It is time to wake up America

Remove all ads!

BTA - I have to admit, you have stuck to your guns over the last few weeks and stayed constant with your original argument, which is that Saddam is/was a terrorist and a threat. At least you have presented an honest argument.

We all can agree that it was in the interest of Iraqis for Saddam to go, but many of us also believe that another road could have been taken -- one which would have included other Arab countries acting in concert with the UN to put enough pressure on Saddam's regime and force a change, Lifting of the sanctions that hurt only the Iraqi people and made Saddam even stronger would have helped also. But of course that kind of resolution would have given the US less control over how events proceeded and that is why many of us believe that the other road was taken.

Picture, if you will, Bush, the Prez, sitting up in bed one day and saying to Laura: "You know, I've been thinking a lot (a miracle in itself) about those poor people in Iraq. Here they have been suffering for all these years under Saddam and no one has done anything about it. I think we ought to destroy the American economic recovery, plunge the federal government into huge dificits and turn our partnership with our allies in Europe -- which has taken many years to build -- into shambles, just to help out those poor Iraqis." Right. If you believe that . . . .

And the same goes for the other conservatives out there with all this talk about how great it is what we are doing for the Iraqi people. Just like what you guys care to do for all the poor and disadvantaged here in your own country. Yes, all of you one day decided that the Iraqi people needed the American helping hand, the same conservative hand that could care less about taking school lunch programs away from poor kids because it was costing the taxpayer too much.

This kind of sanctimonious baloney makes me ill to hear it from all those social-Darwinists out there who really only care about furthering American interests and your version of the "American Way." You guys make even TV evangelists look honest. Oh yeah, that's right, many of them are already packing there bags and heading for Iraq. After all, there are a lot of heathen souls to be saved there now, for a donation, of course.

And they're not the only ones headed for Iraq: how about all those American contractors who are going to be raking in the taxpayer doe rebuilding the country -- there are bridges, roads, hospitals and much more to be rebuilt (like the Iraqis can't build any of these things themselves). American tax $$$ for American contractors, but only if they ain't union, right conservatives? And then there's the oil. We won't even go there.

Ahhh -- Is that the sweet sound of opportunity knocking? You bet it is.

[ April 10, 2003, 04:56: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

Chandos, your argument only holds water if you assume that we don't care about the poor in America. You are free to assume that, I suppose, but that doesn't make it true. Conservatives are always being accused of not caring, but that is not always true -- they just go about things differently than liberals do.

My argument has always been that for 12 years the "other methods" didn't work, so the US resorted to force.

 

Dapaara -- My argument holds about as much water as there is oil in Iraq. It's the business of of war, Dapaara. Guess whose ex-company got a 2.5 billion dollar contract to repair the oil fields in Iraq? Would that be Cheney? And guess which company is still in the running for the $600 million contract to help build Iraq. Yes, that would be Hallibuton.

The Houston Chronicle reported that even though Halliburton failed to submit a bid for the contract they were still in the running, even though five other contractors did submit bids. Even if Halliburton does not get the bid on that one, keep in mind that someone will be another 600 mill richer as a result of this war. But Halli still is getting the 2.5 billion clams from the US taxpayer. And I'm sure that is only the beginning. How many poor kids can you feed with 2.5 billion dollars, Depaara?

 

The answer to your last question is simple -- none if the aid you send is intercepted by a despot. Money in and of itself does not solve everything. In any case, I was not addressing your argument that this war is about money and oil -- those are obviously huge components of this conflict -- I was addressing your statements that those of us talking about humanitarian aid are hypocrites because we don't take steps to aid the poor. You don't know what steps we on the board are taking, and the steps that conservative governments take may not meet with liberal approval, but that doesn't mean they are ignoring the poor. My understanding of conservative methods is that they try to help a disadvantaged person become self sufficient, as opposed to making him an eternal disadvantaged person. Liberals always cry foul on that one, but it makes better economic sense than shovelling money into an eternal pit of nothingness.

 

Depaara -- My original comments were not directed at any particular individual on this board, except BTA, who I feel has been consistent in his argument for fighting the war in Iraq, even though I don't agree. It was certainly not my intention to offend you or anyone else personally.

