It's The War, Stupid It's us or them

[Kilmer17]

Fine and dandy Mike. But there are very few nonliberals who fealt this way.

[Mad Mike]

Originally posted by Kilmer17

Fine and dandy Mike. But there are very few nonliberals who fealt this way.

That may be true. But my point is that it is a more constructive argument to simply say that we should not let foreign countries decide what's best for the US.

As soon as a conservative starts talking about liberals or a liberal starts talking about conservatives, ears start closing and brains stop working. Both sides have demonized the other to the point that they cannot work together to find the truth, much less find solutions.

You have to ask yourself if it is more important to be proven correct as a conservative or liberal, than to find the truth and make the right choices.

And if you want somone to listen to you it is far more effective to simply state your case than by first putting them on the defensive.

[RiggoDrill]

Originally posted by luckydevi

Seriously when did some leftists start caring about deficits. Isn't Keynes a hero to many of you folks?

No serious economist would advocate running long term deficits, not even Keynes if he were alive.

But, at least the Keynes had the sense to use deficit spending to stimulate one's OWN ECONOMY during economic downturns.

Bush is running deficits, but spending it on Iraq's economy.

[RiggoDrill]

Originally posted by Kilmer17

Why do liberals want to let foreign countries decide what's best for the US?

I never said that. But we have dug ourselves a hole by forcing this situation on our own without substantial military or financial support from other countries.

Contrast the cost of this war with Gulf War I. Now do you get it?

Good.

The Bushies themselves see the problem: That's why they're trying to get UN help ... after giving them the finger before the war. And now they're giving us the finger.

The fact of the matter is we cannot win any worldwide war on anything without other countries cooperating, aiding or assisting us.

It might be macho to believe that we can do whatever we please in the world for as long as we want, but we can't ... unless we want to bankrupt ourselves.

This is not the end of WWII, when we could fund the rebuilding of Europe because American exports dominated world markets (with Japan and Europe rebuilding).

[Mad Mike]

Originally posted by RiggoDrill

No serious economist would advocate running long term deficits, not even Keynes if he were alive.

But, at least the Keynes had the sense to use deficit spending to stimulate one's OWN ECONOMY during economic downturns.

Bush is running deficits, but spending it on Iraq's economy.

Like we did for Germany and Japan? Look at the huge dividends it payed.

By the way. The economy is not in a downturn.

[Mad Mike]

That's why they're trying to get UN help ... after giving them the finger before the war. And now they're giving us the finger.

Sorry but I think it was they who gave us the finger first.

[RiggoDrill]

Originally posted by Mad Mike

Sorry but I think it was they who gave us the finger first.

No, the present administration had been licking its chops to go to war in Iraq far, far before they reluctantly went before the UN at Colin Powell's insistence.

We went before the UN and said "our way or the highway". That was the first finger raised. And we're paying (literally) for it now.

The fact is that our "attack potential enemys and ask questions later" strategy, esp. towards Iraq, was nothing new, and was only circumstantially (and conveniently) related to 9/11/2001 It was something Paul Wolfowitz (our deputy Defense Secretarty) had outlined begining in 1992:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/iraq/etc/wolf.html

As a side note, here is a far-left (which I am not) critique of Wolfowitz' policy. It's dated 8/24/01 ... just 18 days before the 9/11 attacks: Though their fear of a US/China war is, in retrospect, quite silly, their analysis of the Bush administration is chillingly accurate:

nswering the 'Wolfowitz (Bush) Doctrine' on American Empire

by Jon Basil Utley

8/24/01

As Washington and China face military confrontation, an Australian has warned Americans about how the British Empire lasted so long.

"England," observes Editor Owen Harries in the Spring 2001 National Interest ("Anglosphere Illusion"), "was the only hegemon that did not attract a hostile coalition against itself. It avoided that fate by showing great restraint, prudence and discrimination in the use of its power in the main political arena by generally standing aloof and restricting itself to the role of balancer of last resort. In doing so it was heeding the warning given it by Edmund Burke, just as its era of supremacy was beginning: 'I dread our own power and our own ambition. I dread being too much dreaded.'"

Notes Harries, "I believe the United States is now in dire need of such a warning."

