Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

jfrazell wrote:Hundreds of thousands of Christians was the term. Thats not an extreme minority. The statement was proffered without support. Funny you would think massed marches of thousands of people shouting "Nuke Iran so we can go to heaven" would have been televised. Oh wait, it never happened.

Quit painting the majority of the US population with the same brush. Such bigotry has no place on this forum.

Again no-one has made ANY calls to do with the majority of of the US population.

All we have done is point out that for every X amount of people shown protesting against " THE GREAT SATAN/BEEF OF THE DAY" there are just as many individuals inside the USA borders that are subject to and support equally.... hmm... " extreme" views concerning the area in question.

It's noted that despite your complaints about statements being " proffered without support " excluding that of common knowledge which every other poster so far has inferred as being widespread you offer none yourself.

I mean you'd think " massed telephone pledges of hundreds of thousands of people" supporting the aforementioned preachers" -- cause as you don't have to prove the numbers figures "we" don't either right ?-- would be just as relevant.

... We'll ignore the Phelps clan and their views as they are just abhorrent to everyone right ?

Well, being that I KNOW Nieto666 in real life, I can attest to this: If he wasn't in the US Army he has gone to such extraordinary means to fake his enlistment that he has everyone I know fooled.
I also come from the same rural area where industrial work is the norm among citizens and worries are constant as to whether or not we'll have a job in the morning. As far as political views, me and him differ greatly. Most specifically, we butt heads on the subjects of gun control and labor unions.
IMO, to fix America, the government needs to find a better way to EVENLY tax ALL citizens and tourists. This is why anyone who'll listen to me will nine times out of ten hear my Fair Tax Plan speech. Not only would that provide MORE money to the government by taxing the Black Market, tourists and illegals (who don't contribute to property and income taxes) as well as normal law-abiding citizens, it would also reduce government costs due to the elimination of the IRS.
To save additional money, I wish and pray the day will come when all three branches of our federal government will convene and sift through all their BS social aid programs, subsidies and laws and throw out EVERYTHING that doesn't jive with the constitution or even restricts our rights as citizens. That would free up even more government money as law enforcement across the country would no longer expend god knows how much money on arresting and punishing those committing victimless crimes. Then, with all this money the government is saving they should GIVE IT BACK TO US!! Talk about stimulating the economy.. What do you think all those middle class Americans are going to do when they're not getting taxed to death and don't have the government throwing away their money on BS?
But it won't happen, ever.. Because our government is full of corrupt do-nothings. Julia Robert's character had it right in "Charlie Wilson's War"- "Why do politicians say one thing and do nothing?". Also, Thomas Jefferson couldn't have been more right when he said (and I'm paraphrasing) "A government strong enough to GIVE you everything is strong enough to TAKE everything away from you."
As far as the war in Iraq, I don't agree with the reasons we went there. I've heard every reason under the sun described to me and the most plausible to me is that Bush called Saddam's bluff that he had WMDs. We got there, kicked some ass, didn't find anything and should have left. In a fight, you don't knock someone flat on their ass then stop to see if they're alright. BUT, because we're Americans and we catch so much sh!t as it is, we stayed. Now we've got terrorist organizations out the ass over there all jonesing to kill them some GI's. What do I say to that? Who would you think would be better to put at risk: the average joe going to work in a high rise or a highly trained, well equipped soldier, backed by hundreds of his comrades who all swore to protect the US and it's citizens from "all threats foreign and domestic"?
Yeah, I've got family that's ex-military. Yeah, if it wasn't for my wife, I would BE IN the military and yeah, I even have friends who are currently in the military. It is a hard choice to say I'd rather see my friends, family or potentially myself put at risk, but I'd rather that than another event like 9-11. At least our soldiers are killing those extremist a55holes as well!
And as far as Obama vs. McCain, I think if either candidate would be likely to fulfill ANY of these, it'd be McCain. For some reason, Obama seems to be living life through rose-tinted glass, IMO. So, he'll go talk to Iran, what the hell do you think our government has been TRYING to do? If it was as simple as a sit down at a coffee diner, it wouldn't be an issue now.

themandudeperson wrote:
IMO, to fix America, the government needs to find a better way to EVENLY tax ALL citizens and tourists. This is why anyone who'll listen to me will nine times out of ten hear my Fair Tax Plan speech. Not only would that provide MORE money to the government by taxing the Black Market, tourists and illegals (who don't contribute to property and income taxes) as well as normal law-abiding citizens, it would also reduce government costs due to the elimination of the IRS.