At the risk of running off topic, I was speaking generally of conservatives in government and media pundits, who all of a sudden have this huge concern for the average person in Iraq, but have poor track records in either their voting records or media rhetoric when it comes to showing concern for the disadvantaged here at home.

The "liberal argument," if that is what you wish to call it, is this: How can you make a young child, dependent on his parent/parents self-sufficent? It is not the fault of a child if the parents fail to provide properly for him/her for reasons that may or may not be beyond the parent's control.

IMO it is a disgrace that there are children in America who have to go to bed hungry at night and who live in a country of such wealth as this one. If the parents fail, for whatever reason, then it falls on the society as a whole to make sure that young ones are taken care of. If it takes actual money to buy them food, then that is what needs to be done. If our government can send so much food to Iraq because of a needless war, and to look good for the media cameras, then they can certainly do the same here at home.

 

I quip of a cartoon in the newspaper today.

US soldier asks "Saddam dead yet?"

Other guy says, "Dunno, but a lot of look alikes already are..."

If human life is so worthless, then I guess it has all been done in the name of justice, freedom and democracy...

 

Chandos,

In you post above on how many children could you feed with $2.5B, you are missing a couple of points. Arguments like this are a favorite of liberals because they pull at the heartstrings. The facts are that if Halli gets this $2.5B, it is not like they are not providing something in return. This is not just money that is given to them, they will earn it. In addition, if they receive this money, it will not simply disappear into a big vault somewhere. How many children do you think will be fed because Halli earns this money? Think about it, they get this money, some of it is paid to the Halli workers. Some of it will go to the Halli contractors, and some of it will go to the "fat cats" who run the business. Even the money that goes to the "fat cats" doesn't disappear. They don't want to just let it sit in a vault and lose value, so they invest it, which creates more jobs, which feeds more children. The fact is that taking money out of the economy to "feed the children" actually creates more of a problem than it solves. This money is not spent as efficiently as private dollars are, and consequently economic growth slows. This creates more hungry children as jobs are lost. Then we have to raise more money to feed those children, and the cycle starts again.

Don't fool yourself people. The Democrats in this country don't care any more about the starving children than the Republicans or Libertarians do. They simply are doing election math. If they tax a minority (the rich) and give it to a majority (the poor), they get re-elected by the majority they just bought. Unfortunately, the average sheeple in America cannot see that in the long run they are actually worse off for the handouts they receive.

I kind of like this conversation, think I will start a thread on it. It will be a refreshing change from the dominant topic of the war.

 

Darkwolf -- I will look forward to debating you on that thread. But as I am not a democrat, be sure to indentify it for us green party members.

 

Darkwolf, I understand that you are an economic. And I don't want to say, that their is anything wrong with this argument, that I have cited above.

The only problem I see is, that it is a "socialist" thaught. In my opinion, it contradicts the principal of free market.

I think the principle of free market is, the one who does the job best, should get the job. This way, everyone gets the most of it. So, there have to be proceedings established, by which a state can judge, which one is the best competitor.

But, as I understand,a judging of competitors didn't happen. So, the money that was given to Haliburton, as you yourself explained so eloquently, was charity. The reason, that Haliburton has got so many charity-funding was, that their Ex-CEO's are as close to the Vice-President, as anyone can get.

IMO, the spent money is charity, hidden behind the label of "salary".

Question is, is this the wisest way to do "charitiy".

[ April 11, 2003, 14:13: Message edited by: Yago ]

 

Yago,

It may not be the wisest, but in the long run, the money "given" to Halliburton will go much farther toward feeding children than if it was appropriated by the gov't for welfare.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2934233.stm

Hm, is Haliburton the only US-Oilfirm ? It seems the British are a little bit concerned.

 

K, BTA, you convinced me.

I can't, I can't stand losing
I can't stand, I can't stand losing to BTA

[Heh. Don't think of it as losing; you're simply better informed now - BTA]

[ April 11, 2003, 22:09: Message edited by: Blackthorne TA ]

 

Yago -- You did not lose, as we were not talking about the repairs to the oilfields, but about rebuilding such things as roads, bridges and hospitals. I sure even Iraqi companies can rebuild those. The contract for the oilfields is 2.5 billion. And that is just the beginning.