A question for Imran Siddiqui

[loinburger]

Originally posted by MalevolentLight
Being socially liberal also entails supporting things like illegal immigration and YES entitlement programs.

I don't see any mention of immigration or entitlement programs in the bill of rights. Are you reading a different document than the rest of us? What entitlement programs are you talking about?

[Imran Siddiqui]

We are in a state of war number 1. Number 2 you obviously haven't read about kerry's plans for his spending. You really think that little 2% hike on the supposed "rich" is going to pay for everything he has planned?

So a state of war makes all of Bush's domestic spending warrented? Don't think. Yes, I have read of Kerry's plans, at least half of them won't be enacted and won't make it out of committee.

the troops were ordered by Bush to stop at Baghdad. Schwarzkopf was fully prepared to go in and take out Saddam. They didn't go in because of pressure from middle eastern "allies" and they didn't want to disrupt the balance of power by deposing saddam.

Actually Schwarzkopf agreed to end the war that midnight (Washington time) and still thinks that it was a good idea that we didn't go into Baghdad. Btw, you think that we had the logistics to chase Saddam across Iraq? You think he'd stay in Baghdad if the army was right there? Do you think we had the number of troops to occupy the country and guide them in a change of government?

And yes, we also didn't go in because our allies told us that they only signed on to liberate Kuwait, not to take out Iraq. About the 'balance of power', how much do you know of the Middle East? I'd prefer Saddam in power rather than a power vacuum filled by fundamentalists or Iranians.

Oh, btw, this is what Schwarzkopf had to say about not going to Baghdad:

Q: People always [ask] this--why didn't you go to Baghdad and finish off the job?

Schwarzkopf: On the question of going to Baghdad. If you remember the Vietnam war, we had no international legitimacy for what we did. As a result we, first of all, lost the battle of world public opinion and eventually we lost the battle at home.

In the Gulf War we had great international legitimacy in the form of eight United Nations Resolutions, every one of which said "Kick Iraq out of Kuwait", did not say one word about going into Iraq, taking Baghdad, conquering the whole country and hanging Saddam Hussein. That's point number one.

Point number two, had we gone on to Baghdad, I don't believe the French would have gone and I'm quite sure that the Arab coalition would not have gone, the coalition would have ruptured and the only people that would have gone would have been the United Kingdom and the United States of America.

And, oh by the way, I think we'd still be there, we'd be like a dinosaur in a tar pit, we could not have gotten out and we'd still be the occupying power and we'd be paying one hundred percent of all the costs to administer all of Iraq.

Thirdly, I don't think we could have found Saddam Hussein if we'd done that. We forget the lessons of Panama. We had ten thousand Americans on the ground in Panama before we went into that very small country, we still couldn't find a fellow named Noriega, so what makes you think that we would go into a nation the size of Iraq and be able to find one person who has all the ability in the world to escape and hide and fly out of the country.

But I think, more importantly, there's a strategic consideration. Saddam Hussein portrayed that war from the very beginning as "This is not a war against Iraqi aggression against Kuwait. This is the Western colonial lackey friends of Israel coming in to destroy the only nation that dare stand up to Israel, that is Iraq".

Had we proceeded to go on into Iraq and take all of Iraq, I think that you would have millions of people in that part of the world who would say Saddam was right, that that was the objective.

Instead we went in, we did what the United Nations mandate asked us to do and we left and we didn't ask for anything. We didn't leave permanent military forces over there, we didn't demand territory, we didn't demand bases, and the Arabs became convinced that the West was willing to deal with them evenhandedly which has led directly, in my mind, to the progress that's going on at the peace table an.. between Israel and the Arabs and the Palestinians. It never would have happened if Desert Storm hadn't occurred.

So the bottom line, as far as I'm concerned, is that sure, emotionally I would have loved to have gone to Baghdad and grabbed Saddam Hussein, but this was not an emotional decision, it was a strategic decision, and strategically we were smart enough to win the war and win the peace.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gulf/oral/schwarzkopf/7.html

Emphasis mine.

Being socially liberal also entails supporting things like illegal immigration and YES entitlement programs.

No. Illegal immigration and entitlement programs have nothing to do with supporting civil rights (ie, socially liberal). Entitlement programs are a part of being FISCALLY liberal.

