDR

There are skeletons aplenty in both sides, and once they get into power they become as corrupt as the ones they throw out.

I completely agree that both parties are corrupt, and addicted to money. The campaign and lobbying systems keep them that way, and I’m very happy to have two candidates who have some interest in reforming that.

I recognize that there are lots of misdeeds in our nation’s history, many of them spectacular. Right now I’m mostly interested in stopping the current and most recent abuses, and in sending a message to the party who let those abusers represent them.

So you're sending a message to the Democrats who control the corrupt abusive Congress, or the Republicans who control the corrupt and abusive Presidency?

See the point? Claiming one is more so doesn't hold under examination. You can vote for/against candidates on their particular actions (a point for McCain on the campaign side) but not a party as a whole as the scumsucking vermin inhabit both in mass quantities.

I think Ragnar is making the point that he is selecting a candidate with the least culpability in the current situation, and the strongest statements against it's excesses.

I think he is correct that we have the two best candidates for president possible in this cycle, and probably in some time. Both are committed to trying to correct the process in some fashion, and that is very, very good news for the population.

I have long argued that corruption does not come from either major U.S. partisan ideology, but from power and influence. When the Republicans swept into the House majority in 1994, they did it by pointing out how corrupt the House Dems had become. Now the opposite is happening. And the cycle will continue. If the Dems take control of everything, they will root out the corruption - and that is a plus. As they gain in power, they will become corrupt themselves.

That said, right now they are the least corrupt of the two parties, as the Republicans were in 1994. So that's worth something.

Please provide corraboration they are less corrupt. Note I am not saying which party.

Simple. You have to have influence to be corrupt. The Dems haven't had influence since 2000. The Republicans have. Therefore, they have been in a position to be corrupt. Ergo, the majority party with the most power is the most corrupt.

Your LogicFu is indeed as brilliant as it unassailable. I would just add the codicil that the Democrats retook Congress in 2006

Republicans-President
Democrats - Congress
Balance of Terror?

To be fair, Democrats barely have congress. By no means do they have a mandate and they still more often then not are going to have to ask for help, their majority is so slim. It's more of a split Congress then a Democratic one.

I think one can say the same thing of the Presidency at this point, but I'd accept Dieneke's Rule of Corruption as a maxim.

Greed is good.

jfrazell wrote:

kittenslayer wrote:
Soviet actions and in Afghanistan is no different to Nato's actions there right now. You guys are all arguing on the assumption that Western powers wants to "help" those countries.

Impressive. What a brilliantly moronic statement.

feth up gak head.

I didn't vote in a primary as I am not a member of either party, though my relatives are. I honestly believe that political careers should be outlawed or limited to 1 term with no mutability, and that the only good politician is a dead one.

kittenslayer wrote:
But I am not an American, so my words really mean gak in this case :(

I'm going to feed the troll here so don't mind me guys.

Yep, not even a human gak. Take your anti-American rhetoric hating and shove it up your cornhole.

No point; he's banned.

From the whole site or just this forum?

It says he's online and his posts have jumped by 5 since I posted that reply..

I think he was heading to 4chan and took a wrong turn at Albuquerque and ended up hear.

lol damn you 4chan!

kittenslayer wrote:

jfrazell wrote:

kittenslayer wrote:
Soviet actions and in Afghanistan is no different to Nato's actions there right now. You guys are all arguing on the assumption that Western powers wants to "help" those countries.

Impressive. What a brilliantly moronic statement.

feth up gak head.

Try reading some books before you open your mouth and display to the world your ignorance, yet again.

Ahtman wrote:QFT

I'd go so far as to say the President has no control over the economy beyond the illusion of control, which in economics can sometimes be enough. Markets do what they are going to do, regardless of speech's or legislation. If it is going down, or up, there is little to do but place blame or accept the glory.

Half the things people ask for out of the President he has no authority to do.

There's a middle ground between a president have nothing like the assumed level of power over the economy and the president having no influence. While it can't be entirely placed at his feet, you can look at policies of the Bush admin and note the direct, negative effect they've had on the US economy. The free-for-all budget spending, pulling dollars away from investment. The Iraq war, furthering the deficit and leading directly to the gas price spike. The lack of regulatory reform in the finance sector, by no means a sin of Bush alone, has played a significant part.

Ah, but Bush can't actually do those things. I do believe there is someone, or a group, he has to go through to get them done. The President can't approve or disapprove budgets or programs, beyond veto.

The budget request comes directly from the desk of the President. Major deviation from the request itself is extremely rare. Partially because Congress is rarely united enough for such opposition. but also because opposing the fundamental structure of the budget is a major challenge to Presidential power; which neither party really wants to see limited.

Responsibility for the budget gets a lot more complicated when the president and congress are at each other's throats. While a lot of Democrats will try to credit Clinton entirely with bringing the budget closer to sanity, a fair portion of the credit has to go to the Republican congress.

But in this instance we've had a Republican president and a Republican congressional majority following his lead in near lock step, it's hard to see the budget as anything but th product of the president. Especially when you look at the major causes of the deficit, the tax cuts and the Iraq war, coming straight from the office of the president.

The President can make all the budget requests he wants, but then, so can you. Congress still has the purse strings. The President has no real authority in this area. Go read your Constitution.

Ahtman wrote:The President can make all the budget requests he wants, but then, so can you. Congress still has the purse strings. The President has no real authority in this area. Go read your Constitution.

But this assumption ignores the ability of the president to communicate and deal with congress. And when the congressional majority is from the same party and that party is currently marching in lockstep...

The idea that a president can't shape spending isn't supported by the realities of politics.

Slightly off-topic, but this seems to be the best US political chat going!

As an outsider looking in to US politics (not being able to vote hardly counts here - the result of the US election will probably have more effect on my life than the result of the next UK election. Sad but true) I have to say I was an ardent Obama fan but am now leaning towards McCain.

Obama won it for me with his 'I'll talk to the Iranians' policy. But then he gutted that while standing in front of AIPAC.
Whilst this should have come as no surprise (all politics is local after all) I really hoped that America had finally found someone who had the courage of their convictions and who would be prepared to say:
YES, we want a free and secure Israel, YES, they'll always be a close fried and ally but please STOP coming the c@*t with this 'Greater Israel' (mmm, does the phrase 'Greater Germany' ring any bells) cr@p!

