Have WMDs been found in Iraq?

Parent Cafe
161

<p>Kluge: "heartstring-tugging little homily "</p>

<p>LOL</p>

<p>“We’ve cut taxes to their lowest level in the past 50 years, and, uh - now where was that huge economic upswing that’s supposed to happen?”</p>

<p>Well, the economy is not all doom and gloom. And to prep for an oval office party shift, the mainstream media has done it’s part spreading that misinformation. The truth is that our economy is cyclical. Up and down it will go…</p>

<p>“the goofy right-wing blogosphere”
I know a number of “Mr. Joneses”. This is not from a blogosphere. This from my travels, and from common sense. It’s also from my courses in economics, and my experience running a company.</p>

<p>Obama is not only one of the most liberal senators, he also has no business experience, and no management experience. At least McCain has managed thousands in the military, has helped with his wife’s company, and has years of experience as a senior senator. He also has military experience. </p>

<p>He is the only logical choice of the two.</p>

162

<p>“The truth is that our economy is cyclical. Up and down it will go…”</p>

<p>Actually, I agree with you on that. So how come these tax cuts were sold to us as an economic turbo-charge, if the truth is that things just swing up and down without much relationship to what the government does?</p>

163

<p>Hanna: “Actually, I agree with you on that. So how come these tax cuts were sold to us as an economic turbo-charge, if the truth is that things just swing up and down without much relationship to what the government does?”</p>

<p>Well, economists could have a long debate on that one. Tax cuts do act as a turbo charge, but imagine that the US economy is like a huge passenger ship. It takes a while after you have initiated it for the turn to happen. Additionally, tax cuts do not occur in a vacuum.</p>

<p>Take the housing market, for example. The downturn was predicted years ago, once people had a handle on the demographics of our aging population. Supply and demand…No tax cut could have completely offset that enormous shift.</p>

164

<p>

</p>

<p>Tell me what is fair about this?</p>

<p>You only want the system where the everyone but the rich benefit. Hmmm…would that be socialism or communism? There are countries you can go live in that will meet your needs.</p>

165

<p>Kluge: "And, as always, the “pity the poor rich guys” contingent skips over the sticking point, whistling and waving their hands madly: </p>

<p>"Pity the poor rich guys” has NOTHING to do with my position. My point is to get out of the way of the most productive players in our economy if they are generating good taxes and creating jobs.</p>

<p>It’s very hypocritical for folks to pick an arbitrary ceiling, say “$250,000”, and call anyone above that “too rich”. In a free society, we should not be able to make those judgements. Liberals are always OK as long as the guy a few rungs above them on the economic ladder has to pay more. Whenever I have this debate with liberal friends who say that paying more would be OK with them, I always say, “Well, if you want to pay more, why not just do it? Send the government a check. Why wait for a tax bill to prod you?”</p>

<p>If a guy is already paying ten times more than the average taxpayer, why should HE have to pay even more just because he is a more capable performer? I’ll tell you why. It is because of the population and income numbers. There are enough people below him economically to force him to do it when they go to the polls. However, that doesn’t make it right. And it definitely doesn’t mean it is a good thing down the road for the economy or the masses. Class warfare, the battle cry of the liberal left, has no place in a capitalist economy.</p>

<p>Kluge: “who else are you going to raise taxes on to make up the shortfall? Or are you just going to continue stealing it from future generations by running deficits year after year? I’ve asked that question a half dozen times in the past month and have yet to get an answer."</p>

<p>Neither party wins an award for reducing the deficit. And don’t expect me to defend Bush, because he gets a red F from me on this topic. He is a liberal when it comes to spending. So was Clinton, and Bush 41. </p>

<p>How about decreasing taxes and the deficit by eliminating unnecessary spending? Unfortunately, that would mean electing a real conservative, something that will not be possible in this country for the foreseeable future (the mainstream media would not allow it).</p>

<p>It might be possible if the Democratic Party would stop trying to convince people that the government is going to solve all of their problems, and that it is everyone’s birthright to live an upper middle class life, with flat screen televisions, exotic vacations, $200 jeans, and expensive European cars for all. The world doesn’t owe anyone that. </p>