Instead of understanding the limits to its power, however, America is forging a world alliance against itself. Russia is now allying with China and India and Iran against American hegemony. Much, if not most, of the Muslim world fears and hates American policies, if not Americans. Europe is going neutral and America's Asian allies want no part in a conflict between China and America. New embassies are built like Star Wars' fortresses and the US Navy has fearfully cut back shore leave in much of the world. And now a multi-billion dollar missile shield is sought to protect America mainly from all the new enemies it is making for itself.

How did the "world's only super power" become so isolated and fearful?

The "Wolfowitz Doctrine" is named for the No. 2 man at the Defense Department and key Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld confidant, Paul Wolfowitz, former director of the Johns Hopkins School for Advanced International Studies, known for his support of NATO expansion and the attack on Serbia.

As the New York Times explained it, the Wolfowitz Doctrine argues that America's political and military mission should be to "ensure that no rival superpower is allowed to emerge. With its focus on this concept of benevolent domination by one power, the Pentagon document articulates the clearest rejection to date of collective internationalism." Its core thesis, described by Ben Wattenberg in the April 12, Washington Times, is "to guard against the emergence of hostile regional superpowers, for example, Iraq or China. America is No. 1. We stand for something decent and important. That's good for us and good for the world. That's the way we want to keep it."

Even though there is truth to the claim of Americans' fundamental decency, since Athenian times democracies have been woefully unable to run empires. American foreign policy is made by Congress in response to sensationalist TV news and domestic ethnic voting blocks, not with a view to national interests, but rather in response to the short term need for money and votes for the next election. That is the reason many foreigners see American military interventions as inconsistent and hypocritical. Most American don t care about foreign policy. Consequently it is controlled by the few who do care.

Imagine how long the Roman empire would have lasted if there had been a Visigoth or Egyptian lobby pushing its agenda on Roman foreign policy. The Roman Empire resulted in the end of the Roman republic and freedom. The English empire failed when the electoral franchise grew so much that new voters could thwart the elites' rule. Still, many American conservatives who argue that government can't even properly run a nursery have fallen for the concept that it can run the world.

Further confusing American interests, there are also elements in Washington that look at real or imagined threats abroad with great favor. The old military-industrial complex has grown to become the overwhelming military-industrial-congressional establishment. Its power is reflected by the difficulty of closing unnecessary bases and the wasteful weapons purchasing process, as evidenced by ordering weapons before they are fully tested, e.g. the ill-fated Osprey helicopter, manufactured in 42 states and congressional districts.

Yet we imagine wars without casualties, with exciting "bang-bang" for evening TV, and with no hurtful consequences for our interests. Foreigners are not going to oblige us, but more likely will wage wars of terrorism from unknown quarters, possibly even with horrendous biological weapons currently being developed.

Ruling the world is not even a "conservative" position. "It is a policy" writes William Ruger for Reason Magazine ("Foreign Policy Folly,"June 2001), "that will threaten rather than preserve many of America's traditional values, such as individual liberty, small government and anti-militarism. As has been pointed out by a number of historians, war and preparing for war are the soils that nurture the growth of state power, burdensome taxation, conscription, and militarism. If American conservatism should stand for anything, it should be the goal of limited government. Yet the primacist policies offered here guarantee the opposite: a leviathan." The first cost of empire will be the loss of many of our own freedoms. The second will be our prosperity. Empires are expensive.

Many conservatives are showing a passion for confrontation with China. Answering those "crying Wolfowitz," Craig Smith pointed out in the New York Times (May 15), that China and Taiwan are actually thriving together economically -- not the image one gets from those who want confrontation. This anti-China sentiment is comparable to anti-German belligerence in England before World War I, when street demonstrations demanded war. The desire of American hawks to "contain" China resembles England's efforts to prevent Germany from gaining its "place in the sun." England's "Wolfowitz Doctrine" led to the end of the British Empire, even though England "won" the war. Not coincidentally, during the half-century after 1914, most Englishmen lived in poverty.

To preserve our own freedoms and best serve the rest of the world, our foreign policy should be noninterventionist, non-threatening and non-militaristic. With economic strength and a politics of fairness and nonintervention, we can prosper and keep our own freedom. America is simply incapable of any other consistent foreign policy. America should be a beacon, because it can't be a competent policeman.

