Bush is getting desperate in his campaign.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Ned
Oerdin, in another thread, you asked whether I had become unreasonable. Now I have two ask the same question of you?

To my understanding a concervative's core beliefs are smaller government, lower taxes, and less regulation. In general they pro-free market and ideologically opposed to debt. There are exceptions but these are the conservative ideals.


Bush has 1) Created the largest new entitlement program ever with the drug benifit. 2) Not only put up new tarrifs on steal but also started a massive new farm subsidy program. 3) Created the single largest deficit of any country in the history of humanity and he did it while his party controlled Congress. 4) The federal budget and federal employment are substantially higher then when Bush took office.

That's just off the top of my head but does massive increases in the federal government sound like small government to you? Do massive new farm subisidies (most of which go to big businesses and not family farmers) and trade distorting tarrifs sound like a free market approach to you? Bush just doesn't seem to be to much of a conservative to me.

I guess that's why people call him a neo-Conservative but in my mind the neo-cons have only the bad side of the conservative but lack all of the good things conservatives bring (I.E. good governance).

[Defiant]

Originally posted by Drachasor


The test is not wether we can be better than the Iraq-Iran war, the test is wether we can win the peace and convey our friendship and peaceful desires with Iraq and the Middle East. Massive deaths are not going to do that.

-Drachasor

I don't want to see massive deaths either, that is why we are doing this the way we are, trying to let the diplomats handle Falluja the first time, which hindsight might say was a mistake. But there comes a time when you have to eliminate the forces that are stopping you to create a democracy for the betterment of the Iraqi people, all the Iraqi people alike. In Falluja, some of the folks have no heart and mind to win, sometimes all they understand is the sword.

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Defiant
The war over in Iraq is the Infrastructure being controlled and we did that, this is the war on terror in Iraq, now. You have outsiders and some remnents of Saddam fighting. When they are beheading civilians, blowing up school children, this is not a country war, it is a terror war and that is what we are fighting.

OK, so if Bush could have taken Falluja earlier, I agree and we should have, why is he now piling up forces around Falluja getting ready for a massive assault in an election year, just days away?

He isn't going to invade until after the election, assuming he gets re-elected. Kerry might invade too, but that's not the point.

As for controlling the infastructure; we don't. Our troops cannot walk the streets safely in most areas, they must drive through quickly prepared to shoot.

-Drachasor

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Defiant
I don't want to see massive deaths either, that is why we are doing this the way we are, trying to let the diplomats handle Falluja the first time, which hindsight might say was a mistake. But there comes a time when you have to eliminate the forces that are stopping you to create a democracy for the betterment of the Iraqi people, all the Iraqi people alike. In Falluja, some of the folks have no heart and mind to win, sometimes all they understand is the sword.

No, I won't say it is a mistake. It was a mistake to let them get control in the first place, it was a mistake to pull our troops out at the last second the way Bush did, because he didn't want to do it before an election.

Firebombing a city full of civilians who are not attacking you is not an answer. It creates enemies more than it eliminates them, especially in the war on terror.

And almost everyone can be reasoned with. You might not reach a 100% accord, but you can reason with them, work with them. Only very rare individuals cannot be reasoned with. Nearly all Iraqis are reasonable, even the ones in Falluja.

-Drachasor

[Harovan]

His point was that if they democratically choose to have a theocracy, then what can we do?

True, especially since the picked quote was a response to Defiants post below.

Now if they want to continue with a radical version of their religion, we do have a problem and we cannot let that continue, a democracy has to be set, fair for everybody

If a majority of the Iraqis at their free will choose to be a Theocracy, nobody has the right not to let this happen.

And how was my post racist, Ned?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Ned
Kerry's plans go way beyond this in that what he proposes has nothing to do with the problems of small business and the poor, but offers instead a major takeover of the health insurance industry by the government.

Fact check says Kerry's plan would only cover about 3% of the population; entirely people who don't already have health care. 97% of the population would be completely uneffected by Kerry's plan and no one who currently has health insurence would be effected. Does that sound like a massive take over to you?

Also it is almost entirely the poor who will be covered by Kerry's plan so, yes, I would say he's helping the poor.

Here's a nice article on factcheck about how Bush has lied and continues to lie about Kerry's health plan. http://www.factcheck.org/article264.html

[Sava]

Oerdin pwns Ned!