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

themandudeperson wrote:
To save additional money, I wish and pray the day will come when all three branches of our federal government will convene and sift through all their BS social aid programs, subsidies and laws and throw out EVERYTHING that doesn't jive with the constitution or even restricts our rights as citizens. That would free up even more government money as law enforcement across the country would no longer expend god knows how much money on arresting and punishing those committing victimless crimes. Then, with all this money the government is saving they should GIVE IT BACK TO US!! Talk about stimulating the economy.. What do you think all those middle class Americans are going to do when they're not getting taxed to death and don't have the government throwing away their money on BS?
But it won't happen, ever.. Because our government is full of corrupt do-nothings. Julia Robert's character had it right in "Charlie Wilson's War"- "Why do politicians say one thing and do nothing?". Also, Thomas Jefferson couldn't have been more right when he said (and I'm paraphrasing) "A government strong enough to GIVE you everything is strong enough to TAKE everything away from you."

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.

themandudeperson wrote:
As far as the war in Iraq, I don't agree with the reasons we went there. I've heard every reason under the sun described to me and the most plausible to me is that Bush called Saddam's bluff that he had WMDs. We got there, kicked some ass, didn't find anything and should have left. In a fight, you don't knock someone flat on their ass then stop to see if they're alright. BUT, because we're Americans and we catch so much sh!t as it is, we stayed.

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.

themandudeperson wrote:
Now we've got terrorist organizations out the ass over there all jonesing to kill them some GI's. What do I say to that? Who would you think would be better to put at risk: the average joe going to work in a high rise or a highly trained, well equipped soldier, backed by hundreds of his comrades who all swore to protect the US and it's citizens from "all threats foreign and domestic"?
Yeah, I've got family that's ex-military. Yeah, if it wasn't for my wife, I would BE IN the military and yeah, I even have friends who are currently in the military. It is a hard choice to say I'd rather see my friends, family or potentially myself put at risk, but I'd rather that than another event like 9-11. At least our soldiers are killing those extremist a55holes as well!

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.

themandudeperson wrote:
And as far as Obama vs. McCain, I think if either candidate would be likely to fulfill ANY of these, it'd be McCain. For some reason, Obama seems to be living life through rose-tinted glass, IMO. So, he'll go talk to Iran, what the hell do you think our government has been TRYING to do? If it was as simple as a sit down at a coffee diner, it wouldn't be an issue now.

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.

themandudeperson wrote:IMO, to fix America, the government needs to find a better way to EVENLY tax ALL citizens and tourists. This is why anyone who'll listen to me will nine times out of ten hear my Fair Tax Plan speech. Not only would that provide MORE money to the government by taxing the Black Market, tourists and illegals (who don't contribute to property and income taxes) as well as normal law-abiding citizens, it would also reduce government costs due to the elimination of the IRS.

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.

As far as the war in Iraq, I don't agree with the reasons we went there. I've heard every reason under the sun described to me and the most plausible to me is that Bush called Saddam's bluff that he had WMDs. We got there, kicked some ass, didn't find anything and should have left. In a fight, you don't knock someone flat on their ass then stop to see if they're alright. BUT, because we're Americans and we catch so much sh!t as it is, we stayed. Now we've got terrorist organizations out the ass over there all jonesing to kill them some GI's. What do I say to that? Who would you think would be better to put at risk: the average joe going to work in a high rise or a highly trained, well equipped soldier, backed by hundreds of his comrades who all swore to protect the US and it's citizens from "all threats foreign and domestic"?

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.

At least our soldiers are killing those extremist a55holes as well!

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

And as far as Obama vs. McCain, I think if either candidate would be likely to fulfill ANY of these, it'd be McCain. For some reason, Obama seems to be living life through rose-tinted glass, IMO. So, he'll go talk to Iran, what the hell do you think our government has been TRYING to do? If it was as simple as a sit down at a coffee diner, it wouldn't be an issue now.