<p>“Yes We Can!” Sure you can. Just steal it from someone else.</p>

<p>By the way, there just aren’t that many people making over $250,000 for that suggestion to have much of an effect. Class warfare has never really accomplished much of anything except garner votes for Democrats.</p>

166

<p>Here’s an interesting, unexpected twist of events:</p>

<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-confidential-cafe/522380-conservatives-obama-rise-obamacons.html?highlight=obamacons[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-confidential-cafe/522380-conservatives-obama-rise-obamacons.html?highlight=obamacons&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

167

<p>

</p>

<p>For someone with no business or management experience, he’s done a pretty darn good job of running a presidential campaign.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>The Bush administration’s tax cuts did. The Iraq War is a mega-suction vacuum.</p>

168

<p>The New Republic and The New Yorker are both mouthpieces for the liberal left. That either of them could even attempt to pose as a credible source to assess Barack Obama’s conservative quotient is very, very funny.</p>

<p>Conservatives like me who walked away from George Bush, and who will CRINGE at voting for John McCain, have less love for Obama than we do for Hillary Clinton. And we have no love for Hillary Clinton.</p>

<p>I have been described by others as a libertarian. And I cannot imagine voting for Obama. </p>

<p>Is this a joke from Saturday Night Live? If not, I hardly think it is a “movement” (wishful thinking of these two sources aside). Interesting, yes, if even a few people who truly ever were conservative could vote for Obama. It actually says less about Obama, though, and more about the fact that they are no longer conservatives (if they ever truly were).</p>

169

<p>Condoleezza Rice has written a very revealing and thought-provoking essay that’s published in the July/August 2008 issue of Foreign Affairs. Of special interest is what she says about nation building. She says democracy is a superior form of government and democratic state building is now an urgent component of our national interest.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>[Foreign</a> Affairs - Rethinking the National Interest - Condoleezza Rice](<a href=“http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20080701faessay87401-p0/condoleezza-rice/rethinking-the-national-interest.html]Foreign”>Rethinking the National Interest)</p>

170

<p>

</p>

<p>This is her after-the-fact apology for the disaster that is Iraq. Going into this Administration, they said they wouldn’t do nation-building. They went into the Iraq War to democratize that nation but didn’t expect it would take much effort at all (“they’ll greet us with flowers”) and that the wonder of Iraqi democracy would provide us with a crucial democratic ally and would demonstrate to the Arab world how great democracy is. However, because they ignored all the dissenting voices (the ones who actually knew anything about Iraq) and went in anyway, they have discovered that being in Iraq would enmesh us in an incredible nation-building slog, exactly the sort of effort Bush railed against in his campaign. This is an absolutely absurd proposition that the US should go and like a deus ex machina install and support governmental reforms in a lot of countries. Yes, democracies tend not to fight wars with one another and so it is in our interest to see a democratic world. But where democracy usually begins is in a civil society which begins with economic development. Think Taiwan. It built its economy to the point that the entire society, not just the ruling elite, had a stake in the success of the country and after that it has successfully democratized. This is an effort that begins, from the grassroots, in these countries. To be sure, Taiwan had the help of the US via our export markets and security envelope for the island nation, but the Taiwanese worked hard and built their economy and then undertook the tough effort of democratizing themselves.</p>

<p>This essay is an attempt by Condoleeza Rice to re-assert some respectability for what was ill-conceived and what has been a complete disaster. I think she continues to lack credibility, given her role in the debacle. Smart does not equal wise.</p>

171

<p>Mapesy: “For someone with no business or management experience, he’s done a pretty darn good job of running a presidential campaign.”</p>

<p>I agree, That makes Obama highly qualified to be a campaign manager (assuming he can claim the work as his own).</p>

<p>Mapesy: “Of special interest is what she says about nation building. She says democracy is a superior form of government and democratic state building is now an urgent component of our national interest.”</p>

<p>Condoleeza Rice: “it is absolutely clear that we will be involved in nation building for years to come. But it should not be the U.S. military that has to do it. Nor should it be a mission that we take up only after states fail. Rather, civilian institutions”</p>

<p>This is a really good thing, Democracy IS a superior form of government. Why is it that so many people on this planet are dying (sometimes even literally) to live here? </p>

<p>I’m all for spreading liberty around the planet. Every human being deserves freedom. It is a birth right. It’s a moral obligation to help those living under tyranny. Additionally, battling Extreme Islamic Fundamentalism is imperative as a national security goal.</p>