The ONLY way there will be peace in the middle east is if all sides sit down and talk about it and the Iranians are the key. They are not only the lynchpin of the Islamic world but are the most progressive middle eastern state outwith the Lebanon. What they will not do is sit down to talk with 'conditions'. After all as proud and patriotic Americans would you talk to a country who said 'We want a meeting, but you have to do A, B and C first'. Of course not!

This is what I was hoping Obama would do, but as he now won't (to avoid months of being called anti-semitic), we go to plan B (i.e. continue with a military presence and hope for the best).

And frankly, no-one will do better with Plan B than John McCain.

Ahtman wrote:The President can make all the budget requests he wants, but then, so can you. Congress still has the purse strings. The President has no real authority in this area. Go read your Constitution.

Well, except for the abilty to veto a budget. It's disengenous to state that congress creates the budget in a vacuum, even as in constitutional theory. In political reality, when the White House is strong and popular (as it was for years), Congress tends to bend over. In addition, the State of the Union is a constitutional requirement, and it has become the power to shape the agenda. There is plenty of culpability to go around, don't fear.

Yes, but the Congress can OVERTURN a veto, as well.

There is that (brilliant) little "balance of power" thing the founders came up with.

dienekes96 wrote:Yes, but the Congress can OVERTURN a veto, as well.

There is that (brilliant) little "balance of power" thing the founders came up with.

Of course there is, but I don't think that was my point. I was merely pointing out that laying all the blame for the budget on congress is sloppy. It's a process of compromise and working together.

If the founders saw the current range of presidential power they would be shocked. that's not a bad thing, half of them would be shocked the country is still standing and all would be amazed we're a major world power. The founders explicely rejected parlimentary democracy, which emphasizes coalition building followed by doing more or less what the Ruling Party wants. Our system requires gutless compromise, pork barrel projects, and a certain amount of partisan mudslinging to work. It's just the way to govern 300 million people from every conceivable background over a continent.

Earlier there was an idea that the current congress is equally corrupt to the congress during Bush's first term. I think it's important to seperate and catagorize what you're talking about. Pork isn't corruption. It's a direct outlay, legally requested, legally approved, legally signed into law, and legally spent. It might be dumb, wasteful, and the result of political leverage, but it's legal and in no way corrupt.

Polonius wrote:Well, except for the abilty to veto a budget. It's disengenous to state that congress creates the budget in a vacuum, even as in constitutional theory. In political reality, when the White House is strong and popular (as it was for years), Congress tends to bend over. In addition, the State of the Union is a constitutional requirement, and it has become the power to shape the agenda. There is plenty of culpability to go around, don't fear.

I specifically said that the Executive could could Veto, thank you for repeating that. The influence of the Presidency has grown over the years, but it almost always has depended on a compliant congress and court to allow them to get away with it and an ill informed public to back him as well. Influence and power are not the same thing, though very closely tied. Though maybe we should discern Power and power. I don't think there is any question everyone is to blame, especially those who don't vote that can.

I'm not sure it isn't a good thing that the framers would be shocked to see that the power of the executive has spread so far beyond it's reach. Pork is not corrupt, it just leads to corruption, impropriety, and the appearance of impropriety, especially anonymous earmarks. Though I'm not sure their is a way around much of it, as what point is the government's budget if it isn't using it to help and each state is different. It could use some reform to create more transparency but we'll never see it go completely, and shouldn't.

Sorry for missing the earlier post where you mentioned the veto, I just saw you post that said "the president has no real authority..." over the budget.

The Court has a pretty admirable policy, IMO, of staying out of what it deems to be political questions. A few cases aside, the court generally doesn't uphold or strike down laws based on how good or bad they are, but on if they are constitutional or not. (A lot of the cases that are nebulous are in an area call substantive due process, which is theory that there are inherent rights of control over marraige, child rearing, and sex that the government may not interfere with. It's nebulous because while there is wiggle room in the idea of "Due process," constitutional scholars aren't wild about wiggle room.)

The romans actually had a word for legal authority, Imperium. I like the term authority for legit power that a politcal body or executive can exert, while influence is more the ability to control others through political means. It is crucial to keep those two things seperate, but in the era of the Imperial Presidency (more or less since FDR) every president inherently has enormous influence, whereas in the past only a few had (or exercised) such influence.

With regards to a compliant congress, I think it's natural result of the rewards being a congressman bring it's members. They have power, and money flows to power. As long as you can get reelected, platform positions can get misty.

And this brings us to your final point: the pretty apathetic nature of the American voter. The voter is the final judge of a government's performance, and based on how people vote (if at all), then it's working pretty well. I guess I don't see a reason to hand wring over people not voting: a non-vote is more or less a vote of general support for the majority, right? I would agree that there is a moral duty to vote for what's right, but since the end of the progressive era of the 1960's, the battle lines have gotten far fuzzier. Civil Rights, Pollution controls, Woman's lib, fighting the Soviets: these were things that were, at least in retrospect, very clear issues that had a morally correct solution. In modern politics, the issues are far fuzzier. Immigration is a hot button issue, and I think every side of the debate has a morally and logically defensible point.

Even the war in Iraq isn't clear. the government did a good job of selling it, and there is evidence of... if not lies, then certainly carefully selected facts. Are we safer now? Was it worth it? Will staying there be worth it? We don't know, and anybody that is 100% certain is deluding themselves. I'm using this is an example of how things are more complicated and less clearcut.

How does this relate to people who don't vote? I think people recusing themselves because they simply dont' care or dont' want to analyze the issues is an ok thing. I wish people cared more, and I wished people watched government more, but the people are a part of the process, and they do benefit. Look at the AARP: one of the most powerful groups, and they want their money.

Ahtman wrote:

Polonius wrote: Pork is not corrupt, it just leads to corruption, impropriety, and the appearance of impropriety, especially anonymous earmarks. Though I'm not sure their is a way around much of it, as what point is the government's budget if it isn't using it to help and each state is different. It could use some reform to create more transparency but we'll never see it go completely, and shouldn't.

Respectfully, thats a semantic argument. Cash in an envelop is not a bribe either, its just cash. in an envelop.