[stratoman]

Originally posted by fansince62

Don't you have a Dixie Sluts concert or some such elevating activity to attend?????

no riggodrill is too busy helping on Hillary's upcoming presidential campaign or is that Wesley Clarks? :shoothead

[RiggoDrill]

Originally posted by stratoman

no riggodrill is too busy helping on Hillary's upcoming presidential campaign or is that Wesley Clarks? :shoothead

Stratoman is too ignorant to actually debate the topic at hand, therefore he desperately tries to label his opponent as a ... *gasp* Democrat.

[stratoman]

Originally posted by RiggoDrill

Stratoman is too ignorant to actually debate the topic at hand, therefore he desperately tries to label his opponent as a ... *gasp* Democrat.

Fu)k you, you PU$$Y!! You wouldn't last a day in the military you socialistic piece of $hit! I though you moved to Canada. You should be ashamed of being an American and benefiting from the men and women who have fought and died for you to be able to live in a free society and the greatest country known to man. What you need is a good a$$ whooping!!!

:finger: :finger:

[RiggoDrill]

Originally posted by stratoman

Fu)k you, you PU$$Y!! You wouldn't last a day in the military you socialistic piece of $hit! I though you moved to Canada. You should be ashamed of being an American and benefiting from the men and women who have fought and died for you to be able to live in a free society and the greatest country known to man. What you need is a good a$$ whooping!!!

:finger: :finger:

Yet again, stratoman is much too eager to show his ignorance to all. He has succeeded admirably.

He resorts to throwing out insults, without actually thinking or asking questions, much less debating the topic at hand, as suggested previously.

If he had asked, he would have known that I was an economics major with a 3.97 (yes, market economics).

If he had asked, he would have known that my Grandfather (on my mother's side), who I love dearly, was a float-plane captain in the Pacific in WWII .

If he had asked, he would have known that my father's family fled Stalinist Russia on foot, culminating in detention in an Austrian detention camp where Stalin shipped everyone on trains to starvation in Siberia before the Allies intervened. My father progressed from a non-english speaking immigrant in New York city to the top of his class at Princeton ... Then Yale for his PhD.

If he had asked, he would have known about my friend S****, who has served three tours of duty in Afghanistan, and who regularly consults for the CIA.

... but he doesn't ask. He's dumbed down to crass belligerence.

P.S. I love my country, I love my family and *gasp* I'm left of center. Get used to it.

[stratoman]

Originally posted by RiggoDrill

Yet again, stratoman is much too eager to show his ignorance to all. He has succeeded admirably.

He resorts to throwing out insults, without actually thinking or asking questions, much less debating the topic at hand, as suggested previously.

. He's dumbed down to crass belligerence.

P.S. I love my country, center. .

talk about throughing out insults. call me ignorant and dumb trying to get everyone to do against me. I never said those things about you but I get sick and tired of you coming off as some intelectual snob. My father was in the NSA for 33 years and i lived abroad for 4 years as a child in Korea for and served my country. I have visited Europe as and adult and I strongly appreciate what my country has to offer and I see the decay of

morals and standards and that has happened over the last ten years or so I am 43 years.I have lived in 5 different States. I don't know how old you are, but I feel that if this were a democrat administration then you would be all for what we have done in Iraq. I am sorry I got upset but to put me down time and time again gets old. Plus I have had a few beers. Maybe my perception of you is wrong.I may have attacked you personally but have not tried to get the group against you. When it come to national defense I am very right but other issues like abortion, the war on drugs,heathcare and other issues I lean toward the left. :peace:

[Sarge]

Riggodrill,

I don't even know where to start with you or other liberals. I shudder to think what the world would be like if clinton was still in office or gore had won the election. Eight years of appeasement policy is what emboldened bin laden and other ragheads to stike at us on 9/11 and previous incidents( the Cole, Kobar Towers, the first World Trade Center bombing) We tried to play nice witht the world, to the detriment of the country in a lot of cases( China appeasement) and what did we get for our troubles? A big hole in New York and the Pentagon.

It would be nice if we could all just get along, but a fundamental failing of left thinking is that they simply cannot conceive why anyone would want to hate us, not taking into consideration that they actually do for a myriad of reasons. The left thinks if we just suck some people's asses long enough, they will change their ways and reciprocate. How little they understand a$$holes. There is only one thing a$$holes understand, and that is a boot in the arse. Show me one time in history where appeasement actually worked in the long term. With that in mind, we find ourselves in the situation we currently have. I could really care less why we kicked Iraq's a$$. If hussain licked a lollipop the wrong way and we wanted to beat his ass, I have no problem with that, because he needed to have his arse kicked. He may not have been directly involved with 9/11, but he was an avowed enemy of the US, and was funding other losers that were plotting nasty things against us, just as the saudis continue to do, but that is down the road. In the South, a recognized legal defense is, "He needed killin". I think that applies to hussain, because the alternative was to leave him in power, and that is unacceptable.