<p>Bedhead: “the disaster that is Iraq”
Iraq is not a disaster. It isn’t where it needs to be, but it is headed in the right direction. This despite every effort by the liberal left and mainstream media to undermine the effort at every turn, contributing to insurgent zeal and therefore US military and Iraqi civilian deaths.</p>

<p>Bedhead: “they said they wouldn’t do nation-building”
True, but 9-11 changed everything. As for now, they are not calling for a global effort to nation build using the military. I believe Rice’s point was to use other institutions.</p>

<p>BedheadL “where democracy usually begins is in a civil society which begins with economic development”
With this point you support the effort in Iraq. Scroll up and view the NY Times article to reacquaint yourself with what was going on in that nation under Saddam. It was anything but a “civil society”. Your theory doesn’t work for me. I am not willing to wait while hundreds of thousands are murdered for an economy to reach some critical point where democracy might have a chance.</p>

<p>When human beings are being tortured and murdered, anywhere (Iraq, Darfur, WWII Europe, etc.), we really do need to act. Hopefully, more civilized nations will take part.</p>

172

<p>^^^^</p>

<p>You call yourself libertarian and you are for a global effort to spread democracy and undertake extensive nation-building on behalf of other nations that may not want or be ready for it?</p>

<p>I am all for democracy – it is undoubtedly the best form of govt. – but to turn the US government into a mechanism for converting the masses around the world is bizarre, messianic, and guaranteed to fail. I think it’s hilarious that you buy into this, Spidey. The only rationale for doing so is that, whatever you say, you really are a proponent for everything this Administration has attempted and failed at.</p>

<p>Remember: we were supposed to have been greeted with flowers. The oil sales of Iraq were going to cover all our costs. Iraq was going to slip seemlessly into being a democracy that was pro-US. We have failed miserably and Iraq was a disaster and will be a disaster, especially compared to the advertisements that sold this war.</p>

<p>I know, though, that when it comes to the Iraq War, your one principle is that Bush did, and can do, no wrong.</p>

173

<p>BedHead, You may very well be right, but I took something else away from Rice’s piece.</p>

<p>I don’t think for one second that Rice wrote that piece without input from high-ranking officials in the Bush administration. Is Rice attempting to redeem herself for her part in the Iraq debacle? Possibly—you make a good case for it. My cynical side, however, thinks the underlying purpose of this essay is to send a strong message from the Bush administration to the international community. (Others in the global community seem to think so, too, as I’ve read some pretty scathing responses to the essay today in international news sources.)</p>

<p>My take on the essay is that the US is issuing a threat to the world in no uncertain terms that it plans to shove democracy down the throats of “weak and poorly functioning states” in the future in order to protect our national strategic interests. The US will first try to encourage democratization by diplomatic means, but, if that fails, we will not hesitate to use the military option. </p>

<p>While I was reading Rice’s essay, I couldn’t get past the feeling that I’d read this all before. Then it hit me: Despite Rice’s pretty words, her essay is a virtual carbon copy of the PNAC document “Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategies, Forces, and Resources for a New Century”. (RAD was published in September 2000.)</p>

<p>Here’s what I’d like to know: If Barack Obama is elected president, will the “new” Bush policy of democratic state-building necessarily affect his foreign policy?</p>

174

<p>Bedhead: “You call yourself libertarian and you are for a global effort to spread democracy and undertake extensive nation-building on behalf of other nations that may not want or be ready for it?”</p>

<p>I don’t think I am a libertarian, but others have said that they think I am. And “yes” to the rest of the question, although I’m for “nation-building” through the back door so to speak (through means other than the military, unless attrocities are going on as they were in Iraq). I would not even use the term “nation-building”. In a world where all civilized nations make it impossible for tyrannies to exist (for example, if pre-war the French stopped helping out Saddam while so many other nations were trying to shut him down), military “nation-building” should not be necessary except under extreme circumstances (and never by one nation alone).</p>

<p>Bedhead: “to turn the US government into a mechanism for converting the masses around the world is bizarre, messianic, and guaranteed to fail. I think it’s hilarious that you buy into this, Spidey”</p>