Both powers are equally at fault, euqally to blame, and equally disdained by the public. Lets not forget the vaunted Democratic Congress that was going to reduce the price of gas, help the average man, balance the budget and bring on nirvana, has been an active partiicpant in theballooning of the budget. The Republicans didn't do anything (McCain notwithstanding). The President did not veto. A pox on all their houses.

Vote for me, I'll make the trains run on time!

If it makes you feel any better I know people who have been to the region and would disagree greatly with your assessment. Meeting a few folks here and there isn't exactly the same as a large strategic overview of the region and it's geopolitics. I'm not sure why we are are now on US Muslims, but like any other group, they vary individual to individual; some are good, some are bad.

There is some truth to what you are both saying, as not everyone is rabid to destroy Israel, but at the same time it is not a popular country and many wouldn't care if it was. Their seems to be many making the same mistake a lot of people do, in thinking that people in other parts of the world all think the same and have the same basis of reasoning, which they don't. It's not better, it's not worse, it is just different. Their goals are different, their histories are different, and their perspectives are different. You think it is reasonable to not attack Israel, they think it is the only reasonable thing to do. People within the same country often have varied ways of thinking.

It doesn't even take that many to want to do harm, as you can see in Iran. I would bet most of the population wants to let it go, but the ruling powers are dead set on it and have no problem dragging their people into war.

It's religion, it's a blood sacrifice, the Enlightenment and Western Reasoning have very little to do with how they make their choices. You have to remember there are people in the US that want Iran to attack because they think it will bring about the end of the world. I'm not talking about Muslims either, I am talking about Christians. This isn't all Christians of course, but it is also not 12 guys either, it's in the hundreds of thousands if not a few million. Do you think they will stop believing if someone just tells them it isn't reasonable?

Also the appeal to authority doesn't work well on the internet for several reasons 1) I don't have any reason to believe you have ever left your basement, let alone been outside the country 2) typing things like "why????????????????????? IVE BEEN TO THE REGION!!!!!" doesn't seem like the writing of an adult, let alone a well traveled one.

And as far as this appeal goes we also know that books are useful and that you don't always need to do something to have any insight or thought about it. If knowledge were useless we wouldn't have books or the internet and a thinking person can have an opinion.We aren't talking about rewiring a house with no knowledge in under 30 seconds. You can rewire a house by learning how to read a schematic, and you can learn about many other wonderful things by reading as well. The military must agree, what with all their training manuals. You don't actually have to have been a capitalized letter to know they go at the beginning of sentences.

There is some truth to what you are both saying, as not everyone is rabid to destroy Israel, but at the same time it is not a popular country and many wouldn't care if it was. Their seems to be many making the same mistake a lot of people do, in thinking that people in other parts of the world all think the same and have the same basis of reasoning, which they don't. It's not better, it's not worse, it is just different. Their goals are different, their histories are different, and their perspectives are different. You think it is reasonable to not attack Israel, they think it is the only reasonable thing to do. People within the same country often have varied ways of thinking.

Very true. Its the people building the weapons, transporting the weapons, and firing the weapons are the only ones that matter.

It doesn't even take that many to want to do harm, as you can see in Iran. I would bet most of the population wants to let it go, but the ruling powers are dead set on it and have no problem dragging their people into war.

Very true

You have to remember there are people in the US that want Iran to attack because they think it will bring about the end of the world. I'm not talking about Muslims either, I am talking about Christians. This isn't all Christians of course, but it is also not 12 guys either, it's in the hundreds of thousands if not a few million.

That’s hogwash and antichristian bigotry. You better have some facts to back that up buddy.

[Also the appeal to authority doesn't work well on the internet for several reasons 1) I don't have any reason to believe you have ever left your basement, let alone been outside the country 2) typing things like "why????????????????????? IVE BEEN TO THE REGION!!!!!" doesn't seem like the writing of an adult, let alone a well traveled one.

I let my emotions get the better of me on that one. i apolgise for that. these issues just get me heated thats all. i also guess what region of the US ur from will also give you a strong opinion. Alright now calling me a liar is going a little overboard i know where ive been and what ive done. how dare you have the nerve to call me out in such a manner. I served in the united states army as a military police officer for four years. I dont need to explain my opinion or my actions on these forums to you but sayins that you dont have any reason to beleave that ive never left my basement please. For all i know you may not know any who has served of even been over there so im going to leave it at that.

That’s hogwash and antichristian bigotry. You better have some facts to back that up buddy

I don't think that is bigoted or hogwash, we see-- over here as well-- no end of fanatical Xtian "preachers" who say that sort of thing. Some even say ludicrous things like claiming that " Hitler was enforcing God's plan" etc. People like John ( or is it Jon, I've seen it spelt both ways) Hagee and Pat Robertson frequently come out with this hate filed diatribes. I'm sure a few minutes spent googling such will turn up no end of relevant links.

but to save you some time

From my experience in the region it's pretty much like most of the world. Sure given the chance for Israel to magically disappear most people in the ME would jump at the chance, but most know that won't happen, accept Israel is a reality and wish they could just move on. They tend to worry about other things like mortgage payments, how the kids are doing in school, not got a bird wnat to get one, got a bird getting too much aggro. You know, people stuff.

Sure there are fanatics over thee who 24/7 preach hate and destruction of " The Great Satan", unbelievers, "The West", coca cola, apple pie etc and they get a lot of airtime, but they're a minority, most people over there don't wakr up and think of ways to hurt America, they wake up and wonder what to have for breakfast.

Thats garbage. You're convicting by anecdote. Show me something from a respectable 3rd party source that XXX,000 Christians in the US want to attack Iran because it will bring the end fo the world.

Because Hitler was an atheist I can then make the claim that atheists want to kill all Jews, gypsies and slavs in general. Its a brilliantly stupid argument.

jfrazell wrote:
That’s hogwash and antichristian bigotry. You better have some facts to back that up buddy.

Seriously? You have never heard of any of this stuff? I mean, the numbers sound a bit high, but think of the percentage. You honestly don't think that 1% or less of any given group is going to be flying rodent gak insane? 800,000 Christians in America that feel that way would still be less then 1% of the total number that claim Christianity in the US.

I also love how 80%+ of the population with their culture everywhere can act like they are the victims of discrimination and bigotry. Oh those poor law making, majority holding victims. Who will care for them?

