Peace prize

[tome10]

Nice rant. Totally disproved by even a casual reading of history, but a nice rant.

A Total Nice Rant and Totally Confirmed by History.
Althought I admit Liberal in the literal sense meaning Liberty may at some time in the past actually meant something, but like this peace prize has been demeaned by something. By what I am not totally sure. A lack of Courage? What causes the Liberals today put their faith in Dictators? To have the Gall to say Iraq was better off with Saddam still in Power? To casually dismiss the Mass Graves as saying there were not that many? How many is enough to count? Even though I totally dismiss your thousands number.
To be so quick to point to a map and say this guy over here was far worse than Saddam. Ohh look over here this guy over here is really bad. Like you would approve of removing any dictator. Disgusting. All this time Our liberals saying we shouldn't be in Iraq we should be concentrating on Afghanistan. Now the liberals are in Power and what do they want to do? Haha Leave. They never meant that. What a disgusting bunch.
Look at a Map of the Middle East, and you will find Iraq is in the Middle of everything. A real Liberator would say what would happen if a Thriving Flourishing Democracy was right there in the middle of this map.

[Shaggy Hiker]

The reason that I pointed out that Saddam hadn't killed the millions that you mentioned was that you had stated that he was the worst dictator since Hitler. He wasn't. There have been others who were far worse than him. Simple enough.

You dispute the thousands? Why? I suppose that your argument would be correct if he had killed sufficient numbers of millions, but I don't think he killed that many even if you include the Iran war dead, which would be a strange addition to the sum.

Do liberals put their faith in dictators? Reagan was in charge when we were assisting Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war. That was also the time when he was using gas against his own people. Are you suggesting that Reagan didn't know what kind of a man he was? That seems unlikely, but perhaps you have some evidence.

Bush was in charge when we turned a blind eye to that other country (it is one of the 'stans, and I forget which. Fortunately, on this forum, most people probably know which one, and can probably even spell it, which is one of the nice things here) when we needed to stage air strikes out of there. So he was REALLY putting his faith in a dictator.

Some Democrats have done the same, but what liberals? I think you'd have to step back a few decades for that to the time when the far left was supporting folks like Mao.

When Saddam was in power, Iraq was a reasonably stabel, educated, secular society. Some groups (most notably the Kurds) were not well off at all, and have clearly gained. Other groups have suffered considerably. The largest losers would be the Sunnis, who are more numerous than the Kurds, but less numerous than the Shiites. They had power, since Saddam was Sunni. The Shiites have gained some and lost some, but they have primarily gained. The country as a whole has suffered, as they have lost their wealth, lost their educated segment (there was a mass exodus of the educated during the times when they were being killed), and lost their infrastructure. That's a mixed bag. However, I feel that WE are worse off, as we have replaced a secular sunni country with a theistic shiite country located on the border of Iran. If it is stable, it is unlikely to be friendly towards us once they can afford not to be. If it is unstable, we will probably end up with somebody as bad as Saddam, but only after considerable bloodshed. If we have gained a thing for our expense, I don't see it.

Look at a Map of the Middle East, and you will find Iraq is in the Middle of everything. A real Liberator would say what would happen if a Thriving Flourishing Democracy was right there in the middle of this map.

Now THAT's an interesting statement. Are you aware that this was the neocon credo since the end of gulf war I, or did you come up with it on your own? It's the one thing that I have always applauded the neocons for. It proved to be myopic and poorly implemented, but it was a long term vision, which is not all that common in politics. If there was a Thriving Flourishing Democracy, that could really impact the whole area. Of course, there IS a Thriving Flourishing Democracy right next door to it (Iran is a democracy and more highly educated than most of its neighbors), but that democracy happens to oppose us, so you left out the pro-America part, but otherwise it is sound. Unfortunately, the Shiites and Sunni get along with each other as well as Catholics and Protestants did when they were in that state. By "state", mean the situation of the people. As long as people self-identify more strongly with their faction than they do with the state, conflict arises. Even the USA killed and persecuted catholics in the early decades (which led to the non-establishment clause in the Constitution). Once people self identify more strongly with the state than with a faction within the state, then the civil strife dies down (there are ALWAYS fanatics). The neocons mistakenly believed that secular, educated, Iraq would self-identify with the country, when, in fact, they identified with the religious faction.

I'll pass over the comments about afghanistan. Though dripping with a feined contempt, you project a simplistic outcome that lacks dimension.

[tome10]

I'm sorry who's been worse than Saddam? And what did the Dictator/Despit Laden UN do about it?
Over 5 Million have been estimated in the Mass Graves. But the number isn't the point unless you are attempting to demean the arguement through Liberal Relativism. A stark contrast of counting every fallen American Soldier with Bated Breath to try to ensure our failure.
Reagan did put his faith in Saddam. No thanks to that iddiott Carter for not supporting the Shaw. So again an iddiot Liberal messes up History and we're still suffering the consequences.

So Iran is a Democracy huh? That was a really stupid statement.

Some Stan country? I vaguely remember Something with the Russians? So what are you saying? You want us to meddle some places? But not others? And the Not others are the ones with the Mass Graves? This is like Hearding Cats. What did your Dictator Friends in the UN do in this situation? I'm sure they were helpful.

When Saddam was in power, Iraq was a reasonably stabel, educated, secular society. Some groups (most notably the Kurds) were not well off at all, and have clearly gained. Other groups have suffered considerably. The largest losers would be the Sunnis, who are more numerous than the Kurds, but less numerous than the Shiites. They had power, since Saddam was Sunni. The Shiites have gained some and lost some, but they have primarily gained. The country as a whole has suffered, as they have lost their wealth, lost their educated segment (there was a mass exodus of the educated during the times when they were being killed), and lost their infrastructure. That's a mixed bag. However, I feel that WE are worse off, as we have replaced a secular sunni country with a theistic shiite country located on the border of Iran. If it is stable, it is unlikely to be friendly towards us once they can afford not to be. If it is unstable, we will probably end up with somebody as bad as Saddam, but only after considerable bloodshed. If we have gained a thing for our expense, I don't see it.

What is this? Wishy washy I seem to know enough to throw their names around these people were alright, these over here not so much Secular Society Saddam was alright. Some had wealth some didn't. I'm afraid of the Future. When they get their wealth back they may not like us. Geeesssss...
Because you Liberals are such morons that you couldn't stand strong and not Politicise the war. You linguini spined '. You have blood on your hands.
But unlike you I have Faith in Free People to make better choices than Evil Dictators. Ohh yes, I saw all the Purple Fingers Because I watch Fox news. They just had elections not too long ago. I have Faith. Freedom took a huge hit due to all the Politicising you guys did. The Evil People are feeling spry thanks to you guys. Stark Contrast compared to the day we pulled Saddam out of that Hole. Caddaffi said here ya go I was working on this nuclear thing, but I'm afraid Bush will come after me so here ya go. Seria: Scared """"... Iran:Trembling. Lady Liberty was banging on that Bell!! Freedom was on the March!!! And you guys and your Politicising disgust me!!! What? We can't have an evil Dictator Disposed of? I mean who would the UN consist of if no Iddiot Dictators? What the heck is this? The Matrix, and we have to have a certain amount of Suffering?
This last Paragraph another long Bloviating all over the Place Statement. But I have a Cat i'm pretty good at hearding.
Neocon, Poorly implemented. Yea because Progress in Interrupted by Iddiot Liberals who think if we just talk it out we can all go to disney land together.
Iran is not a Democracy it is ran by the Mullahs. You know the Men behind the Curtain. The ones that determine which Puppet is going to win the election this time. I saw a lot of Iranians demonstrating and getting Killed by that Democracy Begging Lady Liberty to shine her light on them. To at least acknowledge their pleas for Freedom. There was Crickets Chirping in the White House. Not a Peep. Meddling in Israels affairs of settlement expansion. Crying Foul when a south american country disposed of a wanttobe Chaves. They could not Meddle with Iran and people crying for Freedom.
Establishment Clause? Catholic Persicution? Another Blame America Liberal Relativism for her Past Transgressions to demean and set we are no better than the Dictators yea yea I get it. We're the Evil ones.
Establishment Clause was because of King George declaring himself the Church, and all the Colonies were basically different Sects of Christianity. Masons+Catholics?

Though dripping with a feined contempt, you project a simplistic outcome that lacks dimension.

Liberals are Contemptable.

[NeedSomeAnswers]

More like how a Man treats a Child. Grow up the world is dangerous and you enablers aren't helping.

That's the biggest load of crap, the world is dangerous if you make enemies of everybody in it, which is what Bush certainly went some way towards.

I'm sorry who's been worse than Saddam?

What you would like us to name some, right here you go !

Slobodan Milosovic - former Yugoslavia
Kim Jong Il - North Korea
Robert Mugabe - Zimbabwe
Omar al-Bashir - Sudan
Than Shwe - Burma (Myanmar)

5 Dictators right of the bat that are as bad or worse then Saddam, so why are we not invading them and sorting them out (apart from Milosovic which us lot in Europe did eventually sort out) !!!

I can guarantee you have no answer to that !!!!

Iraq was invaded because of Oil and convenience nothing more, none of this altruist crap about wanting to liberate the Iraqi people

It is also quite obvious from your post that you have absolutely no idea about the rest of the world and how it functions, if you think that just getting rid of Saddam will Fix Iraq then you show a clear lack of understanding of the Politics & religion involved in the middle east what so ever.

The fact that you have this fixation with calling anyone who has a more sensible opinion than your self a liberal is really quite funny, it is clear to me that you try and hide your ignorance of what is actually going on behind insults and basically just talking crap.

It would be also very nice if you could learn to structure a sentence to make your posts readable and resemble english.

I watch Fox news

This explains everything !!

[Valleysboy1978]

Well said mate

[tome10]

[QUOTE]
Slobodan Milosovic - former Yugoslavia
Kim Jong Il - North Korea
Robert Mugabe - Zimbabwe
Omar al-Bashir - Sudan
Than Shwe - Burma (Myanmar)
And your Dictator Buddies at the UN? What have they done to aleviate these issues?

It would be also very nice if you could learn to structure a sentence to make your posts readable and resemble english.

Howabout sticking to the Issues instead of Trying to demean the Message?
Cause you have nothing. You may be able to structure sentences but jibberish is jubberish no matter how well structured.

I watch Fox news
This explains everything !!

What does it explain? That I choose to get my Information from non approved sources? In a free country there are Approved Sources and Non Approved? Cause the Journalists at Fox actually do their Job? You would fit right in down in Venezuala with the Gov controlled media. Are you a Proud Communist? Or still in the Closet?