Actually, the US suspended talks with Iran in 2006.

nieto666 wrote:There is no real quickfix for anything who ever gets elected will be fixing this mess for their entire term. The thing ithe Iraq and Afghanistan is we are trying to give people freedom whov never tasted it before and may not even want. When i said take troops out of Iraq and put them in Afghanaistan i meant drop the force level by like 50,000. This still leaves plenty of boots on the ground and some forces can be redirected to another theater of operation. If Iran even gets close to gaining a NUKE Israel will attack hell their Prime Minster said that this week that strikes against Iran will happen if Iran continues seeking NUKES. If Israel attacks it'll spark a massive war one that we will not just sit back and watch so yes we need to talk to Iran. ALright here is a stupid question for everyone how many of you have served with your nations military??

Why is nuke in capitals? Are you shouting that one word?

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?

You really owe it to the board to be more honest with your arguments. You seem like a pretty smart guy, so why resort to these kinds of tactics?

There are prominent Christian leaders who argue for Armageddon coming about through Israel. The number of supporters for these figures is quite large if looked at in isolation (probably in excess of a million) but quite irrelevant if looked at as part of the US as a whole, where they’re a fraction of a percent.

You obviously don’t like where that argument leads, so you’ve opted for the path of obfuscation and deliberate misinterpretation. It’s quite transparent.

Instead, you should try arguing that while the Christian extremists represent an irrelevant minority, their muslim equivalents in the middle east are politically relevant. Hamas is the majority party in Palestine. Before that it was the PLO. Iran’s president is a whackjob (though admittedly not completely representative of the country).

While the whole of the region can’t be defined by the actions of the extremists, the extremists in many ME are more representative of the political scene that Robertson is in the US.


Oh, and can everyone stop using Muslim to refer to the people of the ME? While most Arabs and Persians are Muslim, only a small portion of Muslims are Arabic. Indonesia being the biggest Muslim nation and all that.

every major faith has their relgious zealots.

themandudeperson wrote:Well, being that I KNOW Nieto666 in real life, I can attest to this: If he wasn't in the US Army he has gone to such extraordinary means to fake his enlistment that he has everyone I know fooled.

Well can you help him out? It's kind of sad that someone would get through High School and the Military without a basic grasp of grammar. I also have no reason to believe you (or he) is anything more than a sockpuppet.

Instead, you should try arguing that while the Christian extremists represent an irrelevant minority, their muslim equivalents in the middle east are politically relevant

You seriously claiming that the millions of dollars the religious right raises for "their" candidates doesn't have an effect ? If not why do so many candidates go to such efforts to garner their support ?

reds8n wrote:

Instead, you should try arguing that while the Christian extremists represent an irrelevant minority, their muslim equivalents in the middle east are politically relevant

You seriously claiming that the millions of dollars the religious right raises for "their" candidates doesn't have an effect ? If not why do so many candidates go to such efforts to garner their support ?

The religious right is a powerful force in American politics, it was the core of Bush' base. But the majority of the religious right can't sensibly be called extreme, even if I happen to disagree with them.

It's only the fringe of the religious right that beliefs in supporting Israel to bring about the end times and all that claptrap. And that fringe has no real influence on policy. If you want to look to the drivers of Israel policy in the US, you look to the Jewish lobby groups.

Ahh, I get ya.

To be honest though coming from a UK perspective the religious right do seem pretty extreme, far more so than the CoE.

To paraphrase Mr. Campbell " We don't do religion" over here.

reds8n wrote:Ahh, I get ya.

To be honest though coming from a UK perspective the religious right do seem pretty extreme, far more so than the CoE.

To paraphrase Mr. Campbell " We don't do religion" over here.

Hey, I'm an Aussie so it's all a little odd to me as well.

By our standards and yours the American religious right would be the extreme right wing if they were in our countries. In Australia we've got religious/political groups that aren't as conservative as their US equivalents and they're still relegated to the lunatic fringe.

But by US standards those groups aren't extreme, that's left to the afore-mentioned apocalyptic nutters. Then you compare them to groups in the ME, and they seem almost maintstream.

But when you get to read some of their books and their interpretation of the Bible you laugh a lot. I know I did.
On a more serious note the problem with these crackpots is that they are stronger when the majority of the electorate doesn´t want to use his right to vote, because they will blindly follow the orders of their charismatics leaders at the ballot time. Leaving the US goverment open to lobbying by the same people that the rest of the country dissregards as fringe extremists.

M.

Well can you help him out? It's kind of sad that someone would get through High School and the Military without a basic grasp of grammar. I also have no reason to believe you (or he) is anything more than a sockpuppet.

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.