luckydevil Posted July 29, 2003 Share Posted July 29, 2003 Here is a Marxist take on the war. I must say it is right on. http://www.andrewsullivan.com When the war began a division of opinion was soon evident amongst its opponents, between those who wanted a speedy outcome - in other words, a victory for the coalition forces, for that is all a speedy outcome could realistically have meant - and those who did not. These latter preferred that the Coalition forces should suffer reverses, get bogged down, and you know the story: stalemate, quagmire, Stalingrad scenario in Baghdad, and so forth, leading to a US and British withdrawal. But what these critics of the war thereby wished for was a spectacular triumph for the regime in Baghdad, since that is what a withdrawal would have been. So much for solidarity with the victims of oppression, for commitment to democratic values and basic human rights. Similarly today, with all those who seem so to relish every new difficulty, every set-back for US forces: what they align themselves with is a future of prolonged hardship and suffering for the Iraqi people, whether via an actual rather than imagined quagmire, a ruinous civil war, or the return (out of either) of some new and ghastly political tyranny; rather than a rapid stabilization and democratization of the country, promising its inhabitants an early prospect of national normalization. That is caring more to have been right than for a decent outcome for the people of this long unfortunate country. Such impulses have displayed themselves very widely across left and liberal opinion in recent months. Why? For some, because what the US government and its allies do, whatever they do, has to be opposed - and opposed however thuggish and benighted the forces which this threatens to put your anti-war critic into close company with. For some, because of an uncontrollable animus towards George Bush and his administration. For some, because of a one-eyed perspective on international legality and its relation to issues of international justice and morality. Whatever the case or the combination, it has produced a calamitous compromise of the core values of socialism, or liberalism or both, on the part of thousands of people who claim attachment to them. You have to go back to the apologias for, and fellow-travelling with, the crimes of Stalinism to find as shameful a moral failure of liberal and left opinion as in the wrong-headed - and too often, in the circumstances, sickeningly smug - opposition to the freeing of the Iraqi people from one of the foulest regimes on the planet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackC Posted July 29, 2003 Author Share Posted July 29, 2003 Originally posted by Erwin S. Here's the deal... Iraq (meaning Saddam) had plenty of time to hide and/or sell their WMD. I've seen interviews with former UN weapons inspectors who said they are not surprised by the fact that we have not found WMD's. In fact, one inspector said on CNN about a week ago that he would be shocked if we found them. He said Iraq could easily bury them in the middle of nowhere and we wouldn't find them UNLESS someone told us EXACTLY where they were. Anyone who continues to scream about not finding them is either stupid or they are being intentionally obtuse (probably due to being a Democrat). From my perspective it looks like the economy is turning around. We should have Saddam within a couple weeks and I believe the loss of American life will end shortly there after. Face it, Bush has taken a beating by the media the past month and he is still holding onto a majority of voters. What happens when things die down and Iraq looks better and the economy improves? It's called a land slide in '04. Wow! Now who's obtuse? Oh anyone who doesn't believe us must be a Democrat? Now, they're burried where no one is likely to find them? How convient! Also, don't tell me about getting "Saddam"! Get OBL damit! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted July 29, 2003 Share Posted July 29, 2003 Thanks Kilmer. I feel so dumb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackC Posted July 29, 2003 Author Share Posted July 29, 2003 Originally posted by redman Name a spending cut or tax cut being proposed by a Democrat leader, or any democrat for that matter. The Dems are the party that tends to promote government spending to create social welfare. Denial indeed. Not having big tax cuts for the rich would certainly change the bottom line my friend! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted July 29, 2003 Share Posted July 29, 2003 It is hard to know what Jack true beliefs are. He clearly has been proven to be a partisan hack. I would like to think he would be anti-war if Clinton was in office, I however doubt that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackC Posted July 29, 2003 Author Share Posted July 29, 2003 Originally posted by Matt Kyriacou I would love to take you up on a wager over that one. By all means, please let me know and we can arrange an escrow for whatever amount you would care to lose. Sorry Matt I can't bet a whole lot. This Bush economy is killing me and besides I've lost faith in the American people. They really should have seen this clown for what he is already! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackC Posted July 29, 2003 Author Share Posted July 29, 2003 I never said I was anti-war. (although I assume all of you hawks supported Clinton's Bosnia war right?) What I am is anti premptive war based on false assumptions! Sarge, "we're almost done in Afghanastan" That might be the the craziest post this site has ever heard. Yes that includes ASF! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKurp Posted July 29, 2003 Share Posted July 29, 2003 Originally posted by luckydevi The day democrats talking about cutting spending/government spending to solve the deficit problem is the day I become a democrat. I, however know better. The dems solution is to raise taxes Should I send you the voter's registration form or can you obtain one on your own? Republicans outspend Democrats in states Yahoo ^ | May 19th 2003 | Dennis Cauchon Republicans, who pride themselves on being frugal with taxpayers' money, were bigger spenders than Democrats in state legislatures over the past five years, a USA TODAY analysis shows. State legislatures controlled by Republicans increased spending an average of 6.54% per year from 1997 to 2002, compared with 6.17% for legislatures run by Democrats. State spending rose slowest -- 6% annually -- when legislatures were split, and each party controlled one chamber. Inflation averaged 2.55% annually 1997-2002. At a time when states are facing severe budget problems, many Republicans are blaming shortfalls on runaway spending by Democrats during the economic boom of the late 1990s. USA TODAY's analysis suggests otherwise. It matched spending changes in states from 1997 to 2002 with which party controlled the legislature and governor's mansion. The period includes four years when the national economy was strong and one when it was weak. The analysis examined only total spending, not whether the parties spent money in different ways. Spending was higher when one party -- Republican or Democratic -- controlled the legislature and the governor's office, the analysis shows. States spent 14% less when Republicans and Democrats had to fight each other to pass a budget. The most frugal combination: a Republican legislature and a Democratic governor. Republican legislatures spent most when their states also had Republican governors and least when they faced Democratic governors. Similarly, Democrats spent most when they also held the governor's office and least when the governor was Republican. Divided government hardens ideological differences, says Alan Rosenthal, a political scientist at Rutgers University. Such conflicts make it more difficult for either party to enact sweeping changes, including big spending increases or other major initiatives. Colorado state Sen. David Owen, a Republican, agrees. ''When we had a Democratic governor, the first thing we did was throw his budget in the trash and say, 'This is outrageous!' '' he says. The newspaper also analyzed how political control affected tax cuts. The result was similar: Divided government restrained tax cuts. Republicans cut taxes an average of 1.08% annually from 1997 to 2002 when they controlled both the legislature and governor's office. Democrats cut taxes 0.59% annually when they were in charge of state government. When power was split, taxes were cut 0.37%. Every state except Vermont has a law requiring a balanced budget. However, states routinely borrow money and use accounting methods to spend more than they collect in revenue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted July 29, 2003 Share Posted July 29, 2003 Kurp by no means am I happy with republicans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted July 29, 2003 Share Posted July 29, 2003 Sarge, "we're almost done in Afghanastan" That might be the the craziest post this site has ever heard. Yes that includes ASF! Sorry that things aren't going as sh!tty as most liberals would like, JackC. Fact is that all the crazies are hiding in the mountains, which is cool, because they really can't do a lot of damage from there. Fact is, schools are open, civil services are back to normal and getting even better, women aren't getting beaten in the streets for not wearing enough clothes. One more winter in the mountains and a lot of crazies will go home. The ones that stay will eventually assume room temperature. We will stay for awhile just to make sure the government can run by itself, but other than that I expect the army to stand on it's own two feet by spring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo-toni Posted July 29, 2003 Share Posted July 29, 2003 Kurp, That is why I'm a Libertarian!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackC Posted July 29, 2003 Author Share Posted July 29, 2003 Airsarge, It always comes back to that river in Egypt for you guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted July 29, 2003 Share Posted July 29, 2003 No..actually it comes from guys I know that are over there. Sorry Dan Rather and his like don't report the truth about things like this. So now your choice is........who do you believe, someone with an agenda, or someone who has been there on the ground and receives updates from friends? Your choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted July 29, 2003 Share Posted July 29, 2003 Air Sarge, What's the deal in Afghanistan really? I'm asking because for the most part its fallen off the map is far as coverage (or maybe I'm not looking hard enough). Is the country rebuilding going reasonably well, does it seem to have growing or wide-spread support? Is the infrastructure which has been severely lacking for twenty years been put in place? Last I heard, Afghanistan was in terrble shape for the people living there. The new government really only had control of the country to about fifteen feet outside of the capitol city limits and there was great disgruntlement. If you or anyone can give me a more objective and accurate present assessment I would appreciate it. Please try not to read anything into this question... despite its length I'm genuinely curious and am seeking an honest depiction (if that is possible) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted July 30, 2003 Share Posted July 30, 2003 To be honest, I don't have any idea how it's "really" going because I was not privy to the original timetable to get the place back on track. Infastructure seems to be coming along, meaning drinking/running water. A lot of folks there didn't have sewer service before we came to town, and that is being addressed, even though a lot of the pledges from the international community seem to have fallen through. THe Army is slowy coming into shape. We take them along on missions to root aout a$$holes so they can get practice, but it is taking time because they have never had a national army and we are basically starting from