Well said mate

An Aussie of all people to condone the Enablers of Dictators and say America is the Problem not the Solution. What a sad time in History it is.

[NeedSomeAnswers]

And your Dictator Buddies at the UN? What have they done to aleviate these issues?

Dictator buddies ?? have you any idea what the UN does and who is part of the UN ?

Also what has that got to do with anything ? you were the one saying that Saddam was the worst Dictator since Hitler, i have given you a list of 5 others at the very least equally as bad and most probably worse, so why invade iraq and not Sudan, Burma or North Korea ? you tell me !!!

How about sticking to the Issues instead of Trying to demean the Message?

Ok i will stick to this issues, will you ? will you actually reply to my points ?

What does it explain?

Well that fact that you watch Fox News and seem to be a Fan says a lot actually. It has nothing to do with approved or non-approved sources, just your choice of news says a lot about you, particularly if you take any and i mean any single news provider as the truth and ignore other sources.

Are you a Proud Communist? Or still in the Closet?

again i refer to my previous comment, just because i don't agree with you i am apparently a communist. Do you accuse everyone who holds a world view that doesn't require us to be at war with most of the rest of the world a communist ?

An Aussie of all people

Erm he's Welsh actually but i suppose you wouldn't get the Vallysboy reference.

You seem to be of the view that unless someone is in favour of going to war on Dictators they are communists or whatever other derogatory term you wish to use, and yet their have been dictators around for centuries.

Generally unless they are committing genocide or start to go to war with there neighbours the rest of the world rightly or wrongly tends to leave them alone.

Shaggy made the point earlier that in fact the US has supported a number of Dictators in the past when it has been in there interests in fact during the Iraq / Iran War the US provided Saddam with weapons & funds so that he could defeat Iran, your government has also funded other dictators including Gaddafi which is a bit hipocritical when you then decided that actually maybe we shouldnt have given them all that money after all and instead lets invade them and remove them.

I would most definitely prefer to live in a world without any dictators, but am old enough to have seen the mess we often make of invading countries and trying to enforce our democracy on them.

In Africa for instance where the British tried to bring democracy to a number of countries and take them out of there tribal system we tried to implement the idea of a ruling party and of the opposition, but one of the problems with this is that at the time the word and concept for opposition in many of these African countries was the same as Enemy. So whoever got in power would just try and kill the opposition / enemy.

This was just 1 example of the unintended consequence of our actions of interfering in countries that we don't understand.

The world is a very big and complex place often it takes more than the sledge hammer approach to fix major issues like Iraq.

Maybe if you listened a little more to other points of view instead of declaring us all communists

[Shaggy Hiker]

[QUOTE=tome10;3632183]

You may be able to structure sentences but jibberish is jubberish no matter how well structured.

I've gotta preserve that line, it is TOO classic.

I would list the Pol Pot regime above any of the groups previously mentioned. Whether they were technically the worst is a bit hard to say. Burma might be in the running, as well. The 'stan I mentioned was Uzbekistan, and it really doesn't appear to match up in body count to the genocidal regimes listed, but is still probably worse than Iraq was. When we needed a base, though, we gave them a bundle of cash and turned a blind eye to the human rights abuses. After sufficient pressure from human rights organizations, the US offered a mild rebuke, and were summarily thrown out by the Uzbekistan government. We didn't invade, and the dictator is still in power, though we did make him slightly richer.

I have no problem with thwaping dictators. My objection is that the US ONLY thwaps dictators when they are A) Powerless, B) Unnecessary, and C) Posess something that we want. Political expediency has caused some horrific crimes at national, regional, and local levels in pretty much every part of the world. Still, political expediency, does have its purposes, and I don't object to it per se. What I object to is lying about it. We didn't go into Iraq as part of a noble crusade against dictators, we went there because some people in the leadership felt we had a long term strategic reason to do so.

[zaza]

I'm not sure that trying to come up with a Top 10 of Evil Regimes is necessarily productive. They've all done some pretty terrible things, and nobody's even mentioned Idi Amin, Hastings Banda, the guys in Rwanda... For more lasting effects than simply murder, look at apartheid-era South Africa or the Israelis. Nobody's blameless, and we're complicit in many of the atrocities that go on about the place.

We in the West tend to adopt first the tactic of bribery (if you seriously think Gadaffi was "terrified", you must be out of your mind. He knew the US couldn't get involved in another war on another continent, and he seized the opportunity to extract the maximum price for cooperation) and then the threats. We rarely try the dialogue; we tend to leave that to the UN, and then only because the Russians and the Chinese always do the opposite to the West as a matter of principle so there isn't a lot of choice.


But ultimately, the argument proposed by the likes of tome10 boils down to one question; what gives the US or anybody else the right to act unilaterally against another sovereign nation? That is warmongering pure and simple, no matter how you put it, and the flimsy evidence tossed in the air to persuade a sceptical public that it was all about self-defence just hasn't washed. I don't like the necessary politicking that goes on at the UN any more than the next man, particularly when nations such as Russia and China use poorer nations as bargaining chips to extract concessions in return for their abstention on the vote. But without the agreement of the international community as a whole, arbitrary action is simply dictatorship in another guise. After all, wasn't World War II about Lebensraum from a certain perspective? Defending a particular way of life. etc.

The only alternative is to act as the world's policeman all of the time, and I suspect that fewer people would have a problem with that if the policeman was even-handed and seen to dispense justice even when at its own detriment. But of course, that's never able to happen while politicians, who are accountable solely to their electorate, are in charge, and certainly not if they run the Policeman.

[tome10]

You guys are just too long winded for me. I've said my peace. I will close with this.

But ultimately, the argument proposed by the likes of tome10 boils down to one question; what gives the US or anybody else the right to act unilaterally against another sovereign nation?

Unlike this Bubblegum Machine worthy Nobel Prize we actually care if the UN gets Demeaned.
I am tired of the US being the Worlds Police trying to keep the UN Honest it is exhausting to see the rest of the civilized world allow Seria to be in the Human rights Council or all the other Aholes running around in those Hallways. I wish you guys would wake up kick all dictators out of the UN and let the Organization Live up to the Charter it was founded for. We don't want to act unilaterally, but when you enablers send wishy washy bloveating Liberals to the UN it gets Corrupt and Impotent. Then you cry foul when we do act unilaterally. What am I to say to that other than Iddiotts?

This is my rebuttal to a lot of the Bloveating reasons we went to war with Saddam since you guys all agree he was not that bad. The UN had 17 Resolutions to Disarm and whatever. All not just the US all Intelligence agencies thought he had WMD and the mere fact we had 2 buildings down 3000 Americans killed. Our Constitution that Bush swore an oath to Defend from all Enemies Foreign and Domestic. That ' was not going to be in power or live long enough to pass anything off to anyone. I know you Liberals would have Cried Foul if he hadn't went to war with someone. I remember all the Dems Bloveating leading up to the war, and then in the Middle of it Change sides. Disgusting! Aholes!
As far as not having any wmd I've heard reports of trucks escorted by Russian Diplomats and others of aircraft heading to Seria. Nobody lied to you iddiots. That's just you enablers Politicizing the War. Why did you never Mention the 17 resolutions? Because it didn't fit your Bash Bush mentality. That's the same crap our media pulls that's why Fox dominates. As far as it was for the Oil. Where is it? Last I checked I don't have any Barrels in my Back Yard, and it's kinda Expensive at the Pump. That's another Liberal Lie. If Bush Lied about anything it was that Iraq's Oil was going to Pay for the War. Iraq is Selling it and we are still footing the Bill for Rebuilding.
Frankly I don't have to Justify the war. He was a bad man and needed to go. Good Riddance, and you guys Crying Foul is absolutely Insane.
That's why I think it is Laughable you putting that List of other Dictators who you believe is Worse. Your such an Iddiott to even Spam my Rants with that Tripe. Like I said in my first Post. "Like you guys would approve of any Dictator being Removed".
Warmongering? There's already going to be a backlash due to another Carter in the Whithouse. These Liberals are proving to be a Insane Lot and honestly I think we are Waking up. I pity the fool who hits us again. We are Sick of Obama running around Apoligizing for us. He was not elected to Apologize for anything. I'm sorry that's just the way it is.
You want me to Apologize for Bush getting Rid of Saddam? Not a chance in '.
I asked if you were a Communist, because it seemed you were suggesting there is an Authorized Media Source and I shouldn't be watching anything else. Only people I know that have authorized Media Sources are Communist/Dictator Regimes, and to suggest such a thing should be going on in America is Blasphemy. But it seems our Media has committed itself to the Liberal Agenda, so I choose to watch Fox as is most of the Country. I find it disturbing that you would suggest me watch anyone other than Fox, as the others have proven themselves to be untrustworthy and Dishonest. So you sir may need to find other Sources. May I suggest a few Books as well? I'm sorry, you Liberals controlling the Media is Over.

Ok i will stick to this issues, will you ? will you actually reply to my points ?

What points? You seem stuck on the Dictator list. As I said in my first Post and other times. "Like you would approve of Removing any Dictator. This Liberal Tactic of pointing to other Dictators on a Map and say he was worse, look over here he was worse. We should have Invaded this guy. Freakin Rediculous. Who else did the UN have 17 Resolutions to disarm? Who else was giving 25,000 bucks to Suicide Bombers Families? Who else had Ties to Alqaeda? Don't you freakin Dare say he didn't! Yea Yea I know he was such a Beloved Citized of the World Community. Gags. Rediculous! Your Rediculous!

Dictator buddies ?? have you any idea what the UN does and who is part of the UN ?

Yes, do you? Moron. A bunch of Corrupt Liberals responsible for the Oil for Food Scandal that only Fox reported on, an Incompetent Disarmament of Saddam, numerous other Scandals that only Fox or Nobody Reports. A bunch of US/Israil Bashing by Liberal/Marxist/Communist/Dictator Aholes. How is that for a sum? Why do you insist on asking such stupid questions? I'm not the one who thought Iran was a Democracy. Remember? Or that Catholic Persecution was responsible for the Establishment Clause. Seems you should stop worrying about Structure and More on Substance.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Banda

Banda? Ai! Run!

And with that, I believe I have just made the most obscure pun in the history of VBForums.

[Shaggy Hiker]

You guys are just too long winded for me.

We sure are, but you joined us with this post, which is kind of cool.

I've said my peace.

Anything but

... the UN and let the Organization Live up to the Charter it was founded for.