Watch Christian broadcasting sometime, they get around to it eventually. Or go rent Jesus Camp. You may have missed it apparently, but there are a lot of different Christians out there, and they don't all believe the same thing. If they did, we wouldn't call the Lutherans, Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Episcipalean, Mormon (for you non-orthodox lovers), Baptist, Methodist, ect ect.

Also, I didn't say they want war in Iran specifically, it's more general then that. They want to get all the Jews back to Israel and want the conflict to start because they think that it is part of the pathway to the second coming and Armageddon. Whether it is Iran now or someone else later, they want to hasten this process.

So in other words, you're just blowing smoke out your

jfrazell wrote:Thats garbage. You're convicting by anecdote. Show me something from a respectable 3rd party source that XXX,000 Christians in the US want to attack Iran because it will bring the end fo the world.

Because Hitler was an atheist I can then make the claim that atheists want to kill all Jews, gypsies and slavs in general. Its a brilliantly stupid argument.

I'm sure you'll find a percentage that is willing to do so.

However, if you want to know how many people really want the end of the world now... look into the works of LaHaye and look at the numbers that Pat Robertson pulls in.

The Christian Zionist movement (despite anti-semitic beliefs among it leadership) is firmly behind Isreal for the following reason: the state of Ireal is required to ensure that the end of the world does occur in the near future. These people have no use for peace making in the iddle East because if there is peace there is no short term rapture. Effectively you need wars in the Middle East to ensure that the end is near.

Many of the people on the Christian right in both the US and Canada want the world to come to an end soon, so it can be reborn in a perfect manner. And before you you give me the "anti-Christian" label , I'll tell right right now that I have always been and remain to this day a practicing Christian. So don't try the "antichristian" label on me. It doesn't and has never fit.

You'll easily believe that many muslims are fanatics but not that ~1% of Christians are?

On The Road To Armageddon

The Rapture Factor

jfrazell wrote:

dogma wrote:

How do you know this? Do you know people in the ME? Do you know most Muslims? Do not mistake the rabid proclamations of fundamentalists for the majority simply because their voice is the loudest. The idea of Israel in peril is one of those great myths leftover from the rhetoric of the '67 war carried though to the modern day by those politicians who lived to see that time. Either way, its hard to imagine a set of circumstances under which the US would choose to invade Iran; even harder to imagine a series of events which would make Iran decide to enter a conflict with the US.

Don't be blind. Israel is being rocketed daily by Iran's client powers-Hamas and Hezbullah. They are developing missiles that will be in range of Israel's capital city. We would never tolerate this, but Israel is expected to. Nuts.

Israel is afraid as one nuke irradiates their country. Iran would lose a lot sure, if directly counterattacked. But if the country's leadership really doesn't have a problem dying for the cause whats to stop them?Of course they could avoid that but just smuggling a nuke into Israel/Gaza and setting it off.

And thats the US fear. They will strike not directly but by giving this to a terrorist gorup that will smuggle over the border or into NY/LA harbor and set it off. Thats what scares me about our border security-we have none.

It doesn't appear to me that Israel is tolerating any of the attacks being made against it, quite the opposite in fact. Nor should they be expected to. However, one cannot equate the development of long range missiles with, unproven, proxy support of military NGOs. You cannot presume that the development of any weapon system by a country which you are not actively at war with is a threat to your existence. Especially in this instance as Israel is not a reasonable target for any kind of Iranian WMD. The casualties on both sides, Muslim and Jewish, would be so horrendous as to seriously damage the already tenuous relationship that Iran has with the rest of the ME. Especially considering that even Syria, long the greatest Israeli opponent, is beginning to work with the Jewish state.

As for smuggled nuclear warheads. Not likely. I've already made my argument earlier in the thread, but in a nutshell it is simply not advantageous for any state to hand nuclear weapons over to a proxy actor. No matter what you think of Iran, it is still a state, and thus will act as one.

jfrazell wrote:Thats garbage. You're convicting by anecdote. Show me something from a respectable 3rd party source that XXX,000 Christians in the US want to attack Iran because it will bring the end fo the world.

Because Hitler was an atheist I can then make the claim that atheists want to kill all Jews, gypsies and slavs in general. Its a brilliantly stupid argument.

Convicting who? There was no accusation made here. The statement was simply that irrationality can arise anywhere. If anything the presence of insane Christians supports your argument that one cannot expect Iran to act rationally simply because we believe they should.

That said, Iran is not some great alien with incomprehensible morals and ideology. Much of the rhetoric used by the Guardian Council is lifted directly from the Western facist tradition. There is no reason to presume that they would sell their state, and power base, down the drain in order to become a martyr-nation. Especially considering the incredible depth of history they would be giving up; something which is often cited as being more dear to the Iranian people than the whole of Islam.

As an aside, I realize that my introduction of the Iranian facist tradition opens up my argument to Hitler comparisons. However, there is significant evidence to support the idea that Hitler suffered from the later stages of syphilis. A condition which severely distorted his perception of reality as it gradually ate away at his brain.

I see. Let me get this right.

Because, the argument goes, 1% of everyone is nuts (without proof to the statement),
therefore Christians are nuts and therefore want to nuke Iran to bring on Armaggedon?

Ok...
One Flew Over the Coockoo"s nest was an awesome movie wasn't it?

jfrazell wrote:I see. Let me get this right.

Because, the argument goes, 1% of everyone is nuts (without proof to the statement),
therefore Christians are nuts and therefore want to nuke Iran to bring on Armaggedon?

Ok...
One Flew Over the Coockoo"s nest was an awesome movie wasn't it?

+

No the stated comment which you attacked was that perhaps as many as a couple of million Christians wanted to bring about the end of the world. This number is probably not incorrect. The follow ups indicated that there were movements which desired the end of the world, and they are centred in right wing Christian theology. Among the more influental members of this pattern of thought are Pat "Let's assasinate Chavez" Robertson, Jerry Falwell and the relatively influential writer Tim LaHaye. Many believe the European Union to be the new Rome. These people influence a large swath of the American (and Canadian) population. The end of the earthly world is thier goal, and people dying to get them there doesn't bother them.

efarrer wrote:

jfrazell wrote:I see. Let me get this right.