the ground up. There are still deep divisions between tribes, and I don't think that is going away anytime soon. Thing is, the more we show them a better way, the more they are gonna realize that they can have a better life and not have t worry about being popped every time they stick up there heads or venture outside their territory. The outer areas, especially down by Pakistan, are going to be the last to come on board, because there really is no law there, except tribal. A$$holes are using this to their advantage, but as I stated earlier, they can do little harm there, and that is not a bad thing. We are still gonna lose people there, because it's a$$hole season, and we are hunting a$$holes. This is not without risks, and people die, unfortunately. Sorry I can't be a little more detailed, but I have moved out of that theater of Ops recently and don't get quite as much scoop on the region as I used to. Now, if you wanna know about Pakistan............ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stratoman Posted July 30, 2003 Share Posted July 30, 2003 Originally posted by Erwin S. Here's the deal... Iraq (meaning Saddam) had plenty of time to hide and/or sell their WMD. I've seen interviews with former UN weapons inspectors who said they are not surprised by the fact that we have not found WMD's. In fact, one inspector said on CNN about a week ago that he would be shocked if we found them. He said Iraq could easily bury them in the middle of nowhere and we wouldn't find them UNLESS someone told us EXACTLY where they were. Anyone who continues to scream about not finding them is either stupid or they are being intentionally obtuse (probably due to being a Democrat). From my perspective it looks like the economy is turning around. We should have Saddam within a couple weeks and I believe the loss of American life will end shortly there after. Face it, Bush has taken a beating by the media the past month and he is still holding onto a majority of voters. What happens when things die down and Iraq looks better and the economy improves? It's called a land slide in '04. this is so good, I had to quote the whole thing! Erwin, I like the way you think! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stratoman Posted July 30, 2003 Share Posted July 30, 2003 jackc, please stay off the rock!:bong: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted July 30, 2003 Share Posted July 30, 2003 thanks Sarge, I appreciate the insight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo-toni Posted July 30, 2003 Share Posted July 30, 2003 From what I've heard, Kabul is doing quite well, but the situation degrades into warlordism the farther out from there you get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted July 30, 2003 Share Posted July 30, 2003 There was a good article in the Times magazine a few months ago about the recon. Suprised me to find that some of the warlord areas are well ahead of schedule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackC Posted July 30, 2003 Author Share Posted July 30, 2003 Originally posted by Air Sarge No..actually it comes from guys I know that are over there. Sorry Dan Rather and his like don't report the truth about things like this. So now your choice is........who do you believe, someone with an agenda, or someone who has been there on the ground and receives updates from friends? Your choice. You and your friends don't have an agenda? Could have fooled me. :shoothead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted July 30, 2003 Share Posted July 30, 2003 Bosnia's War? And it wasnt just blind bombing/ airstrikes that turned the tide while there wasnt US ground forces per se there were ethnic ground forces working in conjucntion to beat down the serbs. I was deployed there and this should ve been setled by Europe while we should ve went to Rwanda and we are still in Bosnia and Kosovo. When I was in desert storm for intel we knew of WOMD and unless you purposely want to claim they are a myth all you have to do is turn to the History channel practically any night to watch Saddam and where they think the weapons are. I pity the dems and the press though. Because I have this feeling that like in Brave Heart when Wallace keeps saying Hold hold hold .... then Attack!!!! you guys are going to run into a bunch of spikes that will leave you aghast. I just wonder if like in May TV sweeps the next plot will be Saddam killed then the weapons are found then at the end of the year or early in 2k4 bin laden is taken out just when the treasury starts raking in bucks from Capital earnings taxes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted July 30, 2003 Share Posted July 30, 2003 Of course we do JackC. It's to take over the world. Now all we need is a smiley putting his little pinky up to the corner of his mouth, ala Dr. Evil. Actually, our real agenda is the mission. Don't confuse my far right leanings on this board with my actual job, which is as I said, is the mission. The mission gets priority above all else, personnal feelings, comfort, family time, whatever. And you don't necessarily have to like the mission ie, pizza deliveries to Bosnia, the Balkans, Hati etc, but the military also has an old saying, "You don't have to like it, you just have to do it". So even though we had to take orders from a pot smoking, intern banging, womanizing draft dodger to go to places we had no natinal interests, we still had to do whatever it was he would dream up to save the world. Needless to say, folks in the military now are generally happier nowdays doing something that really matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackC Posted July 30, 2003 Author Share Posted July 30, 2003 Air Sarge, I see your point. It's much better to take orders from a coke snorting, corporate thief, war fact lying, Awol idiot drunk! I see why you're happier! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted July 30, 2003 Share Posted July 30, 2003 He pays a lot better than the previous loser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.