This is going to be VERY interesting

Remove all ads!

I need education, let's see, I have a degree if finance with emphasis on economics, what is your pedigree?

Either you are totally misinformed, or you define liberal totally different than Americans.

Republicans (conservatives) believe in:
Free markets
lower taxes
less government

Democrats (liberals) believe in:
Socialistic markets (private ownership, with government regulated production and pricing)
higher taxes
more government

What the hell are you talking about?

chandos,

Giving money to someone who is using extortion is appeasement any way you look at it. Because of the fact that Clinton took no action when all this was starting it has grown, and now we have to deal with it. This is modus operandi for the democratic party. Carter did it, and we had to pay the price under Reagan and Bush 41, Clinton did it and now we have to pay for it again. The democrats always sell out the future to make themselves look better, then bail out when the going gets tough.

[ March 20, 2003, 17:09: Message edited by: Darkwolf ]

 

I may be define liberal different than you do but that is because I use the original meaning of liberalism and the one that still goes. You use the American political scale and that one dont go for for economics. As you correctly pointed out the 'liberal' democrats have a more 'socialist' view on economics while the 'conservative' republicans are totally devoted to Adam Smith's liberal economical thinking.

 

I can't agree with you on that, Darkwolf. When Bill Clinton attacked Bin Laden, conservatives in this country were opposed to the attack -- they said he was shifting the attention away from his problems with Monica, which was playing politics to the hilt. When he attacked the Serbs, conservatives were opposed again. I guess there was not enough oil in Bosnia for them. In fact they spoke out against every military action that Clinton took. Consevatives did not support our troops overseas while Clinton was in office. But now that a conservative is in power things are different.

 

Chandos,

I don't care who was criticizing him. He did not do the right things too often and we are paying for it. I am not saying he didn't do anything right. Clinton was more interested in his own political clout than this nations well being, as evidenced by the fact that he lied under oath, sold secrets to the Chinese, and rented out bedrooms in the White House.

The bipartisanship in American politics is shameful. Both sides want to prevent the other from doing anything effective. That is why I do not vote on party lines. I vote on the character, strength, and stance of the candidate, and if (s)he doesn't come through for me, I vote for someone else next time. There are plenty of things that I am pissed off at Bush 43 for, they just haven't been topics yet.

 

I am curious, Darkwolf, if any of these topics were issues in the US media:

- The CIA failed to confirm the administration assertions that the iraq has weapons of mass destructions, works together with Al-Quiada and is (was) only 6 months short of developing atomic weapons. In the last matter, the agency (i believe it was George Tennant personaly) estimated roughly 10 years til iraq would be able to develop such a weapon.

- Colin Powell presented a forged document before the security council of the UN about Iraq trying to obtain uranium from Niger. The now famous line: "Make sure there is nothing there" was also added to the translation of a listening tape.

Fact is, you cannot trust a politican. As they say: "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutly." (don't know if this makes sense in english). I really do want trust them but I read and seen enough to not do it anymore. It's sad, I know, but its not such a letdown if you're right. If you choose to be naive about it, okay, it's your problem. But don't complain after. This is where you get all the "I told you so's".

 

There are many Palestinians who have clearly stated that they want nothing less than the destreuction of the state of Israel. I admit that the the Israelis have been brutal and have done some horrible things -- I'm not the brainwashed moron that Joacqin seems to think all North Americans are. I also am well aware that the Israelis are not expansionist -- they try and create safety bubbles around their territories, but if they wanted to (with their American backing) they could be significantly more brutal if they wished.

It is silly to expect them to play by rules that no one else has any intention of playing by. The same thing applies to the U.S.

[ March 20, 2003, 18:05: Message edited by: Depaara ]

 

I dont think all North-Americans are brainwashed morons, for instance I dont think you are Depaara as you seem to have good reasons for believe what you do, as do BTA and many others. It is when people blindly follow something and believes something is the absolute truth and believe whatever some people tell tham that I call them brainwashed. Plenty of those on both sides, it is just that here on the board some on one of the side is more apparent than others.