It never will. The idea that it could enforce peace seems a little quaint. It was started as the cold war began, and was used as a means for the US and the USSR to talk...indirectly. It actually did serve as a means of arranging peace after the Six Days War and the Yom Kippur War, but once again it was mostly a means because it gave the US and USSR a platform to achieve their internal interests (supporting clients, in each case) without appearing to collaborate.

This is my rebuttal to a lot of the Bloveating reasons we went to war with Saddam since you guys all agree he was not that bad.

Actually, we all agreed that he was bad, but technically you are correct, as we were agreeing that he was not as bad as the bar you set as "the worst dictator since Hitler".

All not just the US all Intelligence agencies thought he had WMD and the mere fact we had 2 buildings down 3000 Americans killed. Our Constitution that Bush swore an oath to Defend from all Enemies Foreign and Domestic.

How many Iraqis were involved in the 2 buildings down and 3000 Americans killed? Zero. How was Iraq involved with 9/11? It wasn't. Bush stated that there was no link. So who supplied most of the terrorists? Saudi Arabia. Did we attack them? Not a chance!!

As far as not having any wmd I've heard reports of trucks escorted by Russian Diplomats and others of aircraft heading to Seria.

Actually, according to our own WMD specialists, Iraq lacked the technology to stabilize WMD, which meant that the chemical agents they used would have gone inert around 1997 at the latest. One of the lead inspectors from Lawrence-Livermore discussed that point in a talk at the City Club of Cleveland. He stated that only a small set of countries (the leading beligerents in WWII, basically) had the technology to keep weapons grade chemicals stable.

Nobody lied to you iddiots.

Actually, it's both heavily and exhaustively documented, and should come as no surprise. Every wartime president (and probably every other president) has lied to the public at times. 'Honest' Abe has many, well documented, lies.

Why did you never Mention the 17 resolutions?

Yup, we hate the UN, but they passed 17 resolutions and we HAVE to act on them. Of course, we don't act on any resolutions they pass that we don't actually approve of.

As far as it was for the Oil. Where is it? Last I checked I don't have any Barrels in my Back Yard, and it's kinda Expensive at the Pump.

Yeah, and it was such an effective, efficient, war, with no instability afterwards, that we were able to get right in there and rebuild an infrastructure that had never really been working (oddly, Iraq has never produced much oil, as they have been involved in wars or embargoes almost continually since oil was discovered there). Oh wait, I got it wrong. The war was a fiasco that led to extensive acts of sabotage both from people looting metal fixtures for scrap, as well as attempts to disrupt anyone from pumping oil.

That's another Liberal Lie. If Bush Lied about anything it was that Iraq's Oil was going to Pay for the War. Iraq is Selling it and we are still footing the Bill for Rebuilding.

Hunh? Bush made the statement, so now it's a liberal lie?

I shouldn't be watching anything else.

You shouldn't be getting ANY news from the TV. They all suck royally.

Who else had Ties to Alqaeda? Don't you freakin Dare say he didn't!

Bush said he didn't. If you won't believe us, will you believe him?

I'm not the one who thought Iran was a Democracy. Remember? Or that Catholic Persecution was responsible for the Establishment Clause. Seems you should stop worrying about Structure and More on Substance.

That's true, you didn't say it, I did. I have no idea what you mean by the last sentence there. You started getting a bit incoherent, but what's this about? Were you unaware of the anti-catholic activities in the early days of the US? The hangings, persecutions, and what not? There were anti- groups against a few protestant groups, as well, and these things led to the anti establishment clause being added to the Bill of Rights. How is that not substance? On the other hand, how is that structure? I guess it does add value

Aside from the pun, do you object to Iran being called a democracy because they elect their representatives? Technically, they are no more a democracy than the US is, as a true democracy would not have representatives, but that's unworkable above a village level.

[tome10]

How many Iraqis were involved in the 2 buildings down and 3000 Americans killed? Zero. How was Iraq involved with 9/11? It wasn't. Bush stated that there was no link. So who supplied most of the terrorists? Saudi Arabia. Did we attack them? Not a chance!!

I'm sorry, I don't care what Bush Said there were ties found. Like those 2 wouldn't get together at some time even if there weren't.
But since when do you believe our Intelligence? You guys are unbelievable. On one hand you Scorn the Intelligence, and on the other you praise it's accuracy.
Using your Logic why did we go to war with Hitler? He didn't attack us? Iraq was just a theater in the War on Terror. It was the possibility of him passing something off to Someone else. But you know that, your just being a good little Liberal.
They may have been from Saudi, but Saudi was not responsible.
I rephrase: If Bush Lied about anything, it was that Iraq's Oil was going to Pay for the War. Iraq is Selling it and we are still footing the Bill for Rebuilding.

Were you unaware of the anti-catholic activities in the early days of the US?

I was aware of strife between the Colonies on Religious beliefs. To it's extent I don't know. So I suppose if I say the Establishment Clause was due to Colonies Practicing different sects, and some Colonies were Catholic. I suppose we are both correct. I am/was unaware of actual Bloodshed, but those guys Killed people they thought were witches. So I won't put it past them. Forgive me, I forgot the Point?
We are a Democratic Republic. Iran is what? I don't know a Religious Oligarchy? I guess I'm at least a Village level. However due to Liberals subscribing to Big Government for the means of Solidifying their Power Base we are somewhere between an Oligarchy and well Oligarchy..

[NeedSomeAnswers]

What points? You seem stuck on the Dictator list

No my point was Saddam is not the worst dictator since Hitler, there are worse dictators that we leave well alone. Why do you think we went to war with Iraq but not Burma, Sudan, or any of the other world countries which have dictators ?

I'm not sure that trying to come up with a Top 10 of Evil Regimes is necessarily productive.

That wasn't my point, just that it is ridiculous to suggest that we went to war because Saddam was a Dictator or that he was any more dangerous then a number of other countries, i was asking Tome10 to explain if this was the case why are we not fighting all the other dictators out there.

All not just the US all Intelligence agencies thought he had WMD and the mere fact we had 2 buildings down 3000 Americans killed

If you cant tell the difference between why we went to war with Afghanistan and Why we went to war with Iraq then that is very sad.

To even suggest the Iraq was involved with 9/11 is just plain wrong headed. Which country did the US go to war with in the immediate aftermath ? Iraq or Afghanistan. Listening to you, you would almost think that they are the same country.

As far as it was for the Oil Where is it?

Iraq has the 3rd largest oil reserves on the world, under Saddam that oil rarely found its way into the open market, now after the war it is opening up its oil fields to foreign companies.

It wasn't about going to Iraq to take there oil that is to simplistic way of looking at it, it was about 2 things; getting the Iraqi oil on to the open market, and ensuring that American and British companies got the contracts.

I'm sorry, I don't care what Bush Said there were ties found. Like those 2 wouldn't get together at some time even if there weren't.

An what kind of statement is that, "Like those 2 wouldn't get together at some time" this just clearly shows your complete ignorance of the subject.

I asked if you were a Communist, because it seemed you were suggesting there is an Authorized Media Source and I shouldn't be watching anything else. Only people I know that have authorized Media Sources are Communist/Dictator Regimes, and to suggest such a thing should be going on in America is Blasphemy.

I said nothing of the sort, i disparaged your choice of news because it is 1 eyed and not particularly accurate, and suggested that you might get a more balanced picture of the world if you looked past 1 news source.

I in no way implied that there was authorised/unauthorised news just that your choice of news wasn't particularly good. It was a critical comment nothing more.

What the hell has blasphemy got to do with it ?

Using your Logic why did we go to war with Hitler?

Well because he started invading all his neighbouring countries mainly, even then America did not get involved in world war 2 until 2 or 3 years later after the attack on Pearl Harbour by the Japanese (Japan were allied with Germany in WWII in case you were unaware), until that point America had been officially neutral.

To say America went to war with Hitler's Germany because he was a dictator again is just plain rubbish, they got involved after America was directly attacked.

Big Government for the means of Solidifying their Power Base we are somewhere between an Oligarchy and well Oligarchy

Do you know what an Oligarchy Is ?

[nemaroller]

Obama did nothing concrete to win this award.

1) He has continued the war in Afghanistan.

2) He has not pulled troops out of Iraq.

3) He has not closed Guantanamo and relocated its prisoners to a federal civil prison cell on US soil.

4) He agreed with then president Bush during the decision to bail out the Banks before he was president.

5) He has continued the domestic spying program.

6) He has continued and even increased the massive spending from Bush's administration.

Bush is only truly hated by non-Americans. For he was the right president during 9/11. The Iraq war was a success, we captured Saddam. We removed the Taliban that was ambivalently providing cover for Bin Laden and Al Queda.

But notice how the destabilization and massive violence that took place in Iraq did not occur in Afghanistan.

If the media wanted to be accurate, the Iraq war ended in 2003 when Saddam was removed from power. The Iraqi Sunni and Shi ite war which occured shortly after was far more devestating and bloody - and the rest of the world unfairly blamed Bush and America for that, even while Bush was pushing Congress for troop surge funding to provide more security during those conflicts.

Let's see if the world blames Obama for the upcoming increase in violence in Afghanistan:
http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/...or-us-in-2009/

[tome10]

I've said my peace.
Anything but

Peace through Strength. Either we have to be strong, or the UN. If you say the UN won't then I suggest no more Jimmy Carter rehashes. Then again you Liberals can't figure out which team your on and keep siding with the Enemy. Gee thanks.

It wasn't about going to Iraq to take there oil that is to simplistic way of looking at it, it was about 2 things; getting the Iraqi oil on to the open market, and ensuring that American and British companies got the contracts.

I'm sorry, I don't believe your Liberal Tripe. I have explained the Conservative point of view. It was security reasons. If the oil contracts were the case we wouldn't have waited for 17 UN resolutions. We would have just went straight in during Gulf War 1.
Maybe it was a Byproduct, but wasn't the Oil Contracts negociated by Iraqi's and didn't they go to France and someone else? So what we should get them for getting that Ahole out of there and freeing Iraq.
Your so off.... He was an Ahole making a Mockery of the UN and the world community and I'm sorry you miss him, but good riddance.

An what kind of statement is that, "Like those 2 wouldn't get together at some time" this just clearly shows your complete ignorance of the subject.

It is what it is. Did you not understand the Point? If you have Two people who Hate America that Badly, it is enevetable that they will make an aliance on the simple fact that the Enemy of my Enemy is my Friend. Why wait to be hit? We got hit all through the 90's as Clinton treated it as a Criminal matter to be investigated by the FBI. That didn't work. What do you Liberals want to do just let them Hit us? Just come on in and get your free attack on the US like a Dunking Booth kinda thing?