No the stated comment which you attacked was that perhaps as many as a couple of million Christians wanted to bring about the end of the world. This number is probably not incorrect. The follow ups indicated that there were movements which desired the end of the world, and they are centred in right wing Christian theology. Among the more influental members of this pattern of thought are Pat "Let's assasinate Chavez" Robertson, Jerry Falwell and the relatively influential writer Tim LaHaye. Many believe the European Union to be the new Rome. These people influence a large swath of the American (and Canadian) population. The end of the earthly world is thier goal, and people dying to get them there doesn't bother them.

I'm not much of a believer but I wouldn't shed any tears if someone bagged Chavez.

Precisely. The religous right isn't really that large a segment of the US population. But when they can get a voter turn out which is near 95% they instantly become significant. Of course the extremity of their views mean that they can be fairly easily disenfranchised by, per their calculus, poor results from their chosen party. That's whats happening right now within the Republican Party.

dogma wrote:
By fair tax do you mean a flat tax, or a revisited scalar system?

They do give the money back, at least in theory. The problem with aid programs is that they are very easy to take advantage of; particularly so for the people who administrate them. However, the solution is not to do away with things like welfare. We tried that kind of capitalism once and it resulted in horrendous working conditions. The Libertarian project is far too willing to romanticize the America that existed before social programs. Read Upton Sinclair's The Jungle if you want a good picture of what life was like for the working class back then.

It wasn't much of a fight. We invaded and deposed a government which could not effectively control its own territory, let alone threaten the US. Want proof? The No-Fly zones which were in place before the war rendered nearl 2/3 of Iraq essentially off limits to Saddam's authority. We took a failing state and ground it into the dirt without any just cause; that fact alone means that it is our responsiblity to clean up the mess.

That last sentence makes you sound an awful lot like an extremist. I will grant you the fact that often times violence is the appropriate solution, but in this case it is not. Extremism is the reaction to the aggressive Imperialist past of the West. It seems hardly appropriate to give those who exploit our past foibles for power even more fuel for their flame.

Its hard to talk to someone when you lable them as being part of the axis of evil. If I stood up in a crowded restaraunt and point at you while calling you an ass-hat would you be inclined to have a polite conversation with me? I very much doubt it. This is not to say that the Iranians are not partly to blaim for the current state of affairs, but US rhetoric has left them little in the way of legitimate options. If they concede to the US it seriously impinges upon their legitimacy, which is already somewhat tenuous. If the US sits down with Iran it looks like we're atoning for our past mistakes, and taking a more reasonable approach to our supposed super-power status.

I mean the Fair Tax Plan. Search it on the web. Pretty much it shifts all federal taxes into a simple 23% sales tax on things we buy. In addition, all citizens get a monthly prebate check. This check's value is balanced so those at borderline poverty level get 100% of their contribution to the sales tax back while those below actually get additional money. In a sense, it performs the same role as welfare: giving the poor a little extra while taking less or nothing at all from them.

When I say "give money back", I mean it more in the sense of tax breaks. The government should not be a money trap where things always go in, but never come out. If there's a sustainable profit, taxes should be lowered. And if we managed to scrap a large number of hand-out programs and other money drains, it might be possible for a sustainable profit to exist.

I didn't argue against the fact that the war was a flat out asskicking. It's what was expected. And I do still argue that there was just cause: Saddam toyed around letting the UN inspectors search. They didn't find anything conclusive, but how were the American people supposed to know that Saddam hadn't moved things around every time a UN watch dog started sniffing around? Look at it like this: If we hadn't and a nuke or a biological weapon of Iraqi origins would have hit us or our allies, wouldn't the public spend forever running the Bush administration in the ground for allowing TWO major terrorist attacks? Hell, it's bad enough that he didn't take the warnings of 9-11 seriously, what would have happened if there was a mushroom cloud hanging over Chicago or LA or any other major US city? He was damned if he did, damned if he didn't. At least now he can say he tried... even if the result was utter crap.

How in all seriousness can you consider me extremist when the very guys I was referring to being killed are the raving lunatics who turn an otherwise peaceful religion into their personal mandate to kill Westerners? From my understanding, the troop surge has had some great successes, both in capturing or eliminating high ranking members of Al Qaeda and improving relations between locals and our military. Our boys are doing more than just blowing things up over there and many Iraqis thank us for it. That still doesn't mean there aren't extremists who'd rather risk killing portions of their own people just in order to kill rival faction members and US-led troops. I still have the donkey-cave'ish opinion that I'm not going to play medic to some guy I just trounced, regardless of what people think of me. If you get me mad enough or have me feeling threatened enough that I have to resort to violence and you get your ass handed to you, that's your lesson, learn from it. The only thing I'd want anyone to take away from an ass stomping like that is that if we say "hey, let us look for nukes", you say "yeah, ok" and not try and play shuffling cups with us(even if you don't have anything).

Pretty much, that's exactly what I said, if it were that simple to do, it would be done. Do you think Iran's going to magically go "oh look, it's a new president.. that country must not think we're asshats any more"? I'm not saying a peaceful solution isn't available or preferable. I'm saying there are no EASY peaceful solutions and just suggesting you'll go talk to them will fix everything is lunacy. That man is going to have a very hard time getting anywhere with them.

sebster wrote:
Which would be a sales tax based system, yeah? A flat tax on consumption spending. Which fails to account for income generated that isn't spent on consumption, such as investment - which is predominantly done by the rich, meaning the final system is in effect regressive. That has to be set at such a low level to leave the working poor enough to eat, you end up setting a tax rate quite low, meaning you can't raise enough revenue to perform the basic duties of government.

Several populist governments have implemented systems similar to this, look to South America, and the result each time has been disastrous.

You're ignoring the statements of the parties assigned to investigate for WMDs. You're also ignoring the basic argument that if you invade a country and destroy it's infrastructure, you should help put the infrastructure back up again. This argument can be made on humanitarian or realpolitik grounds (witness the difference in Germany WWI and the Treaty of Versailles, and Germany after WWII and the Marshall plan).

Oh, and it isn't because you're Americans that you stayed. There is a significant British contribution, as well as smaller contributions from other countries.

It's a pretty massive assumption to think that a terrorist exists regardless of your own actions. Assuming that a terrorist will be either in Iraq or in the US is ludicrous as it ignores the possibility that a terrorist might not exist at all, but for the invasion.

