<p>Dont ****ing talk to me like I am two yrs old. So far you have not proven anything to me. You said the government should raise taxe, implying that because the government raises taxes it will have more money to pay for the war. Your statement was normative. I said that raising taxes would actually hurt your goal of having more money to pay off the war debt because ever since taxes were cut there has been more revenue. This is a fact, a positive statement. So now lets try to put these thoughts together. I am gonna try to explain it to you as easy as I can because you may have trouble understanding what follows. If the govt raises taxes, as you suggest, the government will actually lose revenue taxes and thus will go into more debt to pay off the war. This is not my opinion or theory, but it is the opinion of many economists who understand that lower taxes at a certain level will bring in more revenue than taxes at a higher level. This economical law, which you do not need to learn in class, is, i am gonna repeat myself again, demonstrated by the recent surge in revenue from taxes.</p>
<p>Also, you never mentioned spending less money domestically and neither did I so I do not understand where that statement came from about “guns or butter”. We were discussing raising or cutting taxes as far as I was concerned. </p>
<p>Also it is stupid to think that one million troops will scare the muslim terrorists. If you want to scare the muslim terrorists you win wars and unfortunately liberals in this country are trying to hold back America from doing that. Lets just look at Israel for a moment. Israel with a very large army does not scare the Arabs anymore because political correctness and liberalism in Israel has held its hands from winning the war. Contrast that to 30 years ago when the Israeli army scared the **** out of the Arabs. It wasnt because there was alot of them. It was because they WON all of the wars. </p>
<p>Tomadog, I made the point that Bush has not clearly defined the terrorists and that is one of his mistakes. He should go out and say who we are fighting. He did this though a few weeks ago, although to a lesser extent, when he called the terrorists Islamo-facists.</p>
<p>Because I am 17, it doesnt mean that I do not know Soviet history. In fact, I am willing to bet I know more than you simply because you challenged my comparison of the two. First off, I am sure you remember, when Reagan called the Soviet Union the evil empire? But, I i am also sure you dismissed that as the ramblings of some religious old man. Unfortunately, you did not understand the larger picture. By referring to the Soviet Union as evil Reagan drew a distinction between the truly evil and “non-free” USSR and America. This may have not affected the Soviet government as much as it did the Soviet people, because it made them realize that other countries knew what was actually going on. But do not take my word for it because I was born in America and was not a Soviet citizen, but lets look at Natan Sharansky, who was a prisoner in the Soviet gulag-prison system. Natan Sharasnky said that when Reagan called the Soviet Union an evil empire it gave the people living there hope, it gave them a realization that they are not lost and that they should continue to fight the opressive, totalitarian, and EVIL, USSR. Also by referring to the USSR, as what it is, evil, it helped open the eyes and even “pump” up Americans against the USSR, and Reagans initially confrontational policies which ultimately won the cold war.</p>
<p>Now, given that, let me explain to you the “comparison between an easily defined politically monolithic state like the USSR and some ethereal idea like “terror.”” It is not a matter of government, but it is a matter of nature and characteristical qualities that the comparison is made. Both the USSR and the terrorists we are fighting, the Islamo-facists as Bush refers to them, are evil. Absolutely EVIL. To more clearly define the evil of the terrorists, like Reagan did, is GB fault.</p>