The UN. Almost as useless as an unloaded gun. What have they done for the national interest of the US in say, the last 20 years? They exist because of us, we are the teeth of any resolution they pass. If their leanings are toward appeasement of dictators and siding with third worlds countries in disputes with the US, well, everyone makes decisions in life, and their own decison in this case renders them impotent. I for one am glad to have a President that will not suborne our national security to other countries/ entities. I'll bet if bin laden had nailed the UN HQ, the UN would be singing a different tune. Thing is, even if that had happened, they would still rely on the US to go get the perps, because no one else has the balls or ability to do it.

Don't sweat the deficit. We will spend our way out of it. And don't think that the money we are spending in Iraq is not going to come back. As soon as we get things moving there and a government up and running, we will get the bucks back in oil. Enough to pay for the war and the occupation. But more importantly, we will have a government friendly to us in the region, which is going to have a huge impact on other a$$holes in other countries in the area. It is unfortunate that guys are still dying there, but slowly the police force is coming on line, as is the Army. Electricity is on everywhere, as is clean water for the most part. There are people enjoying clean water for the first time in their miserable lives. Things are coming around, despite the reports in the left wing media, who for some mysterious reason only seem to be able to find stories about GIs getting shot at.

As for your John Utley article, more liberal rantings that got us to where we are, especially the last paragragh. Pacifism has never worked, and never will. Given a choice between a pacifist/isolationist foreign policy as advocated by Mr Utley and the one we have now, I'll choose the latter, because it is the right response at this particular time and place in history. No other solution is acceptable or appropriate to ensure our standing in the world.

[RiggoDrill]

(to stratoman)

Let's start out by saying Peace. We're both Americans. We both will fight tooth and nail for what we believe.

I don't come to this forum with the intent to be an 'intellectual snob' to anyone. I readilly accept that there are many people who know a lot more about some things than I do ... Especially about football.

For instance, Art and I can argue endlessly about politics and economics, but we have never once been contentious about the Redskins. In fact, i rather enjoy it when Art kicks this-week's-opponent's-trash-talker to the curb.

I love ExtremeSkins. It's by far the best sports team forum out there ...

.

... but, on the other hand, it's a place where conservative rants are broadcast every day, for the most part without dissent.

I am the dissentor, and I love my country ... and I fear for it, for God is just.

Peace to you, Stratoman

[fansince62]

RiggoDrill...if you're going to pander to the left and stake yourself to the ground of "rationalism"....at least make a frfiggin case....

1) we are running a deficit....so what? deficits have been incurred before. point to the specific consequences that move the present economic circumstances out of the realm of concern and into the territory of disaster. You can't. For all the chicken little crying............the present economic circumstances don't even begfin to approach what the country shouldered during the 70s. Unemployment is no where near the heights it reached in in the 70s, interest rates are hugely lower, inflation is nearly non-existent. Carp about 6% unemployment if that lights your fire. This rate will be coming down over the next year.

2) Your (and the dems) real argument is over inter-generational transfers of income. And that is a political matter - not an economic one. The country picks a point on the transfer curve: there is no local or global optimum.

3) As for the Iraq war. Your opposition is duly noted. As the abscence of any supplementary plan other than, given your diplomatic roots, "let's talk it over, how about it fellas?." Great idea! Let's talk to the same folks who themselves have vested economic and foreign policy interests that are not in harmony with our own OR the Iraqi people, OR peace generally in the ME. Did it ever occur to you that the French, Russians and to a lesser degree the Germans have pronounced interests in sustaining the status quo? look at the poppulation trends in those countries, especially France. Think there might be some domestic pressures to counter US efforts based on ethnic/religious interests?

3) Yea, yea, yea. we all feel your patriotism. It is an amazing thing about liberals. It is always someone else who shoulders the rifle or firehose, pins on the sheriff's badge. Libs and a healthy section of dems have become a vbery "service oriented" part of the population. They want happy lettuce pickers!!!!! In all my years on this board, I believe sfrench was the only military person who fell into the clutching grasp of the polticial dark side.