[QUOTE]
I said nothing of the sort, i disparaged your choice of news because it is 1 eyed and not particularly accurate, and suggested that you might get a more balanced picture of the world if you looked past 1 news source.

I in no way implied that there was authorised/unauthorised news just that your choice of news wasn't particularly good. It was a critical comment nothing more.

I'm sorry you don't think they are accurate. They report on things the Liberal Media would hide and not report on, and that may make you Cringe being a Liberal, but Citizens of a Nation should be Informed on the Issues, and not be Lemings.

Quote:
Using your Logic why did we go to war with Hitler?

Well because he started invading all his neighbouring countries mainly, even then America did not get involved in world war 2 until 2 or 3 years later after the attack on Pearl Harbour by the Japanese (Japan were allied with Germany in WWII in case you were unaware), until that point America had been officially neutral.
To say America went to war with Hitler's Germany because he was a dictator again is just plain rubbish, they got involved after America was directly attacked.

no no, you didn't use your Logic... Your logic dictated we go to war with Japan and Leave Hitler to whatever he was doing in Europe. After all Hitler didn't Attack us Japan did.

To say America went to war with Hitler's Germany because he was a dictator again is just plain rubbish, they got involved after America was directly attacked.

That's not what I said. I was just pointing to your logic. As explained in the last statement.

Do you know what an Oligarchy Is ?

http://www.strike-the-root.com/colum...n/machan1.html
Frankly, I'm quite tired of your smug Liberal Condescension. You are an iddiots Iddiot. You liberals Destroy everything you touch. School System is nothing more than an Indoctrination program. Your Social Engineering has all but Destroyed our Economy. And this man you guys somehow got elected is a straight up Marxist.
Surrounded by people who the FBI had to be rolling their Eyes during the Vetting Process. Who is writing the Speeches? That's the real president.. Move on? Soros? Appolo Aliance??? That Ivy leage Education has done nothing for his intelligence. Like the Ivy destroys buildings Liberalism is trying to Destroy America. This looks like Invasion of the BodySnatchers. Bunch of iddiots running around Destroying things.
As far as your Smug question Goes:

[edit] Modern democracy as Oligarchy
Main article: Iron law of oligarchy
Some authors, such as Zulma Riley, Keith Riley, Mathew Marquess, and Robert Michels, believe that any political system eventually evolves into an oligarchy. This theory is called the "Iron Law of Oligarchy". According to this school of thought, modern democracies should be considered as oligarchies. In these systems, actual differences between viable political rivals are small, the oligarchic elite impose strict limits on what constitutes an 'acceptable' and 'respectable' political position, and politicians' careers depend heavily on unelected economic and media elites. Thus the popular phrase: there is only one political party, the 'incumbent' party.

So the Authorized Media "Other than Fox". It's all about the Left and Far Left. If your a Moderate Conservative or just straight Conservative. You are Labeled as a Right Winger or Neocon. If your a Communist or or Straight up Marxist your labeled as a generally nice guy. I'm sorry... Wherever the media Says I should be I'm going to be way way the other direction. I'm frankly tired of you guys framing the Debate. I'm an American, and all that other stuff is UnAmerican.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Bush is only truly hated by non-Americans. For he was the right president during 9/11. The Iraq war was a success, we captured Saddam. We removed the Taliban that was ambivalently providing cover for Bin Laden and Al Queda.

Nemaroller, I agree with pretty much every point you made. Every point could be, and perhaps has been, made by both sides. Except for this statement. Of course, it would be kind of silly to point out that every public figure is truly hated by somebody, so ignoring that, was he the right president for 9/11? He was THE president during 9/11. I seriously doubt that anybody else would have done anything that would have prevented 9/11. However, I think that many would have done better afterwards. He hit the photo ops, which his father might have been too stiff to have handled well, but ANY articulate politician would have done at least as well. Politically, W was an idiot, and even he got the statements right. Clinton would have done better, Reagan would have done better, Obama would have done better, and even Nixon might have done better, yet W did well. Some softballs are so easy to hit that NOBODY can miss them.

As for the wars, Afghanistan was botched. W stated the parameters for winning before it began. The first goal was capturing Osama. Remember W saying that he wouldn't attack Afghanistan if they would just hand over Osama? That goal failed, probably at Tora Bora, but the failure was strategic. The second goal was to catch Mullah Omar. That failed, as well. The third, if you could call it that, was to replace the Taliban with a stable government. Unfortunately, the last election showed that the person we pinned our hopes on, has turned out to be pretty bad. I think it was a good try, but it didn't work out. Our options now have been exposed as being rather unsavory.

As for Iraq, the goal was a stable, secular, democracy. Saddam had to be deposed along the way, but that was never more than the first step, and a foregone conclusion at that (the Iraqi army has never performed well against any reasonable opponent). At this point, I would say that the house of cards is standing, and we are slowly pulling our hands away watching to see if it will collapse. Any nascent democracy goes through that period where somebody challenges its right to exist (see Shays Rebellion). The answer is not yet known, except that any democratically elected government in Iraq is going to be Shiite. If it stays secular, we might be ok, but we have replaced the Sunni buffer between Saudi Arabia and Iran with a Shiite government. There are so many ways that we can come to regret that. On the other hand, it may work in our favor regarding our relationship with the Saudiis.

[NeedSomeAnswers]

Obama did nothing concrete to win this award.

1) He has continued the war in Afghanistan.

2) He has not pulled troops out of Iraq.

3) He has not closed Guantanamo and relocated its prisoners to a federal civil prison cell on US soil.

4) He agreed with then president Bush during the decision to bail out the Banks before he was president.

5) He has continued the domestic spying program.

6) He has continued and even increased the massive spending from Bush's administration.

I believe that we have already discussed these points in previous posts so i will just concentrate on the last bit.

Bush is only truly hated by non-Americans.

I think you know or should know that that is not true. He is certainly more hated around the world then in America but of course there are Americans that hate him, half the country voted against him during the election in which he won his second term.

Of course i am sure there are also lots of Americans that like him to as the other half voted for him.

he was the right president during 9/11

We certainly disagree on this but it is probably pointless arguing about it

The Iraq war was a success, we captured Saddam.

I would beg to differ, yes we caught Saddam that bit was a success but we have ended caught up in a stupid war that we didn't need to get involved in spending massive amounts of money in the process, and we still haven't managed to leave Iraq in Stable condition even now how many years later ??

This is not my definition of success.

We removed the Taliban that was ambivalently providing cover for Bin Laden and Al Queda.

Removed the Taliban from where ?, the Taliban were never in Iraq, and we certainly haven't removed them from Afghanistan were they are currently more active then ever (just look at the recent attacks in Pakistan)

In fact our tactics of destroying poppy fields has in fact backfired on us, as all the farmers and villagers that used to derive there income from it have now gone across to the Taliban either by joining or by asking for protection.

But notice how the destabilization and massive violence that took place in Iraq did not occur in Afghanistan.

You are kidding right, Afghanistan is far more dangerous than Iraq and the government there is in control of very little outside of a few major cities, the destabilisation there is still happening, also there have been more US & UK casualties in Afghanistan then Iraq

the Iraq war ended in 2003 when Saddam was removed from power. The Iraqi Sunni and Shi ite war which occured shortly after was far more devestating and bloody

What you are trying to say that this was a separate war ? , it was quite clearly part and parcel of the whole invasion. It would never have happened had we not gone to war with Iraq, and the Sunni and Shi ite's were not just fighting against each other they were quite clearly also fighting against the UK & US Forces.

and the rest of the world unfairly blamed Bush and America for that

They blamed Bush & Blair for going to war based on dodgy intelligence in the first place. But actually as far as i am concerned (and most of the rest of the world) they are the same war and so yes Bush & Blair are to blame !

Let's see if the world blames Obama for the upcoming increase in violence in Afghanistan:

Once again you are very quick to tie Obama to War that he has inherited from Bush. If we hadn't gone to Iraq in the first place and actually stayed in Afghanistan and sorted it out in the first place maybe we would have these problems now.

Also if it is Obama's fault for us staying there, is Bush at fault for taking us there ? you cant have it both ways.

I actually am really quite interested in just why you are so anti Obama ? i can understand that if you a republican you are not going to be his biggest fan but he is still the president of your country right ?

Also as i have said before surely the time to judge someone on there record is after they have one not before, give the guy a term and see what he does over the 4 years, that will give a much clearer indication of whether he will be any good or not.

Afghanistan always has been and remains the big problem. If we can sort out Afghanistan then the whole region would become more stable, unfortunately we have spread our resources very thinly trying to conduct 2 wars at the same and and spent a lot of money. Also the general public's appetite for this war is falling by the day so whether we will be able to truly fix the issue i don't know.

nb - Nemarolla i have to say it is actually been quite fun arguing with you, at least you have a solid position and try and back it up with solid argument without just resorting to insults

[NeedSomeAnswers]

Did you not understand the Point? If you have Two people who Hate America that Badly, it is enevetable that they will make an aliance on the simple fact that the Enemy of my Enemy is my Friend.

My god that is too funny i cant even reply to this it just cracks me up !!!

no no, you didn't use your Logic... Your logic dictated we go to war with Japan and Leave Hitler to whatever he was doing in Europe. After all Hitler didn't Attack us Japan did.

Do you know anything about World War II, Japan along with Italy were Germany's allies during the war, after the attack on Pearl Harbour America joined the war against the Axis (term used to describe the alliance of Germany, Japan & Italy and a number of other smaller nations)

So in effect yes America did end up going to war with Hitler's Germany due to the attack on pearl Harbour by Japan.

My point on this was that the reason that you went to War on Hitler is one of his allies attacked you, not because he was a dictator.

Frankly, I'm quite tired of your smug Liberal Condescension

That's quite rich from you since your post are littered with Condescension and put downs.

As far as your Smug question Goes:

Well you still haven't; shown you know that it means just that you can copy a definition down

I'm an American, and all that other stuff is UnAmerican.

Brilliant, just Brilliant that is the single best argument you have come up with yet !!

[Shaggy Hiker]

Man, I missed Tome10's latest. Bummer.

My first thought was this: Who just wrote that? The difference in language is so striking that I'd have to conclude that Tome10 is two different people. There were virtually no typos, almost no insults, and actual content. Tome, either you were drunk yesterday, or you're drunk today, or a different person wrote the last post.

The only two statements I would comment on would be these:

If you have Two people who Hate America that Badly, it is enevetable that they will make an aliance on the simple fact that the Enemy of my Enemy is my Friend.