[
Bodycount maths was attempted to mark progress in Vietnam as well. Turns out assuming that every time you kill an irregular that means there's one less irregular is a big mistake. Actual progress involves a military solution to immediate dangers in combination with political and economic programs aimed at removing the underlying problems.

Indonesia, a country with a pretty terrible human rights record historically, has followed a similar method recently

Actually, the US suspended talks with Iran in 2006.

Yes, the FairTax Plan, as you can find on the internet, is a basic sales tax. Yeah, it won't tax investments. That's good news for middle class folks who're trying to save for retirement while getting taxed in their paycheck, then taxed again later when they cash in their 401ks. Also, if you're rich enough to invest your money in things, you're also rich enough that you're spending money other things. Whether it's fuel for your private jet, the electric bill at your 100 room mansion or the newest addition to your garage full of classic cars, you're spending money. Spending money is as much of an American past time as baseball and apple pie. Also, as I said, every citizen gets the same monthly prebate check. To the poor, it's just enough to defer the costs of their taxes and maybe help them get a decent meal. To the rich, it's a drop in the bucket. To the middle class, it helps alleviate the burden of being the largest source of federal income in the US. Hell, that in of itself would be enough to help out most people. Add in the fact that the Black Market in the US generates an estimated $1 trillion annually and that all drug dealers/criminals eat and consume as well. That would be a butt load of money. As far as the politics of South American countries are concerned, I barely have time to pay adequate attention to our BS politics without looking at the screw ups of other countries..

As I said, I've heard multiple arguments about why we got there. I still think, that after the UN got done being told where and when they can search for WMD's the Bush administration did what they thought at the time was the only real option: Go over there and find out for themselves.. You can tell a few suits from the UN "to toss off, you can't look here today", but you can't tell a world super power's military to "come back later, I'm in the middle of shaving my legs". So, we got over there, caused a lot of damage, didn't find anything and looked like asses. I still haven't seen any Japanese patching Pearl Harbor back together, nevermind Al Qaeda and NYC. Why are we held to such greater a standard? Also, yes.. I do generalize. People see this as OUR war, but we do have help. I'm not trying to trivialize the sacrifices of our allies. Even so, the Brits and everyone else there face the same BS as far as global politics go. It's like being the kid in class who gets picked on, but isn't allowed to stand up for himself or do anything equally as mean because "you should know better".

Much of the terrorist presence is at least lead by terrorist organizations that swarmed to iraq to attack US troops. Now, their recruiting maybe local farm boys pissed off that their goat fence got ran over by a Bradley, but a large portion of the evil individuals who head everything are out of towners trying to capitalize on the US presence there instead of wasting their resources trying insert terrorist cells into Western countries.

Ok, that last sentence has ruffled some feathers. I'm still of the opinion that if anyone should have to face an extremist bent on their utter destruction, it should be a soldier in a theater of war and not a civilian in a 747. Yeah, it's impossible to say if I kill these extremist, there won't be more later. But if an extremist kills several hundred infidels while taking his own life, eventually there will be a point when an extremist can say "if I kill these infidels, there won't be more later"

In 2006, they did yes, but this was due to expected poor results from the EU 3 negotiations. It wasn't until May of 2007 that Iran even made an attempt to better relations, so it's more than just the US not wanting to be friendly.. Even so, ANY US diplomat is going to have one HELL of a time trying to talk some sense into Iran.

The FairTax Plan is so much bullcrap and mumbo-jumbo; it belongs with trickle-down economics in the Dustbin of Voodoo Economics. It would never work, and is ENTIRELY a burden on the lower- and middle-class, while rewarding the rich for being rich.

What's wrong with being rich?

lord_sutekh wrote:The FairTax Plan is so much bullcrap and mumbo-jumbo; it belongs with trickle-down economics in the Dustbin of Voodoo Economics. It would never work, and is ENTIRELY a burden on the lower- and middle-class, while rewarding the rich for being rich.

Uh yeah... because rich people don't buy things that have sales tax.. riiiight.. How exactly does this reward the rich?

Well, in all fairness, that third vacation home might not be subject to sales tax . . .

The statement that this plan would favor the rich is somewhat amusing in that the upper crust, as the holders of a nice sized chunk of the nation's accumulated wealth, would get hit the hardest by the retroactive taxation on savings* inherent in the transition from an income tax based system to a sales tax based system.

*If you are wondering why this is: if you saved money in the past, you already paid taxes on that income at the time of its accumulation. Under a sales tax based plan, the current purchasing power of the amount saved is reduced proportionate to the increase in the national sales tax, as you can purchase fewer goods and/or services (depending upon what counts as a taxable transaction) with what you have saved.

In absolute terms, anything that is based off sales tax hits those who must live hand-to-mouth harder than those who do not. And if you think that a "prebate" check system would work, than you obviously don't know what the rate of fraud on tax rebate and Social Security checks is.

And even if the conversion would "hurt" the upper crust in the way you mention, they still have, in absolute terms, great heaping gobs of money... while the poor have even less buying power. $1,000 means nothing to someone in the top income brackets, and is the difference between making it and not for the lowest.

Take an economics class or two (and not from someone who advised Enron or Dubya), and you'll understand much better the reality of the situation.

Out of curiosity, what is the rate of fraud on tax rebates and Social Security? Particularly in regards to the latter, a good chunk of people who actually vote would be impacted by it, and I cannot remember hearing much about it in recent years. A quick look over my favorite watchdog (the GAO) did not find any studies on this, which would be unusual for a major issue impacting a federal beauracracy?

While it is Econ 101 that regressive sales tax measures will have disproportionate impacts unless mitigated, that does mean that they cannot be mitigated and made "fair." I think it is a tall order to make a tax rate both equitable and low enough to prevent widespread tax evasion (part of why I am not a supporter of this measure.) However, that does not mean that it is impossible.

themandudeperson wrote:

I mean the Fair Tax Plan. Search it on the web. Pretty much it shifts all federal taxes into a simple 23% sales tax on things we buy. In addition, all citizens get a monthly prebate check. This check's value is balanced so those at borderline poverty level get 100% of their contribution to the sales tax back while those below actually get additional money. In a sense, it performs the same role as welfare: giving the poor a little extra while taking less or nothing at all from them.