I also dont think it is strange that many palestinians wants the destruction of the state of Isreal considering the treatment they have had from them, palestinans are treated worse than blacks was in South Africa during apartheid. That doesnt justify what many of them do but it makles it understandable.

 

Fabius,

Both were long topics on talk radio, and I saw both in print.

I try not to watch too much network news, so I don't know if they were on those or not.

As far as the CIA not being able to confirm WMD, after the Clinton years, the CIA is not able to confirm its own existence. It was not that they could not confirm. That was the socialist/leftist spin put on it. It was that they could not confirm because of a lack of intelligence. They simply didn't know either way because the CIA has no operatives in Iraq.

The saying about absolute power is a favorite in English; thank goodness that no one in America has absolute power. Sorry if your political system is completely bankrupt, but ours, while it has many faults, is not quite there yet. It is funny how inexperience young people think it is though. But then youth always believes it knows all. Too bad that it just takes years to gain wisdom. It is also too bad there is such a shortage of it in certian people around here.

 

Thank you, Joaqcin -- next time I'm in Sweden we'll get together for a coffee.

Going back to the original thread here, I'm interested in when the U.S. will go through with their "Smash and Awe" attack (is that what it's called? Brain fart -- I can't remember the term!)

 

Well, Darkwolf, then you can possibly tell us, from where the administration got the information that the intelligence services could not deliver? Are they using crystal balls?

What about the forged documents?

I'm not sure you understood the quote. It means that the more power one has the more corrupt he gets. So the level of corruption rises proportional to the level of position in the administration. There are exceptions, of course, but they are supporting the theory.

I don't want to say that our or your government is entirly corrupt. But are you really sure that you now which official you can trust and which you cannot? How do you hold apart the trustworthy and the untrustworthy?
I don't think you can. Everyone of them could follow his own agenda that doesn't match with what is best for the country.

It strikes me odd that you don't even ask questions like "What are the real reasons for this action?" over " Why are they keeping informations from me" to "Why are they telling lies?".
It is certainly easier to trust anyone, but not really wise.

[ March 21, 2003, 14:14: Message edited by: Fabius Maximus ]

 

I know the "real reasons" for this action. Do you know the "real reasons" of the opposition to this action in the German, Russian and French gov'ts?

Every reason to not do this is easily defeated with logic, except for the ones the opposition gov'ts are using. Of course theirs is completely based on allowing Saddam to continue to kill, maim and torture his people just so they can make a profit. And I know, "America doesn't care when such dictators are in America's interests". I love this argument! Just because there is a wrong in one place doesn’t mean that a wrong in another place should be allowed to exist. It may be hypocritical, but if the lives of an entire nation can be improved, I will worry about the other problems after this one is fixed.

And if you are going to run the joacqin's usual argument out there of the 200,000 Iraqi's who will supposedly die in this campaign, don't. Saddam is responsible for the death of almost 2 million individuals, at least 250,000 of which were his own people. How many more will die, never mind be tortured, in the years that he continues to reign, and they under his son who is even more brutal than he is.

Don't need crystal balls to know what Saddam has. He paraded it around in 1998, and has refused to give any info of how, or even state that he did, destroy it. Stupid question!

That is why we have a system of checks and balances in our government, and why groups of much less powerful people working together have more power than those with greater individual power. Before you go popping off about the US gov't and who has what power, maybe you should take some time and educate yourself on the topic

Who forged them? As I said, the US has relatively no intelligence gathering abilities in this part of the world, so we are dependent on others. If someone fooled us, oh well, it happens! No one is perfect. Show me proof that we forged them. Show me proof that the US gov't was intentionally trying to deceive anyone.

Sorry, but this war is about establishing a stable democracy in the Middle East. It is about freeing Iraqi citizens. It is another step in the elimination of terrorism. This will lead to changes in ideology, and hopefully will avert further deaths.

It is not about oil, it is not about finishing daddy’s agenda, and it is not about W hating Saddam personally. It is about making the world a safer place, and yes in the short run it may make it more dangerous, but intelligent people do not look exclusively at the short run (makes one wonder of the intelligence of Chirac, selling out his peoples safety for a short term monetary gain ).