I have never been convinced that Osama really hates America. He needs an enemy because he leads a non-state organization. I would say that what actually gets his knickers in a knot is much closer to home. Attacks on America bring in the money and recruits, but his goal is imposing his form of Islamic fundamentalism in the Islamic states that he considers his home. He's not trying to overthrow America any more than Nasser was back in the late 60s. Instead, he is using enmity with America as a recruiting tool with the intention of overthrowing Pakistan, and any other Islamic states that he can get a solid foothold in. In that way, he hated Saddam FAR more than he hated America, because Saddam was inherently secular rather than Islamic. Saddam stood in his way, while America was nothing more than a means to an end.

Second: What's this statement about?

We got hit all through the 90's as Clinton treated it as a Criminal matter to be investigated by the FBI.

There was WTC bombing #1 in 1993, where all involved were caught, convicted, and remain in prison. The other notable terrorist attacks in the US during the 90s were the Oklahoma City bombing and the Atlanta Olympics bombing. Both of those were conducted by white christian conservatives. You could possibly be refering to foreign attacks, such as the bombing of the USS Cole, and the embassy bombings in Africa, but that would be kind of silly, since once you open up that standard, then the level of attacks has gone UP since the attack on Iraq or Afghanistan, not down, which would suggest that Clinton had the better approach (though in fact either statement is based on a statistical falacy).


Aside from that, the WWII thing seems to be getting bollixed. It is my understanding that we declared war on Japan following the attack on Pearl Harbor, and Germany promptly declared war on us. We then returned the favor.

It's pointless anyways, as Roosevelt was clearly favoring Great Britain prior to the declaration of war. We sat out the first several years, but nobody doubted which side we supported.

[System_Error]

Iraq was invaded because of Oil and convenience nothing more, none of this altruist crap about wanting to liberate the Iraqi people

The Iraq invasion was 10% oil and 90% personal vendetta. It was going to happen with or without 9-11.

he hated Saddam FAR more than he hated America

Did Saddam support Israel more than America did/does?

[nemaroller]

I've been involved in far too many Iraq threads in the past 7 years, so I won't address the world laying blame on an inarticulate ex-president for all their problems.

The purpose of this thread was to argue whether or not Obama deserved the Nobel Peace Price. Certainly, Obama has done little to progress peace in the world. If he had finally ended the Palestine Irsraeli conflict, then hats off, he would have deserved it. But simply mixing up polite words means little. There are no significant actions that have taken place to deserve such an award. Obama has simply resumed pre-Bush foreign US policy. He has already ordered drones to do hits in Pakistan - violating a soverign country - so how is this a change from Bush that warrants a peace award?

People have argued the Nobel peace prize has been politicized over the years and therefore has lost its meaning, and I certainly can agree with that argument.

Unless someone wants to stick put forth a solid reason why Obama deserved to be awarded, simply comparing him to a previous administration which had to deal with THE WORST terrorist attack on US soil, and giving an award based on administration change - which happens in a democracy anyhow - is not a reason for an award.

[Shaggy Hiker]

He has already ordered drones to do hits in Pakistan - violating a soverign country

You can't imagine the image that....well, actually, you probably can, but it was still pretty funny.

I thought the choice of that prize was odd, but not excessively odd. They give it out every year, and there are dozens of people who have done something. Figuring out who is #1 in peace in any year is worse than the BCS in college football. I can certainly understand this move, as I can understand Arafat. With an excess of choices, and no quantifiable metric, there's a HUGE amount of emotion involved. Sometimes a prize will be used not for what was, but as a prod for what will be.

[tome10]

Shaggy, you can write, I give you that. But I think your a Sham Artist, and you would be a good Snakeoil Salesman. I reject all of your points as they were simply unknown at the time. All of that Shoulda Coulda, Woulda crap. You couldn't hold W's Jockstrap. I simply do not care what Bin Laden was thinking when he attacked. I don't care what Hitler wrote in mein Kompf. Evil is evil, and I and my Brothers are here to Deal with them on an as needed Basis. There are consequences to Attacking America. Me and My Brothers Arms are the Consequence. I simply do not want Obama to Pull out. The last I checked we are still In Europe 50 years Later.. Why do you not want to pull out of there? There is no need to be there. Why your Rush to pull out of the Middle East? Why does Europe want us to Pull out of the Middle East? Which is Absolutely what the Peace Prize is all about? A foreign entity wanting to bribe Obama in Pulling out with a worthless Trinket. We simply should not Leave until the whole Area is Passified!!!!! Then we should Remain Just as we did In Europe. Would you have called the Years after WWII in this same Matter. The passification Lasted for Years. Europe wants us to Fail. You Liberals want us to fail.. Why is that? If we Pull out We fail and you Liberals can blame us for Failing, and all of my Brothers would have died in Vein. You would Love that wouldn't you *****.. Do you Doubt we can Succeed? Or you don't want us to try? Which is it you Liberal *****?

[Atheist]

I haven't joined in on this debate, but I've been reading with great amusement.
Word of advise tome10; calm down. That attitude won't get you anywhere.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Shaggy, you can write, I give you that.

Thanks.

But I think your a Sham Artist

Actually, I think of myself more as a Shamwow (I don't even know what that is, and I don't know that I spelled it right, but I think it's some kind of super absorbent cloth).

and you would be a good Snakeoil Salesman

Hey, I tried. Just couldn't get any out of the snakes, no matter what I tried.

I reject all of your points as they were simply unknown at the time.

The relationships between Osama and Saddam were well known. If they weren't well known, they were at least predictable. Osama is a fundamentalist, Saddam was a secular leader. The two factions have never gotten along well in any system.

All of that Shoulda Coulda, Woulda crap.

Very true. Hindsight is always much more clear than foresight. Frankly, I think they had a chance in Iraq of doing what they wanted, but a stable democracy held the seeds of its own destruction right from the start in that the Shiites would have to win, being such a majority, and a Shiite dominated country on the border of Iran holds much peril...and some promise. As it was, they dropped the ball when it counted. We may get something good out of this, still.

You couldn't hold W's Jockstrap.

I wouldn't get near him OR his undergarments.

I grew up listening to debates in the state house in NH. I really like politics. I'm certainly partisan, but politics is about strategy and tactics. If it is well done by either side, I admire it. W was terrible at it, and was surrounded by people equally bad. The reason he was so bad was explained very early in his administration, and probably comes from his priviledged business background. He never worked his way up, so he never knew how to build coalitions. He started at the top and expected others to fall in line behind him, wherever he led, which is how it works in business. In business, you either fall in line with the boss, or you leave. You can only disagree with the boss as far as the boss is willing to tolerate the disagreement (the latitude allowed for initiative, which varies from company to company and boss to boss). The boss has the right to keep you in line, and you have the right to leave. That's not how politics works. Nobody gets elected to any high office unless they are very much sold on themselves. Nobody takes over a country unless they are sold on themselves, too. This makes the game more delicate. Bush used a total stick approach to negotiations. People hate that (unless they have certain fetishes), and strong willed or proud people never forget it, even if they have to temporarily get in line. This was Ws mistake that cost him the senate in his first term, caused the rift with North Korea, and caused all kinds of mischief around the wars and Katrina. To his credit, he learned from his mistakes in both the senate and North Korea, but he had to make the mistakes before he learned from them, and he kept on repeating them. That's why he was a fool.

I simply do not care what Bin Laden was thinking when he attacked.

Later on you mention your Brothers in Arms. That would suggest military. If you have not read Clausewitz and Sun Tzu, it is most likely that the top brass have. Know your enemy. That's the key rule for most great military strategists (Napolean may have been more of a "know yourself" kind of guy).

Evil is evil

No! As much as we'd like that to be true, evil is in the eye of the beholder. There is no limit to the range of atrocities mankind will commit for a cause. The only consistent rule is that the ones who perpetrate the atrocities always justify their actions as necessary for some kind of greater end. Even in the US, slavery was good for the slaves, accoring to its suppoters. Those who can't change their minds on that are still with us. Osama doesn't see himself as evil, and neither did Hitler. They think of themselves as saints, and their means just. In truth, it's just a conflict with many massacres. The winners will write the history books, justifying the killing they did while condemning the killing the others did. The trick is to win. You can win without understanding your opponents if they are easily crushed, or indifferent to their cause. We have now ruled out both options, so we had best understand what motivates and what supports our opponents. Calling them evil and writing them off as being supported by the devil, would both be counterproductive. They ARE supported, and that support is most likely weaker than the leaders themselves.

I

simply do not want Obama to Pull out.

I didn't either, as far as Afghanistan is concerned. Now, once it has been clearly established that the govenment is plenty bad....well, I'm open to new alternatives.

Why your Rush to pull out of the Middle East?

We can't. We haven't been able to for decades, and nothing has changed. There is a chance that Iraq will truly stabilize in a way we can live with, I just feel that it is more likely that it will not. However, that 'not' could still result in a good outcome for us, but not a benign one.

worthless Trinket.

I'd take it. That would buy me a few more computers.

You Liberals want us to fail.. Why is that?

You can't define success. Every stated objective has been restated once the original became unattainable.

If we Pull out We fail and you Liberals can blame us for Failing, and all of my Brothers would have died in Vein. You would Love that wouldn't you *****.. Do you Doubt we can Succeed? Or you don't want us to try? Which is it you Liberal *****?

It just isn't Tome if there aren't asterisks. Why do the soldiers get blamed for the failings of the leadership?

As for dying in vain: We all die in vain. Get over yourself. No victory you win with your blood ends the struggle. At best it reshapes it. I suspect that you'll misunderstand that. I don't mean to suggest that it is worthless to try to do what is right, or even to die for what you believe in. What I mean to say is that it is conceit to think that your life sanctifies the cause. Just because a person dies for an objective doesn't make the objective necessarily more correct.

[NeedSomeAnswers]

Translations

Shaggy, you can write, I give you that. But I think your a Sham Artist and you would be a good Snakeoil Salesman

Shaggy you have a fine use of vocabulary, and your arguments are better then mine so instead of arguing with you i will just call you names.

I reject all of your points as they were simply unknown at the time.

I reject all of your points as they disagree with my own ideology which must not be questioned.

Evil is evil, and I and my Brothers are here to Deal with them on an as needed Basis.

America F*** Yeh . Team America world police was not a film but a statement of what is to come.

The last I checked we are still In Europe 50 years Later

Many European countries are very nice holiday destinations, which many Americans visit every year.