Oh, THAT Fair Tax Plan. Ya, I didn't even think of that right away because it is utter crap. Sorry, but many people in this country cannot afford to see a 23% increase in the cost of goods while still maintaining any kind of livable existence. And yes, I understand that those people would be reimbursed, but the time inherent in distributing those refunds does not bode well for anyone who lives hand-to-mouth.

themandudeperson wrote:

When I say "give money back", I mean it more in the sense of tax breaks. The government should not be a money trap where things always go in, but never come out. If there's a sustainable profit, taxes should be lowered. And if we managed to scrap a large number of hand-out programs and other money drains, it might be possible for a sustainable profit to exist.

The government is not a for-profit endeavor. Unlike a corporation you cannot simply cut excessive expenses; espeically when those expenses are essentially the lives of tax paying citizens. If anything needs to be cut it is military spending. The navy just launched a brand new class of nuclear attack submarines; something which will NEVER see combat within the next 30 years. Utter waste.

themandudeperson wrote:

I didn't argue against the fact that the war was a flat out asskicking. It's what was expected. And I do still argue that there was just cause: Saddam toyed around letting the UN inspectors search. They didn't find anything conclusive, but how were the American people supposed to know that Saddam hadn't moved things around every time a UN watch dog started sniffing around? Look at it like this: If we hadn't and a nuke or a biological weapon of Iraqi origins would have hit us or our allies, wouldn't the public spend forever running the Bush administration in the ground for allowing TWO major terrorist attacks? Hell, it's bad enough that he didn't take the warnings of 9-11 seriously, what would have happened if there was a mushroom cloud hanging over Chicago or LA or any other major US city? He was damned if he did, damned if he didn't. At least now he can say he tried... even if the result was utter crap.

No, he didn't. The UN weapon inspectors even explicitly stated that the Iraqis were fully compliant. The US simply refused to listen. You can see the best WMD evidence available to the US in Colin Powell's speech at the UN. Do a quick google search and you'll see just how pathetic the case really was.

themandudeperson wrote:
How in all seriousness can you consider me extremist when the very guys I was referring to being killed are the raving lunatics who turn an otherwise peaceful religion into their personal mandate to kill Westerners? From my understanding, the troop surge has had some great successes, both in capturing or eliminating high ranking members of Al Qaeda and improving relations between locals and our military. Our boys are doing more than just blowing things up over there and many Iraqis thank us for it. That still doesn't mean there aren't extremists who'd rather risk killing portions of their own people just in order to kill rival faction members and US-led troops. I still have the donkey-cave'ish opinion that I'm not going to play medic to some guy I just trounced, regardless of what people think of me. If you get me mad enough or have me feeling threatened enough that I have to resort to violence and you get your ass handed to you, that's your lesson, learn from it. The only thing I'd want anyone to take away from an ass stomping like that is that if we say "hey, let us look for nukes", you say "yeah, ok" and not try and play shuffling cups with us(even if you don't have anything).

Because you consider it a better situation when both sides are suffering casualties. Aggressive military action in a near imperialist mode does far more to create more terrorists than disuade people from joining their ranks. This is not a war. We have no enemy here. We cannot simply kill a few people and bomb a few buildings and call the matter settled. This is a conflict of culture and ideology; a battle that cannot be won at gun-point. You want to make Iraq a democracy? The people have to WANT to be a democracy. Currently it seems that they do not. They want to see themselves governed by a system that is a direct expression of their own ideals; something which the US is currently not allowing them to have.

themandudeperson wrote:
Pretty much, that's exactly what I said, if it were that simple to do, it would be done. Do you think Iran's going to magically go "oh look, it's a new president.. that country must not think we're asshats any more"? I'm not saying a peaceful solution isn't available or preferable. I'm saying there are no EASY peaceful solutions and just suggesting you'll go talk to them will fix everything is lunacy. That man is going to have a very hard time getting anywhere with them.

Administration changes frequently signal significant shifts in the climate of international relations. Its not like other countries are not aware of the nature of the American political system. Still, it really doesn't matter if Iran isn't going to listen. WE still have to make the attempt at talking. Something which the Bush administration, and McCain if he is (hopefully not) elected, refuse to do.

themandudeperson wrote:Yes, the FairTax Plan, as you can find on the internet, is a basic sales tax. Yeah, it won't tax investments. That's good news for middle class folks who're trying to save for retirement while getting taxed in their paycheck, then taxed again later when they cash in their 401ks. Also, if you're rich enough to invest your money in things, you're also rich enough that you're spending money other things. Whether it's fuel for your private jet, the electric bill at your 100 room mansion or the newest addition to your garage full of classic cars, you're spending money. Spending money is as much of an American past time as baseball and apple pie. Also, as I said, every citizen gets the same monthly prebate check. To the poor, it's just enough to defer the costs of their taxes and maybe help them get a decent meal. To the rich, it's a drop in the bucket. To the middle class, it helps alleviate the burden of being the largest source of federal income in the US. Hell, that in of itself would be enough to help out most people. Add in the fact that the Black Market in the US generates an estimated $1 trillion annually and that all drug dealers/criminals eat and consume as well. That would be a butt load of money. As far as the politics of South American countries are concerned, I barely have time to pay adequate attention to our BS politics without looking at the screw ups of other countries..

Fair tax plans and similar have been attempted, and every time they’ve been attempted near financial collapse has resulted. They fail to raise the money necessary to provide basic government services. They lead to an artificial incentive to save instead of consume resulting in a collapse in consumer demand leading to no demand for investment, which means negative growth. And they hit the section of the community who spends almost all its money on consumption, the poor, while only taxing a small percentage of the income of the rich, and this is a very bad thing.

And the black market argument is always massively overstated. In almost every case where a new sales tax has been introduced the money generated from catching black market trades is far short of predictions, generally by an order of magnitude.

And if you want to argue for a tax system, you really should familiarise yourself with its attempted applications. America is a big place and all, but there is a lot to be learned from the failures and successes of the rest of us.

As I said, I've heard multiple arguments about why we got there. I still think, that after the UN got done being told where and when they can search for WMD's the Bush administration did what they thought at the time was the only real option: Go over there and find out for themselves.. You can tell a few suits from the UN "to toss off, you can't look here today", but you can't tell a world super power's military to "come back later, I'm in the middle of shaving my legs". So, we got over there, caused a lot of damage, didn't find anything and looked like asses. I still haven't seen any Japanese patching Pearl Harbor back together, nevermind Al Qaeda and NYC. Why are we held to such greater a standard? Also, yes.. I do generalize. People see this as OUR war, but we do have help. I'm not trying to trivialize the sacrifices of our allies. Even so, the Brits and everyone else there face the same BS as far as global politics go. It's like being the kid in class who gets picked on, but isn't allowed to stand up for himself or do anything equally as mean because "you should know better".