 

Hhhmmmm.
"Clinton sold Nuclear secrets to China"
Wow that would be treason Darkwolf.I know that cant be true the Republicans tried to impeach him for sleeping with an intern imagine what they would have done with that.

To simplify the difference between the presidents

Bush= war + realy bad economy
Clinton=peace and best econmic boom this country has ever seen.

P.S. Lets not forget Darkwolf we as a country are responsible for Saddam being in power.Several of these crimes we are so appalled about happended while he was are ally.
Dont get me wrong He is a bad guy and should not be running a country but lets not pretend we didnt help him get there.

 

I really "like" this quote because it says so much about people who scare me.

Darkwolf says "It is about making the world a safer place".

I would hate to have a leader in power in my country who thinks this way, because it crushes everything.

This quote is "the reason" why the caring US has totally flattened so many nations in the world, either militarily or economically. There is no difference between the Nazi Party and the Current "Administration" in the US. Both are racist bully governments that believe that God is on their side to allow them to do as they wish.

Why is it that Dorian can recognise that the US is partially resposible for Saddam yet others refuse.

Saddam is responsible for the deaths of many Iraqis true, but am I expected to believe that Bush Senior is therefore Not responsible for the deaths of Iraqis from Gulf War 1 and the following sanctions? US presidents are responsible for the slaughtering of millions "outside" their nation, so they happen to be worse...

 

Dorion,

You stated:

Clinton selling secrets to the Chinese would not be treason. The president can pick his allies, unfortunately democrats always pick dictators. He also gets to decide what he can disclose to who. If they tried to impeach Clinton for that it would be a slippery slope of unprecedented size.

You also stated:

You might want to check your dates. The recession started before Bush took office. The reason that The economy is still languishing is because Slick Willie was to busy getting he bobo honked by interns to do anything about the rising threat to the US. Look at your history, almost every major recession in the history of the US was caused by the economic policy of Democrats. Clinton was only able to keep the economy going by making sure that nothing got in its way. He avoided issues like making sure that terrorists think twice about attacking the US after the Cole and our embassies were bombed. Reagan set the foundation that the wife cheating sex addict got to reap the benefits of.

Sure, in the short run appeasement is cheaper, but in the long run, well, just ask the Iraqi people what appeasing Saddam got them.

Dorian stated:

So we helped him get it power, I guess that means we should just leave him there? I think it makes us even more responsible for taking him out. A man shoots his own dog when it goes mad.

P.S.

At the top of the page in these forums there is a link to a spell-checker, just in case you weren't aware.

Khazraj,

Most of your post is so ludicrous that I can't believe that I am even posting a response, so it will be brief. You are DAMN lucky that the US is nothing like the Nazi's, or you would be saying the US pledge of allegiance every day. We have millions of people of Arab descent living in America, and they are not in concentration camps, and they are not being discriminated against.

I haven't seen a single post from an American claiming this.

Sorry, the UN gets to take the blame for this one. The US did not unilaterally attack or set up the sanctions. The UN voted to do it, and as has been shown, the UN is not the US's puppet.

[ March 24, 2003, 02:21: Message edited by: Darkwolf ]

 

@Darkwolf: I'm surprised that someone who reports himself as having a degree in finance would make the following claim

My understanding is that the natural business cycle has far more to do with the occurence of booms and recessions than does any federal political or monetary policy. All politicians can do is skew the timing, duration, and perhaps the severity, of these events.

 

@ Darkwolf: I can make educated guesses about the real reasons for the oppposition in Europe, and this is as far as anyone can go. You cannot know for sure what another person is thinking, you can only guess. France opposes most likely because of the pre-contracts of french oil firms with the iraq. Germany opposes most likely because of the bad poll situation the governement parties were and are in. And because of the strong pacifistic trait in the green party.

That's really ridiculous. Basing an attac on out-of-date-informations is the way to make the world safer?
A few years ago, one of Husseins sons-in-law, Kamal, told the CIA (or whatever service) after switchting sides that he personaly surveyed the destruction of the iraqi b- and c-weapons. This info was equally unsure, but did anyone losen the grip on the country? No, because they could not be sure. Like your government (and you too) cannot be sure that the iraq has hte weapons.