[Odin]

Bush has been braging about how more people have gotten college grants. More people got them all right, but we got less per person than before People told me I would get $2500 in grants per semester, I got $2100. Compassionate Conservative indeed.

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Odin
Bush has been braging about how more people have gotten college grants. More people got them all right, but we got less per person than before People told me I would get $2500 in grants per semester, I got $2100. Compassionate Conservative indeed.

Money has increased overall/per-person, but not enough to cover inflation.

-Drachasor

[Defiant]

Originally posted by Drachasor


No, I won't say it is a mistake. It was a mistake to let them get control in the first place, it was a mistake to pull our troops out at the last second the way Bush did, because he didn't want to do it before an election.

Firebombing a city full of civilians who are not attacking you is not an answer. It creates enemies more than it eliminates them, especially in the war on terror.

And almost everyone can be reasoned with. You might not reach a 100% accord, but you can reason with them, work with them. Only very rare individuals cannot be reasoned with. Nearly all Iraqis are reasonable, even the ones in Falluja.

-Drachasor

I agree on the your first part, it was a mistake to let them get it and hold it, I don't think it was for your reason specified, I believe he was letting the diplomats try their swing at it, which BTW most military analysts said was a mistake but it was to give the new interim gov't a shot at it. Sir Ralph was making a point that the majority of the city was willfully helping and supporting the insurgents. I said under those circumstances flattening a city may be the solution.
Almost anyone can be reasoned with, however we are dealing with a select few(in the overall) who cannot, we are seeing that prisoners from Cuba who are released are going back and fighting against the coalition, there is only one thing you can do with these kind of people, detain them(forever) or kill them, there is no reasoning with them, and you can only reason with civilians who are not under threat to be killed by terrorists, otherwise you don't stand a chance because if they say no to you, they have no demise, if they say no to terrorists, they die. They are simply less afraid of you then of them, how do you pose to fix that?

[Defiant]

Originally posted by Odin
Bush has been braging about how more people have gotten college grants. More people got them all right, but we got less per person than before People told me I would get $2500 in grants per semester, I got $2100. Compassionate Conservative indeed.

Here is another way to look at it, when I went to college my father paid and he couldn't write any off on taxes, now when my daughter is going I get college credits to write off, there is a substantial benefit that I directly see.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Defiant
I agree on the your first part, it was a mistake to let them get it and hold it, I don't think it was for your reason specified, I believe he was letting the diplomats try their swing at it, which BTW most military analysts said was a mistake but it was to give the new interim gov't a shot at it. Sir Ralph was making a point that the majority of the city was willfully helping and supporting the insurgents. I said under those circumstances flattening a city may be the solution.
Almost anyone can be reasoned with, however we are dealing with a select few(in the overall) who cannot, we are seeing that prisoners from Cuba who are released are going back and fighting against the coalition, there is only one thing you can do with these kind of people, detain them(forever) or kill them, there is no reasoning with them, and you can only reason with civilians who are not under threat to be killed by terrorists, otherwise you don't stand a chance because if they say no to you, they have no demise, if they say no to terrorists, they die. They are simply less afraid of you then of them, how do you pose to fix that?

Do you put the resistance (= people attacking the military of their occupants) and criminals, who kidnap and behead civilians under the common term "terrorists"?

[Arrian]

If "Nixon was elected to end the war" as you claim he was, then the existence of anti-war sentiment is what got him elected. Ergo, w/o the peace movement, no Nixon. Ergo, no peace? Who knows.

Anyway, to claim that anti-war protestors prolonged a war because the enemy believed all they had to do was wait us out, when the President was ELECTED TO END THE WAR is absurd.

-Arrian

[Ned]

Originally posted by Arrian
If "Nixon was elected to end the war" as you claim he was, then the existence of anti-war sentiment is what got him elected. Ergo, w/o the peace movement, no Nixon. Ergo, no peace? Who knows.

Anyway, to claim that anti-war protestors prolonged a war because the enemy believed all they had to do was wait us out, when the President was ELECTED TO END THE WAR is absurd.

-Arrian

Arrian, this is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of historical fact. If you truly insist, I will get you quotes from the NV negotiators.

[Ned]

Arrian, your point about the protests prior to the election are on point. The actually forced Johnson to "resign."