We simply should not Leave until the whole Area is Passified!!!!! Then we should Remain Just as we did In Europe.

If we could just get rid of some of the more troublesome locals, Iraq could also be a very nice holiday destination for Americans.

You Liberals want us to fail.. Why is that?

I disagree and dislike all people who are not as right wing as myself and suspect them of the kind of dirty tricks that are supposed to be our speciality.

[Davadvice]

I haven't joined in on this debate, but I've been reading with great amusement.
Word of advise tome10; calm down. That attitude won't get you anywhere.

Have to say I agree and have been doing the same.

NSA and Shaggy have conducted themselves in an exemplary manner.

tome, I think your insults weaken anything you have said.
I particularly detest the word stupid being used in terms of referring to another’s opinion unless it’s yours..NOW

[tome10]

Yea, I agree I sometimes get a "Little" Carried Away. ;-) You guys have been extremely Professional. I appologize. Sincerely.... I agree with a lot of what all three of you said. I think.. I simply disagree with your assessment of Bush. I mean go figure of course.. I don't see Bush's detriment as being the one who says everybody else fall in line behind me. If you see that I need an example.. Maybe as a Southerner go figure again... Maybe I can assess what you are seeing that suggests that. I mean are we that different??? That man's Detriment if anything is his total Loyalty to his Friends/Cohorts. You guys Demonized the whole administration from the Getgo... You dislike him because he didn't CowCow to that iddiot Kim Jung Ill every time he said come wipe my nose, and ohh can you spare some change. This isn't Burger King for goodness sakes.. What exactly did you want him to do? Agree to something just so you can find out a few years later he didn't fillow the agreement.. Ala. the Clinton Admin and <Gags> that Peanut Farmer.. <ProjectileVomet> I simply DISPISE THAT MAN!!!!! He was and is a total Failure and you guys try to Raise him up to such Stature.. It's as if you guys Condone Failure.. You simply take for granted the Media will always tow the line for you. That man was a Failure, and from what I have determined a total Ahole Failure.. When all else fails and I am simply down to my last arguement, I can always say two things and you should just simply agree.. Reagan was Right about everything, and Jimmy Carter is a Failure...
How can you even say your of the same Mind as that man.. I would just change Parties.. Matter of a Fact why are you guys Liberals. You guys seem very smart.. How am I so wrong? Can I be wrong? How does a good man Know he is Wrong? How does a good man know when to Kill, and for what reason? How does a good Man know when to Lay his Sabre at his Enemies Feet? What level of Intelligence do I need to Determine these Questions? I know at one time we thought of the Germans as our Mortal Enemies. I have been with them during Numerous Exercises, and have fond Memories, and do not recognize them as my enemy. I have a Soldiers Heart, and It just seems to know these things. You guys say you don't want to leave Afghanistan, and so maybe I can get some sleep.

I disagree and dislike all people who are not as right wing as myself and suspect them of the kind of dirty tricks that are supposed to be our speciality.

What dirty tricks do you refer? My sources say you guys passed Social Security simply to Secure the Democrat Voting Block.. To take us on the path we are on today.. My sources tell of a Quote from somone from that era saying they "the people" will be Voting Democrat for 50 years. Which is exactly what happened. That is too long for one Party to be in power.. I don't want either side to have that much control? What is wrong with you guys? If you think that way you are simply foreign to me........ At some point after the Sham of SS someone put those funds into the General Funds.. The whole system is a Ponzy Scheme. It seems to me the goose is finally Cooked. There is no account that goes with My SSN.. That would be something an actual account that I can put Money in.. My money.. That Sham Statement I get.. You guys are absolutely Insane... It was always about Control.. The Voting Block... Medicare Medicaide is the same way, and you guys need Obama to Force this latest Healthcare crap down our Throats because the Ponzy scheeme is finally about to collapse.. Wasn't back in 94 or so the first time in forever the Republican ran anything? You guys ran the show. And you talk to me of Trickery.. I admit the Republicans of the last few years spent like crazy. But you know what? Sensible People knew you guys would be way worse...... That Medicare Prescription thing wasn't big enough for you guys. Nothings big enough for you guys. You guys are Insatiable...
Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barney Franks.. Those are your guys? Those are the Smart ones? That's your Team? That's Pathetic.. These guys don't know Economics, or Civics.. Your Liberal Eutopia California 50 Billion in the Red. Most of your Dem Controlled States are Failures.. At what lengths will you go for Control of my Liberty? The fruits of my Labor? This Marxist Socialist stuff causes all to suffer.. But that is what you want it seems. For the Votes.. It's all about the Votes, the Power.. The Oligarchy.. And you call Me a Trixter?

[abhijit]

tome10,
You make compelling arguments.
Could you please format your paragraphs and if possible, run a spell check?

[NeedSomeAnswers]

Tome10,

Hey it good to see a post without personal attacks i agree we can all get carried away sometimes when we think we are right, i can see that you get angry about things but just remember what is so great about America and all elected Democracies is that we have choice in our elections. You don't have to like the other guy but you should respect them.

I would just like to answer a few thing.

Firstly we are probably never going to agree on George W, but that's to be expected i don't hate the guy, i don't even question his sincerity or the fact that in his opinion he was doing what he thought was the best for his country, i just disagree with many of his policies.

As for Iraq in my opinion our time would have been better served staying in Afghanistan the whole time, this is were the real problem is and i think that our time would have been better served not getting involved in Iraq at all and concentrating on the Taliban.

And yes i agree that we should not be leaving Afghanistan it is completely unstable. Until we can put in a government that has the power to rule and not succumb to the Taliban as soon as we withdraw we should not leave.

Secondly i certainly do not hold up Bill Clinton as some perfect example of a president either. He is a flawed man and i for one am not raising him up to anything

I don't see Bush's detriment as being the one who says everybody else fall in line behind me

When you are dealing with other developed countries this is a bit of an issue.

Imagine for a second that the world had another super power that was a lot bigger than America and had a much larger military would you be happy if they were to basically tell America what to do without discussion ? make decision that effected the whole world and yet not take American interests in to the equation ?

This is what many western developed countries felt under Bush, instead of trying to deal with other major nations he seemed to just want them to follow his agenda.

The problem with this approach is it can make it a lot harder to get thing done internationally if you don't have at least some of the other major nations on your side, also consequently you are not going to be very well liked.

Matter of a Fact why are you guys Liberals.

It was you that called me a liberal not me, yes i am liberal in some senses but not all, a guess i consider myself more of a pragmatist that kind of dislikes War.

I know at one time we thought of the Germans as our Mortal Enemies. I have been with them during Numerous Exercises, and have fond Memories, and do not recognize them as my enemy.

That is great truth you have come upon there, Germans are no longer your enemy because they never were. It was the fundamentalists (Nazi's in this case) who got into power who were the enemy. I have been to Germany many times it is a nice country with good beer and no country that makes good beer can be to bad :0)

It the same in Afghanistan, the average person there does not go around planning how to crash planes into buildings, but the fundamentalists did and it is them gaining power which is the great danger.

You guys Demonized the whole administration from the Getgo... You dislike him because he didn't CowCow to that iddiot Kim Jung Ill every time he said come wipe my nose

Trust me when i say that i have no liking for Kim Jung Ill, he represses his own people while he lives a life of luxury. The problem here is neither the US nor anybody else is going to do anything about North Korea while they have Chinese support.

My sources tell of a Quote from somone from that era saying they "the people" will be Voting Democrat for 50 years. Which is exactly what happened. That is too long for one Party to be in power.. I don't want either side to have that much control?

I find that highly unlikely if you look back at the history of the USA and other democratic nations power rarely stays with 1 party longer than 3 terms or so.

Medicare Medicaide

No i know you may not agree with me here, but i personally think that the universal health care bill is nothing but a good thing.

I live in the UK where we have the NHS which contrary to some reports generally does a really good job.

My Partner was out of work last year (mainly due to the recession and the fact that she had worked for a mortgage broker who closed down) when she was diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis, she is only 36 years old.

If we had lived in the USA she would have had no medical insurance and there is no way we would have been able to afford treatment. She was in constant pain and even with medication now still suffers. My point is on the NHS she was able to get that treatment when she needed it.

This Marxist Socialist stuff causes all to suffer

I am not a Marxist, and i don't think that your Democrat party is Marxist either however i can see you have an aversion to social policies. I know traditionally big government in the USA is not seen as a good thing.

The thing is in my opinion some social policies just make sense, and some do not it is about balance.

Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barney Franks.. Those are your guys?

nope they are not my guys i don't support an American political party as i live in the UK, hell right now i don't even know which British party i support.

An finally i wasn't trying to say you are a trickster, i was talking more about suspicion and people being suspicious or other peoples motives, and how sometime people question other peoples motives because their own are less then pure. And i was talking about the right in general not about you personally. :0)

[Shaggy Hiker]

Yea

There's enough rudeness on the web. One of the things I really like about this forum is that people rise above it. I'm glad you're here, because, while I am fully capable of arguing with myself, it's kind of boring.

I don't see Bush's detriment as being the one who says everybody else fall in line behind me.

There are times when that's essential. There can only be one captain of a ship, for instance. However, politics doesn't work well that way. Everybody at that level believes they are the captain, and there is no law that says otherwise. To get something accomplished, you can't order, but must persuade. It is often inefficient, but the alternative is only acceptable if you happen to agree with the person giving the orders. We have rejected that model when we rejected a king.

You guys Demonized the whole administration from the Getgo...

Yup. He put in people who suppressed science, and that was pretty much all it took.

You dislike him because he didn't CowCow to that iddiot Kim Jung Ill every time he said come wipe my nose, and ohh can you spare some change.

I agree with your feelings on NK and Kim Jung Il. The situation there makes me ill, but we really don't have a good alternative. NK is one country that can, and will, sell nukes to terrorists, which has got to be considered the worst possible scenario we can imagine. We can't attack them unless both China and S. Korea agreed, and neither of them will, so that isn't an option. We can't embargoe them...because they simply can't BE anymore isolated than they already are. And whenever we try to turn out backs on them we suffer for it. Therefore, here again, progress rides on a hearse. We waited for the father to die in hopes that the son would be better. Now we wait for the son to die in hopes that the next leader isn't willing to starve his people, or doesn't want to be a pariah. In the meantime, we pay them off so that they don't make our worst nightmare come true. It's a terrible position, but it is the only one that is actually possible.

.

the Clinton Admin and <Gags> that Peanut Farmer.. <ProjectileVomet> I simply DISPISE THAT MAN!!!!! He was and is a total Failure and you guys try to Raise him up to such Stature..