*sigh* I know about checks and balances. Every federal system has similar mechanisms. They work usually quite well, if you leave the human component out of it. The ties in and between the various levels of the federal system in the US are so tightly woven that you can ensure a positive outcome of the voting in senate and congress before it happens if you know the people with influence and can push them in the appropriate direction.

You must say "This will hopefully lead to changes in ideology...". How can you be so sure about that? You don't know the people over there.

If your president would have taken the way over the UN from the beginning and would not changed the reasons for an intervention all the time, there would have been more people believing him. Sorry, but a government whose first approach to every major problem in foreign policy are threats an the use of violence is not to be trusted.

@ Rallymama: Thanks, that would have been the next point on my list.

 

Rally,

The US is not currently in a recession. Given the negative forces of the beginnings of a war effort, the threat of terrorism, the distrust of accounting principles, and a general negative feeling about the future, it is a testament to the Republicans that we are not in a full economic downward spiral. The liberals who claim that the tax cuts (which haven't even really taken effect yet) are pulling the economy down are either idiots or have an agenda, and that agenda has nothing to do with making the lives of Americans better. In my opinion, if we hadn't had the threat of a war for, for say the past 6 months or so, we would be back in a period of strong economic expansion.

There is a natural cycle to the expansion and contraction of the economy, but it is too complex to predict except in the most general of terms. Generally an extended period of strong growth will be followed by a relatively deep contraction. However this is not always the case. Just as there can be "double dip" recessions, there are historical examples of minor recessions after strong periods of growth. Unfortunately, our elected officials rarely get the credit for the good they do economically, and also rarely get blamed for the harm they cause because it generally takes 3 to 5 years, or even longer, for any economic policy to play itself out.

By the way your last statement,

backs up what I am saying. Because of some of the actions, and some of the lack of actions, taken by our former president, the economy is going to have a long slow road back to healthy growth, unless the dynamics radically change.

 

@Darkwolf:

There's another school of thought - and not necessarily a liberal one! - that says that the President's response to 9/11 caused an artificial stimulus to the economy that has actually prevented the economy from reaching the consumer capitulation that would signal the bottom of the cycle and allow REAL recovery and expansion to begin. Interest rates were very low and CEO's still weren't borrrowing for capital expansion before the war in Iraq became a real possibility.

And even though I'm not a Democrat, I have to ask - if Clinton doesn't get credit for the economic boom that occurred during his administration (note that I'm not saying he should), why does Carter deserve the blame for the poor conditions that he fought?

 

Rally

Carter deserves the blame because he believes, like all democrats that the govt could tax and spend the economy back into health. It just doesn't work. The gov't cannot spend money as efficiently as the private sector. Taxation leads to a lack of investment, with ultimately slows the economy. There have been 2 cases in resent history of major tax cuts. These were put into place under Kennedy, and Reagan. In both cases major economic growth followed, and tax revenue actually increased. The peanut farmer and the oversexed one were all about raising taxes and federalizing everything they could. Not because it is good for the economy, but because it is good for democrats. Federal workers are union members, and they are placed under undue influence to vote for democrats. The majority of the people in the world are really sheeple, and will do whatever the people over them say without question.

Winston Churchill said it best:

We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.

 

Come on Darwkwolf just because we can pick our allies doesnt mean we can sell military secrets to whoever we want.That comment is just wrong.No president can just sell US military secrets to whoever we want.
My point about us putting him their was only to show maybe we should change our foreign policy to not just jump on the back of these dictators in the future.We support several "bad regimes" even now.
Their are many who beleive the cost of this war has set Bush up for failure on his economic plan.
You also seem to forget that when Clinton was president there was a REPUBLICAN CONTROLLED CONGRESS making it almost impossiable to get anything passed.That being said Clinton was no saint but with all the money the republicans threw away trying to get get anything on him,he came out clean.
Spell check lol...naw