[Q Classic]

We are in a state of war number 1. Number 2 you obviously haven't read about kerry's plans for his spending. You really think that little 2% hike on the supposed "rich" is going to pay for everything he has planned?

1, state of war, perhaps. then we can get into the argument whether the tax cut was really necessary.
2. you obviously didn't read imran's theory that a democratic president with a republican congress would lead to gridlock, stopping a lot of initiatives.

Actually the troops were ordered by Bush to stop at Baghdad. Schwarzkopf was fully prepared to go in and take out Saddam. They didn't go in because of pressure from middle eastern "allies" and they didn't want to disrupt the balance of power by deposing saddam. Also we had a far larger coalition in that war, but I am guessing countries like France would object to actually removing Saddam.

correct me if i'm wrong, but that's not what bush's father seemed to imply in his public statements.

Being socially liberal also entails supporting things like illegal immigration and YES entitlement programs. So yes they do conflict with each other.

wrong. being socially liberal does NOT necessarily entail such things.
you seem to believe that conservative==good==worship the Dear Leader and liberal==bad and that politics is all about supporting everything under one umbrella. this is why you seem to have issues with the notion of a political spectrum. it's entirely possible to both support gay marriage while not like traditional liberal things like social security and affirmative action.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by MalevolentLight
You can talk about spectrums all you want, but there is nobody in the Republican party as liberal as Imram. Even McCain is more conservative and I see him as a socialist in many respects. So I am really curious why Imrarm is in the Republican party if all he does is attack the Republicans and his views are completely contrary to the Republican standard.

It's not nice to refuse to share what you're smoking.

[SlowwHand]

Bush, Sr. did as the U.N. wished, as a team player.
The fact remains, the U.N. screwed the pooch by leaving Hussein in power.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

The UN is, and always has been, way too tolerant of mass-murdering dictators. Anyone with a brain and at least part of a soul would have taken Saddam out in 1991.

[chequita guevara]

I hope the reactionaries are successful in chasing the moderates out of the GOP.

[Shi Huangdi]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I hope the reactionaries are successful in chasing the moderates out of the GOP.

They tried that with Specter and were defeated.

[chequita guevara]

Just because they failed there doesn't mean they are going to stop trying.

[Theben]

Originally posted by Japher
YOu are obviosly in cahoots with Teh Theben or Teh Tassadar!

At least you're 'consitent'...

Imran, as you should note, is close to 'Imam', which should clarify to all he is a leader of a terrorist cell within the GOP.

Oh, yes, and a communist. I'd forgotten about that 'meeting' between him and chegitz...

[Ben Kenobi]

I hope the reactionaries are successful in chasing the moderates out of the GOP.

Why? That means the Democrats gain strength, and hurts the communist party.

Why not hope for the continued weakening of the Democratic party to the benefit of the communists?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by MalevolentLight
I don't think you agree 80% of the time number 1. Number 2 you would vote for the most liberal man in the senate?

A guy who is against corporations and against the private sector?

And you talk about diplomacy, but Bush's father is part of the reason we're in this mess. Were it not for his "diplomacy" saddam would have been gone in '90.

Oh my God, you really are insane.

As MtG would say, Shrub doesn't amount to a pimple on his daddy's ass.

If it weren't for GWHB's diplomacy, Kuwait would be an Iraqi province. There would have been no coalition, no UN resolution for removing Saddam.

So lets rephrase this topic then. Why would you vote for kerry over bush if you are supposedly a conservative? It's no big secret that Kerry is even left of Ted Kennedy. He's even left of Hillary Clinton and you are hoping he will curb spending? You must be in denial or something.

No one thinks he will curb spending. You're the one in denial, for not realizing that Bush won't cut spending either, and'll probably increase it even MORE.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Why? That means the Democrats gain strength, and hurts the communist party.

Why not hope for the continued weakening of the Democratic party to the benefit of the communists?

Because if there's another Bush term, conservatives will control the White House, Congress, and, with Bush probably getting to appoint at least two SCOTUS judges, the Supreme Court.

Game Set Match

[Kuciwalker]

Yes

[Guynemer]

From under what rock did this ML fellow emerge from, anyway?