4) Why so much "ranting"? well, let's take this one thread as symtomatic. There are a number of things going on in Iraq that are not healthy and do reflect leadership uncertainty. The reaction of many of us? Analyze the problem and fix it. The reaction of sanctimonious liberals? I told you so. get out out now. There's an odor of sideline gamesmanship that just doen't sit well. Like as not - it is clear that libs WANT this to fail. and that is just as cynical and short-sighted as the supposed political machinations they detest.

Expressed differently - libs are part of the problem.....not the solution.

[fansince62]

btw....Riggo, Jack et al.....your concern over deficits is appreciated. i and others eagerly await your pressuring arguments for legislation that forces a reduction in future entitlement streams - the real driver of future deficits and the lion's share of the federal budget. enjoy!!

[fansince62]

Riggo...now that I caught some of your earlier posts....bahahahahahahahha........careful: you're looking into the same mirror Jack uses. Your willingness to accept murder, mutilation and mayhem is underwhelming. I don't care what the admin's reasons were to the degree that I am satisfied that a brutal regime has been removed.

Otherwise, step away from your mindless focus on short-term events and empty aleternatives (e.g., 1) we should have used diplomacy (worked so well in the past, eh?; 2) we should have used economic pressures (worked so well in the past, eh?); and on)

what, exactly, does "swarming" amount to?

and your right - we had no interest in taking out the terrorist training camps in Afghanistan.....sharp thinking there buddy!!!

and you are wrong about the Iraqi people not wanting liberation. very wrong - as usual. the argument is over who will accede to power. and, gee whiz, there are substantial religiious elements in play. go figure!!!!

since you have no.....none ......nada....riens..... intelligence sources (other than from the equally clueless mass media)....what qualifies you to assess what has transpired in the war against terrorism?"

we are going bankrupt, eh? and you claim others are given to hyperbole!!! face it....you are as prone, maybe worse, to idiotis, unsupported polemics as the rest of us.

but as noted in another post. you and jack are poart of the problem...not the solution. tyhe modus operandi has been in place for a long time. when a problem arises that has its roots in decisions, people or politics that you do not approve of....your response is not "well, what can be done to turn this around?" how can I help make matters better." no......it's to cuit and run. and that it is why many of us are starting to adopt the same attitude toward problematic domestic programs the left favors.

[stratoman]

Originally posted by RiggoDrill

(to stratoman)

Let's start out by saying Peace. We're both Americans. We both will fight tooth and nail for what we believe.

IPeace to you, Stratoman

sounds good to me:cheers:

[JackC]

With the Clintons we get the "It takes a Village" attitude. Eveyone helps everyone else. What's wrong with that? Nothing.

With the Bushies we get "It take a Village Idiot". They never seem to have a plan. They just shoot off their mouths.

deficits? When did the GOP decide they don't matter. What happened to the Contract on America? Have they sold their souls?

[fansince62]

everyone helps everyone else....let's all hold hands....and sing!!! praise the liberal lords!!! of course, the devil is in the details as to what "helping" is and what aceptable versus unacceptable help is....and whether the system should be used to "force" ideologically preferred "help".....but keep pressing those rubbers bud...they make for great foreign policy!!!!

yep....OSMA.......pal...........come to my village....no...better yet...come to JackC's village....he feels your pain....he's ooooziing with unctious good will....he'll help ya!!!!!

[JackC]

Typical response from the VI. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzz!

[fansince62]

jackC...your cleverness shines again!!!!! can't wait for your preferred set of idiots to return to power!!! great expectations are forming already!!!

bahahahahahahahahaha.

but we'll all "feel good" as we "help one another"....what a terrific foundation for policy!!! getting to the gnatty details with that one!!! let's skip the preliminaries: JacKC for chief-of-staff during Hillary's regime!!! hosanna, hosanna, hosanna.........JackC: we need to find you a village...someplace where you can do minimum damage........I'll take that onboard as a tasker......

[JackC]

Typical response from the VI. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzz!

[fansince62]

Jack be nimble, Jack be quick........Jack jump over the rhetorical stick......

you da man brother!!!! trained like a pup squirting on the carpet!.......regale us with your insights on anything...pick a card, any policy card! what says jack?????? try to sound reasonable now jack....... we need to feel assured that America is safe in your loving, good neighbor hands!

bahahahahahahahahahahahaha

[JackC]

Try to have a point.