To tell you the truth, I barely remember Carter. I was in single digits at the time, and wasn't paying attention to much internationally. However, politics was VASTLY different in those days than it is today. Consider that Nixon enacted more liberal policies than Clinton. The "right" in his day was to the left of the present "left". The leadership was more liberal than the public it represented. Currently, the leadership is more conservative than the the public it represents.

Reagan was Right about everything,

Including paying off terrorists by trading arms for hostages? I would think you'd be totally pissed over that (though, to be fair, it is standard operating procedures for multinational corporations).

Matter of a Fact why are you guys Liberals. You guys seem very smart..

The institutions that conservatives complain about as being too liberal are also the institutions dedicated to the spread of knowledge and dissemination of information: Universities and media. The stereotypical liberal, in this country, is an intellectual. Go figure.

How does a good man Know he is Wrong?

You can't. We are all guessing in every way. The worst things can result from the best of intentions.

My sources say you guys passed Social Security simply to Secure the Democrat Voting Block..

Technically, that's true. No politician votes for a bill specifically to ensure the wrath of their constituency. They voted for a measure with the understanding that they had the support of their constituency.

My sources tell of a Quote from somone from that era saying they "the people" will be Voting Democrat for 50 years.

YES! Whether it was done with the expectation that it would swing the country to the democratic party for a few decades is debatable, but the various acts of Roosevelt are thought to have had that effect. One of the current points that I tend to agree with is that lots of Republicans are opposed to ANYTHING that Obama does (especially health care) because they recognize that if he is seen as very successful, they will not see power again for a couple more decades. That's a very cynical view, but when it comes to humans, if you are cynical, you are rarely wrong. If this is even partially the case, then the Rs can't vote for any health care bill because only the president and the majority party ever get credit for anything passed, regardless of whether it was bipartisan. That's a raw deal!!

At some point after the Sham of SS someone put those funds into the General Funds.. The whole system is a Ponzy Scheme.

Yup. People keep talking about putting those things into a lockbox. Only problem is, they have the keys, and that is a prize too rich to pass up. When the alternatives before you are 1) Raise taxes, 2) Cut services that somebody wants (somebody wants EVERY service out there), or 3) Raid a juicy target that nobody will complain about until after you have retired....well, since the first two can amount to career suicide, it's not a surprise that elected leaders opt for #3. This happens at the state level, as well as the federal level.

Medicare Medicaide is the same way, and you guys need Obama to Force this latest Healthcare crap down our Throats because the Ponzy scheeme is finally about to collapse..

My views on health care can be summed up in this way: Both sides are desperately trying to focus the debate on how to rearrange the deck chairs, because the ship is sinking and NOTHING can prevent it. The debate is a sham. Both want to get people riled up about one option or the other, because they know the truth, and the truth is this: The day is coming when you will only get good health care if you are in the top few percent of incomes, and the rest of us will be very explicitly excluded. Since no politician wants to talk about that, they are getting people to talk about something else. I explained that view in a different thread, but it is basically composed of this: As science advances, we are able to extend lives more and more, but only by doing increasingly expensive things. This has happened only in the last 100 years, as we are at about the 100 year anniversary of the first drug that actually cured a disease rather than (possibly) treating a symptom. Only a few decades back, cancer was a death sentence, diabetes killed you quickly, and so on. Now, many cancers will not actually kill you, but the treatment is too expensive for any average person to afford. The insurance model will break down under this scenario, as we will ALL have health issues at some time. As the insurance model collapses, the only alternatives are to kill the sick (the Logans Run solution), or to cover the cost as a fundamental piece of society. Ultimately, if science continues to advance, the second alternative will become to expensive to sustain. That day is decades off, but if you look at the last century, you will have to wonder just how many decades? What happens when the medical costs of the average person are in the vicinity of $500,000 over the course of their lifetime (it may be there now)? How about a million? Two? The cost of medical care will dwarf the lifetime gross earnings of the average person. I'll leave it there. I'm not optimistic.

Most of your Dem Controlled States are Failures..

How about the Rep controlled states. I have lived in two of them. NH had no sales tax and no income tax (and is turning into a blue state). The property tax was sky high, though. Now I live in ID (about as red as it gets), where we have a fairly high sales tax, a hefty income tax...and a property tax which people complain bitterly about, despite it being not all that impressive to me. Which party controls a state doesn't have nearly as much to do with how the state is doing as the history of that state and its fundamentals does. What is your tax base? What is your population base? That has a greater impact on state policies than political party does. CA is a mess for a whole lot of reasons (for one thing, it should probably be two states), and having a Republican at the helm for a decade hasn't solved a thing.

At what lengths will you go for Control of my Liberty?

And you as well. Conservatives are not different than Liberals in that they want the government to regulate certain behaviors. The only difference is in which behaviors they want to regulate.

[tome10]

I don't know where I can disagree with any of you guys with anymore.. You guys are simply A+ in my book. You could have easily stooped to my level, and I am simply sorry.. The news is totally depressing these days. I can't really format my writing very well as I am from Arkansas.. I watched Clinton Speak numerous times as a Kid. My English Teacher told me Ain't wasn't a word and I was disinterested from then on.. My fury at California and the Democrats in General is the Immigration debate. I mean it's terrible Mexico can't be better to it's Citizens, but when California welcomes all comers to free this, free that. It is unsustainable. The Federalist system allows for Experimentation with different SocioEconomic whatevers at the State Level.. If said experiments work they can be replicated to other States. The Citizens can simply Move to another state if he or she feels it is good practice or not. When you start Experimenting at the Federal Level with that Knowledge it Simply has to be Sinister. I feel my country is being taken over by something, and it has it's roots back in the 60's. Whatever those guys were talking about Revolution, I believe it is here In my Government. I have a Communist or something Van Jones as the Green Czar. I saw a Video of Annita Dunn WH Communications Director saying she turns to Mao Tse Tung for Inspiration. Now Most of those names on that Dictator List was way Before my time, but Apparently that guy Killed 70Mil people. Is fox news bad for America for shedding that light? I mean I don't want a person like that in the Whitehouse. It's bad enough they're at the UN. What really should tick you off is the fact that the media is a Willing Occomplice in all of this.


I was Raised under Reagan. I have Memories of my Great GrandMother Wailing at him through the TV. I didn't know what that Iran Contra Affair was all about back then, but in Hindsight, I think I will give Him a Pass.. Just because I know he was a Good Man. I give Clinton the Same Deal. Considering I believe he Reduced defense spending a lot. I was there. How much of our Intelligence got Lost I do not know. Our Presidents can't be perfect. The other world Leaders need to know they are not Perfect, and it pains me to see such Rifts between us and the European Leaders. But you have to admit that Oil For Food thing was just Incredible. How many countries threw out their officials for that? I mean come on..
On California.. Arnold is not much of a Republican. But Wait.. I don't even like Republican. It has to be Conservative for me. When was the Last time you heard a Democrat talking about Liberty? or the Constitution? The Constitution is all but a Dirty word to those guys. If they don’t like something about it go through the Process and have it changed. Good grief.. It is strange that the NE states are such blue states.. I mean you guys have the heritage of being the ones who created it. Why are the far right wingers the ones who want to stop the Gov from getting any bigger? I mean the States Ratified it. Would they have given Birth to it knowing it would grow up to consume them? Do you guys look to it as a child you wish to grow? I just think there is a line we should not cross with it. Always having to have Liberals on the Supreme Court to simply thwart the Constitutions Firewalls I find very strange.. Just on Principle that should not be. I am not a religious person, I just view it as a Contract. I’m afraid the More the Firewall is Breeched the More Convoluted we become. All things you guys wish to do can be done through the Process.. Gov just can’t be the only answer for Healthcare. I mean why can’t we buy it Like Car Insurance? There has to be a way to get the Gov out. I believe everything the Gov touches makes it more Expensive anyways. Healthcare just wouldn’t be so expensive if the Gov was out of it. Obama says he can save 900 billion or something by reducing Fraud. Alright go ahead. If you can reduce Fraud.. Do it… We shouldn’t let that much fraud run amuck anyways. It has to be about the power.. No sooner than you guys turned from Thwarting Constitutional Law by Breaking the Bond between Chrysler and it’s Bond Holders did he Jump to Healthcare. Why so Fast. I mean come on let me in on the Secret? Why would anybody want to do this? Here is what Reagan Has to say. I beg you to Listen. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaH8W...eature=related

[tome10]

And you as well. Conservatives are not different than Liberals in that they want the government to regulate certain behaviors. The only difference is in which behaviors they want to regulate.

These things are a little Trivial I think.. Considering we're talking about some pretty heavy stuff. What Behavior do you refer? Drugs? I mean Bill Oreilly put it well Last night talking with John Stoccil. There is like 70&#37; abuse Rate with Parents using drugs and kids are getting Harmed. My Father came home from Vietnam, and back then no thanks to John kerry's Lies and all that stuff. He drank a Lot. I do not Drink as a result so clearly people can make choices. I believe pot should be Legal because it grows Naturally, and I have never seen a Plant out in the Wild. I think it would be neat. But Oreilly made a Point that People were getting the Pot from the medical Marijuana place and selling to kids for money and then using the money for Harouine. Whatever. I mean I really don't care, because that's one less person out here competing with me in the Workplace.
Gay Marriage.. I am against. I know this is a Malicious thing. Marriage is a Religious thing. The Gov. Shouldn't be in Marriage anyways. As far as the Gov is Concerned we should all be Civil Unions. Leave Marriage with religion, and just don't be an ass. Abortion.. I think the Liberals use this as a Wedge. There is obviously no connection to the Constitution without a liberal Judge inventing it. So it should be debated in the open. Someone once said that England handled this correctly by debating and passing through Legislation.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Yeah, I was talking about sex. The social conservatives really want to limit how, where, and why that takes place. Banning birth control is bizarre.

Abortion, however, is a wedge issue for all sides. It is a topic where there really isn't a middle position, and this will probably get worse. Basically, up until a couple decades back, when life began was kind of irrelevant, as babies who didn't gestate in the womb for the full term were clearly not alive (and often took the mother with them). At some point, it will probably become possible for a baby to be carried to full term mechanically. That'll be interesting.

Another problem is what happens when people wake up to the techniques that have already been demonstrated, such as cloning, and the ability to extract the nucleus from a cell and inject a different one. We may already be at the point where a human could be born without ever having a father (because we don't contribute much of anything other than some DNA). If an egg can be turned into a human without being fertilized in any normal way, is menstruation murder?