Blix’ investigating team reported they were being impeded, the UN and US made scary noises, and Blix received greatly improved assistance from the Iraqis. He continued his investigation, reporting no WMD facilities.

Meanwhile the Bush administration had already made he decision to invade (to ensure American dominance of a key resource and create the democratic domino effect). At that point it was all about selling it to the American people. WMDs were decided as the best chance, and so that extra intelligence body was created, who’s job it was to make the argument for WMDs look as likely as possible. Hence the stupidity with the aluminium tubes and the ice cream trucks as mobile factories.

That’s all pretty much on the public record, it’s been remarkable how quickly shunned officials have come out and talked about what was really going on. There’s also the Project for the New American Century, signed by most of the heavy hitters of the Bush admin, which pretty much lays out in exact detail exactly why Iraq should be invaded.

And you’re held to a higher standard than Japan at the end of WWII because you didn’t lose. Anyone who wins a war should be held to the same standard, even ignoring the humanitarian argument, it simply makes sense to help the other guy recover so you don’t end up fighting each other in another generation.

Just go read up Germany after WWI and the Weimar Republic, and compare with the situation after WWII and the Marshall Plan. You seem like a pretty patriotic guy so you’ll likely enjoy it… the Americans did a great thing.

Much of the terrorist presence is at least lead by terrorist organizations that swarmed to iraq to attack US troops. Now, their recruiting maybe local farm boys pissed off that their goat fence got ran over by a Bradley, but a large portion of the evil individuals who head everything are out of towners trying to capitalize on the US presence there instead of wasting their resources trying insert terrorist cells into Western countries.

The proportion of foreign soldiers in Iraq fluctuates, but has never been anywhere near as high as the Administration likes to pretend.

Terrorist organisations don’t grow their footsoldiers out of vats in deep underground terrorist spawning facilities. They’re created when you piss people off.

And talking about someone being pissed off about having their fence run over is a really crap way of talking about the half million plus civilian deaths in Iraq. People don’t strap bombs to themselves because you ran over their fence. They strap bombs to themselves because faulty intel saw a hellfire missile kill their mother. That’s what gets people mad enough to pick up a gun.

Ok, that last sentence has ruffled some feathers. I'm still of the opinion that if anyone should have to face an extremist bent on their utter destruction, it should be a soldier in a theater of war and not a civilian in a 747. Yeah, it's impossible to say if I kill these extremist, there won't be more later. But if an extremist kills several hundred infidels while taking his own life, eventually there will be a point when an extremist can say "if I kill these infidels, there won't be more later"

No, there won’t. The maths is simple. When you kill a terrorist you don’t have one less terrorist, you have two more. If you’ve dug yourself a whole and don’t know how to get back to the top, the answer isn’t to keep digging.

What you can do is kill where necessary to ensure the safety of your troops and the civilian population. Then you start dismantling the enemy’s means to engage in war, by taking out key personnel and destroying supply and communication chains. Then you move to separate the terrorists from their support in the civilian population (either physically, see southern provinces of Vietnam or Malaysia) or politically (actually removing their reason to fight).

In 2006, they did yes, but this was due to expected poor results from the EU 3 negotiations. It wasn't until May of 2007 that Iran even made an attempt to better relations, so it's more than just the US not wanting to be friendly.. Even so, ANY US diplomat is going to have one HELL of a time trying to talk some sense into Iran.

Iran is a complicated place, and I won’t pretend to be an expert. There’s a strong liberal community that was reaching something close to political relevance, until all that Axis of Evil crap. There is also a strong traditionalist element and embedded power base of clerics who dominate politics regardless of their level of support. And there’s an insane anti-semitic President, but he’s little more than a figurehead and has nowhere near the power his title implies.

So I don’t really know the best line of approach, but I do know that in every situation where nations and organisations have clashed, there’s always been someone saying that negotiation is impossible with those other crazy folk. I know that by talking to the moderate factions you give them power and legitimacy, by rejecting any possibility of talks you give the extremist factions power, you encourage combative solutions.

And I know that the McCain and Republican line ‘don’t talk because talk equals appeasement’ is very stupid… talks have occurred, and at times met with reasonable success.

Yeah, I kinda opened a door here, didn't I... but y'all are the ones that barreled through. It's an interesting thread, even if it's gone kinda far afield.

Because you consider it a better situation when both sides are suffering casualties. Aggressive military action in a near imperialist mode does far more to create more terrorists than disuade people from joining their ranks. This is not a war. We have no enemy here. We cannot simply kill a few people and bomb a few buildings and call the matter settled. This is a conflict of culture and ideology; a battle that cannot be won at gun-point. You want to make Iraq a democracy? The people have to WANT to be a democracy. Currently it seems that they do not. They want to see themselves governed by a system that is a direct expression of their own ideals; something which the US is currently not allowing them to have

Impressive.................I must admit that i agree with this statement just not whole heartley. There has to be some sort of middle ground hard tactics are not working too well over there. The people just plain out dont want us there. in the end there is no simple answer we've got troops over there and both sides will continue to take casulaties until we completely bail out. now that doesnt mean there wont still be infighting in Iraq. The best thing we can hope for is a favorable withdraw.

One thing we can do is try and unpack the Neo-Con perversion of just what democracy is. Democracy, in its most elemental form, is simply the freedom of a given group of people to determine the manner in which they are governed. Things like the free market, freedom of religion, and even freedom from oppression are not intrinsic to that concept. They certainly are fundamental components of Liberal Western Democracies, but the existence of that system does not presuppose that it is the only possible iteration of democratic process.

The problem isn't with exporting democracy, but rather exporting OUR democracy.

As such, what we really need to do is grant the Iraqis greater control of their own fate. As it stands Iraq is little more than a ideological clash between the global hegemon that is the US and the regional hegemon that Iran is attempting to become. Its a simple proxy war. The way out is simply in allowing the Iraqi government form through as organic a process as possible; regardless of how the resultant state might view the US.