<p>But what you describe is not what I “buy into”.</p>

<p>Bedhead: “You really are a proponent for everything this Administration has attempted and failed at”
I can speak for myself thank you. Find a list somewhere of everything Bush has done if you are so inclined, and I’ll go through it and tell you with what I agree and disagree. I certainly have no problem agreeing with Bush if he thinks like I do on a certain issue. Among the liberal left, hating Bush has become a religion, and it’s pathetic and ridiculous. But I can assure you, there certainly is much he has done with which I completely disagree. Example: eliminating contraception as a form of US aid abroad.</p>

<p>Bedhead: “I know, though, that when it comes to the Iraq War, your one principle is that Bush did no wrong”
These are your words, once again. We should stay on the issues, and what a person actually says. There is much that could be improved about the effort in Iraq. If I have a “one principle” on something, I will tell you what it is. I’m not shy.</p>

175

<p>

</p>

<p>You nailed it. And it is the most incredible hubris to think that either through diplomacy or other means we could succeed in shoving democracy down the throats of any, or many, nation/s. This is why we went into Iraq, pursuing such a messianic vision. And we thought, oh they’ll understand that we are invading them for their own good, i.e. to spread democracy, and they’ll greet us with flowers. Democracy doesn’t happen over night, it doesn’t happen because a foreigner comes and imposes it on a country (if that country isn’t already very ready for it), and it happens from within. Our own rebellion, or insurgency, was pushed along by what we came to consider to be foreign interlopers who didn’t respect us. And we built democracy ourselves. This is how it’s done.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Judging by some of his advisors, Obama would be a realist with some tendencies towards internationalist idealist activism. For me, this is exactly where I would want him, and our nation, to be. I don’t want us to think that we are so strong and so morally superior that we go around pretending to the world that we have a monopoly and the blessing of democracy to which we will convert the rest of the world. This is bizarre and messianic, and it’s the product of ideologues such as Paul Wolfowitz and people like George Bush who has a messianic sense that God talks to him.</p>

176

<p>

</p>

<p>One of the marks of a good manager is delegating work effectively.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>But every human being doesn’t WANT freedom as it is defined by the United States.</p>

177

<p>Mapesy: "to shove democracy down the throats of “weak and poorly functioning states” </p>

<p>Wow - you make it sound like it is a bad thing to have a democracy.</p>

<p>As for Obama’s foreign policy, I am really interested in what he has to say. I hope he is extremely specific (unlikely, of course, for any politician). I am quite sure that he is WAY too inexperienced for the job, but he does have a keen mind and perhaps he will come up with some innovative ideas.</p>

178

<p>Bedhead: “And it is the most incredible hubris to think that either through diplomacy or other means we could succeed in shoving democracy down the throats of any, or many, nation/s. This is why we went into Iraq, pursuing such a messianic vision. And we thought, oh they’ll understand that we are invading them for their own good, i.e. to spread democracy, and they’ll greet us with flowers.”</p>

<p>What you describe is fundamentally the same thing that we did in Europe a half century ago. Sometimes I feel that a lot of people are closet racists when it comes to their global politics (and I really don’t mean you or anyone else specifically - I am genuinely thinking in general terms). </p>

<p>Maybe it isn’t quite racism, but perhaps more of a tendency to feel less compelled to help those of a different ethnic group or race. When Americans saw Europeans suffering, who looked like us and lived in nations from where our ancestors came, it made perfect sense to go and help. Yet when the faces are Arab, Asian, or African, many feel we should stay home. Excuses are made that “those people” have “lived like that for thousand of years”, or that they will achieve a better life “when they are ready”. Why is that?</p>

<p>A lot of Iraqis DID “greet us with flowers”. Most of them really want this to work. Let’s not forget that. Let’s also not forget that there was quite an ongoing German resistance as well. The difference was that no one from our side (especially from our own country) was encouraging them.</p>

179

<p>Spidey, Here’s a different point-of-view:</p>

<p>[Asia</a> Times Online :: Middle East News, Iraq, Iran current affairs](<a href=“http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JF13Ak01.html]Asia”>http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JF13Ak01.html)</p>

180

<p>Bedhead: “But every human being doesn’t WANT freedom as it is defined by the United States.”</p>

<p>Every human being wants freedom, in the sense of the word’s inherent meaning. Democracy is the best form of government for allowing it to happen.</p>