Science appears likely to blurr the lines so badly that distinctions about life will have to be made in court, because they won't exist otherwise.

[Shaggy Hiker]

The news is totally depressing these days.

Amen. What's to be done about Afghanistan after that election. Do we back a guy who clearly cheated and has created a terribly corrupt government? That would be similar to Vietnam. Or do we bail out, knowing the Taliban will take over again? Is there a third choice? I don't see one.

I can't really format my writing very well as I am from Arkansas..

Yeah, but that's about the most addictive accent in the country (actually, I think Gatlinburg TN is worse). It's hard not to join in.

I

mean it's terrible Mexico can't be better to it's Citizens, but when California welcomes all comers to free this, free that.

We do that, too. Not as many services, cause we pay all the taxes, but don't seem to have much to show for it. Migrant labor is big wherever agriculture is king, and that certainly describes the southern half of Idaho.

I have had some Mexicans work for me when I ran crews a few years back. One thing I will say for them is that they are darn good workers. The jobs we offered were lousy. Low pay, inconsistent hours, difficult, tedious work. The only thing we could really offer was that we treated people well, and that was appreciated by the migrants. We also had Bosnians, who were a wild group. They were good, too, but NOBODY speaks that language.

Now Most of those names on that Dictator List was way Before my time, but Apparently that guy Killed 70Mil people.

I hadn't thought of that, but it is quite possible in the cultural revolution. The thing with China is that their population is so large that when they have any nationwide, murderous, turmoil, the death toll is liable to be massive...and yet almost overlooked. The funny thing about Mao is that he was a better ally to us in WWII than the wildly corrupt Chiang Kia-Shek government. Mao and Chiang both fought, but Mao fought the Japanese, while Chiang fought the chinese. If you read the history of that front, you can't help but be infuriated. We were played, though we probably had no choice.

But you have to admit that Oil For Food thing was just Incredible. How many countries threw out their officials for that?

Nah, didn't surprise me a bit. In game theory, as in biology, whenever you set up a rule, there are always cheaters. As long as there is some advantage to cheating, there will be some who try. This is true among fish, so it might as well be true among politicians.

heard a Democrat talking about Liberty? or the Constitution? The Constitution is all but a Dirty word to those guys. If they don’t like something about it go through the Process and have it changed.

You've gotta be kidding. Is there a politician who doesn't wrap themselves in the flag? As for changing the Constitution, that is a slow, painful, and often unsuccessful process. You probably remember the Equal Rights Amendment, as it died in the 80s. It would have given women equality under the Constitution (which only mentions men).

By the way, if you think that women don't need that, it is likely because of all the discrimination suits during the last couple decades. Those suits came about due to the Civil Rights Act extending protections to women. The oddity is WHY the Civil Rights Act was extended to women. The clause was inserted by a southern congressman who thought that adding that ammendment would surely make the whole act so abhorent that it wouldn't be enacted. So women have that legal protection because a congressman thought he could kill a bill by even offering them protection.

It is strange that the NE states are such blue states.

Actually, VT and MA are blue, and have been for a long time. NH was staunchly Republican, though it is a fiscally conservative state and not a socially conservative state. NH had Warren Rudman as a senator for several terms. You may remember him from the Graham-Warren-Rudman act that was an attempt to force a balanced budget and drive down the deficit. Rudman retired in disgust sometime late in the Clinton administration when the Republican congress was busily weakening the act. I think it was finally disposed of completely under Bush, but it may have died under Clinton. In either case it was certainly expiring before Bush was elected.

Why are the far right wingers the ones who want to stop the Gov from getting any bigger?

I'd be more conservative it that statement was true. Reagan ran the deficit higher, faster, than anybody prior to him. Clinton actually dropped the deficit, and quietly implemented policies to reduce spending. Since he did it quietly, he was able to get bipartisan support, since neither side was claiming any credit for it. Under Bush, the deficit exploded. In fact, he presided over the greatest expansion of government since at least LBJ (he added an entire department). The fiscal conservativism championed by Rudman were jettisoned in favor of rampant spending.

In the early 90s, the conservatives blasted the liberals for "tax and spend" policies. For a time, it appeared that they would rein in government spending, and Clinton worked with them in that regard. Bush started out with surpluses, which he turned into tax cuts. That policy is in keeping with conservative policies. What would have happened had 9/11 not occurred is hard to say, but what did happen was that "tax and spend" was replaced with "borrow and spend". The spending went higher than ever, the taxes went down. Now, China owns us (though we also own China, cause all their investments are tied to dollars).

Always having to have Liberals on the Supreme Court to simply thwart the Constitutions Firewalls I find very strange

Naturally, I don't see it that way. I recognize that the conservative wing has suggested that their interpretation is "strict", and by doing so, they have grabbed some key ground, but they are interpreting vague language just as much as any others, they are just giving it a conservative spin. Consider the 2nd amendment (and note that I work for a hunting organization, so the right to bear arms is fine with me). The language is this:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

What the heck does that mean? It doesn't talk about what kind of arms. Heck, that could mean anything from swords to RPGs (which are not allowed for use in deer hunting in ID, in case you were wondering). And the first part strongly implies that there is a specific reason for keeping and bearing arms. Yet that reason is no longer valid. At the time the document was written, a well armed citizenry could oppose the government. Not any more. Military hardware is VASTLY superior to anything that the average person could possibly "bear", let alone afford.

I mean why can’t we buy it Like Car Insurance?

Because in car insurance, the lucky pay for the unlucky. I have never had an accident...but I could the next time I go out. My car insurance is a contract. I make payments to the company, and they will pay out a certain amount if a calamitous event occurs. Even if my car was to be flattened, the cost of replacement is a fraction of a years salary. Burdensome, to be sure, but bearable. In the case of health care, you WILL be unlucky, you just don't know when. Unless you die suddenly, you will definitely incurr costs that will dwarf your annual income, and can easily dwarf your entire lifetime income.

A friend of mine just had a terrible birth. The mother was in the hospital for a month or so before the baby was born waaaaay premature. Three decades back, that baby would have been dead, and the mother might well have died, too. With modern medical technology, both are alive and well. The cost, however, is so great that it is unlikely that the parents will make that much money in their entire lives. Yet 80% of the total medical costs for the average person will be paid out in the last two years of their lives. For my friends, they still have their greatest expenses ahead of them, and they have already used up so much money that the rest of us are supporting them with our premiums, and they will NEVER pay in enough to make a dent in what they have taken out.

So in car insurance, the lucky pay for the unlucky, and the costs are modest. In health insurance, we are all unlucky, and the costs are exhorbitant, growing rapidly, and will continue to grow as long as science advances.

Obama says he can save 900 billion or something by reducing Fraud. Alright go ahead. If you can reduce Fraud..

Everybody says that. It never works, but as long as it is the easy answer, you will hear the same statement run out by both sides whenever asked how they will pay for something.

Here is what Reagan Has to say.

By the way, did you ever hear what Reagan had to say about W? The quote was: "What's his qualification? That he's no longer an obnoxious drunk?"

Reagan sure could speak.

[tome10]

By the way, did you ever hear what Reagan had to say about W? The quote was: "What's his qualification? That he's no longer an obnoxious drunk?"

Haha i didn't know that..
So when my guys say that Reagan Cut Taxes and Cap Gains and set the Stage for Growth, and my assumption was that all of the growth in the Clinton years were actually directly related to Reagans Policies which Grew the Economy, and when Newt took over with the Contract with America started reducing the Defecit. I just stared paying attention after 911, and I have seen some spooky stuff from the Dems. Nevermind the absolute Furvor they joined with the enemy's propaganda during the war. John Murtha, John Kerry.. OMG I simply will never vote Dem.. Other than all that, Every time I saw Bush doing Domestic spending on something Prescription Drugs for example. My side was like no way no more Entitlements. The Dems seemed to suggest it didn't Spend Enough, and wouldn't join in unless it was way bigger or something. The dems that I see are absolutely reckless. I have seen nothing to support your claim the Dems are Responsible with anything nevermind Money. I have seen a video that illistrates the Community Reinvestment act established under Carter, and Expanded by Clinton as the Direct cause of the Housing bubble and our current mess. I'm not suggesting someone is lying to me, but the only Liars I have seen is the Media and the Dems. Sorry.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RZVw...789&feature=iv
You can try to convince me the above video is not true, but this video below shows the Dems Defending Fannie and Freddie with such vigor it just has to be true.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_...eature=related
So I ask who is lying to me? I just simply have seen nothing from the Dems to suggest they are Honorable in the Least.

[abhijit]

tome10,
I am sorry, but I didn't get the Arkansas reference.

[NeedSomeAnswers]

Amen. What's to be done about Afghanistan after that election. Do we back a guy who clearly cheated and has created a terribly corrupt government? That would be similar to Vietnam. Or do we bail out, knowing the Taliban will take over again? Is there a third choice? I don't see one.

There is no choice here, we will quite clearly back the corrupt government. Karzai will get into power after the run off, and as there is currently no other choice but his government or the Taliban then his government will be backed.

We cannot expect Afghanistan to be truly democratic just because we they now have elections. Currently a large portion of the population cannot vote due to the fear of being maimed or killed by the Taliban for one thing, and another is that it normally takes time for a country to become democratic and a shift change in how a country is run so that no single person can grab power again and move back to being a dictator, part of that is to with the independence of the military as well.

I mean why can’t we buy it Like Car Insurance?

I have to say i agree with shaggy that we can't run it like car insurance but not on the fact that Medical cost will just continue to go up and up.

What i see happening is that those who's lifestyle choices greatly effect there health will have capped treatment for anything connected to those lifestyle choices.

In the UK it is estimated that it costs the NHS something like &#163;5 billion a year and rising to treat obesity related conditions. I can see a point coming were if people are obese they will only have a certain amount of treatment for any obesity related issues.

Now that is just 1 example but a big one, imagine this policy carried across to other health issue which are to do with lifestyle choices.

I am not sure whether i agree with it or not but i can see something like this happening along with an education campaign telling people that certain lifestyle choices could potentially risk there lives.

By the way, did you ever hear what Reagan had to say about W? The quote was: "What's his qualification? That he's no longer an obnoxious drunk?

Hehe that's the funniest thing that been in this whole thread !

[Shaggy Hiker]

Reagan was colorful. After a particularly difficult legislative battle gettings something passed, he was quoted as saying something bland, yet dignified. His actual quote was "I feel like I just crapped a pineapple." Frankly, that is nearly perfect rhetoric. Nobody has ever done that, yet EVERYBODY understands that.