War and the Left

[Arrian]

I don't think I ever indicated that I thought Bush's tactics had been good.

I think confronting them about breaking the 1994 agreement was the right way to go, and also the cutting off of the aid. But some of the rhetoric from our side has been silly (but it doesn't come close to theirs, ROFL, do you see the stuff they put out?).

Basically, I feel the 1994 agreement was a mistake to being with. NK cheated (SURPRISE!) and thus we were justified in ending our oil/food shipments. I simply see no need to replace it with a new appeasement agreement. I am of the opinion that the NK regime cannot be trusted even the slightest littlest bit, and therefore no agreement with them is worth the paper it is printed on.

its economy has falied and the social system will not be far behind

Right. So why help prop it up?

-Arrian

[Jack_www]

Also after 9-11 he views countries with Terrorist ties as a threat to the US and or her allies. Thus he wants to attack now before they have a chance to attack. This is a thing I dont think many realize, 9-11 was changed they way he and his advisors see things.

Also if you think about it Iraq is also much easier that Noth Korea to attack. Iraq really has no allies to speak of, but some countries dont want US to attack him though, in his region I mean. Also the past history of US and Iraq. And the fact that many in his government view leaving Saddam in power was a big misstake and they want to correct that misstake.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

You Republicans never blame Reagan for the high interest rates and the tax increases of the 90s though. Still, you are quick to give him credit for the growth of the 80s that was mostly caused by things other than the tax cuts.

Why should we blame him for things that happened outside his watch and power?

Because the tax cuts caused high interest rates and budget deficits on Reagan's watch. Reagan just decided to let someone else deal with the problems. Of course he deserves the blame.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
And if you wanted to see high interest rates look at Volker's Fed... and that is also an example to show that the President can't get the Fed Chairman to do anything he doesn't want to do.

Volker was a serious idiot, but he didn't last long. The fed did a good job keeping the economy intact after Volker was gone dispite the stupid Reagan policy. Isn't really responsible for the high interest rates. They have to use the interest rate to control employment and inflation. If they would have lowered it too much there would have been inflation.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
The tax cuts did help (they always do), but it doesn't influence much in the capitalist cycle. What REALLY is the big success of Reagan is removing the crushing regulations of the 70s, allowing the economy to breathe a little. He may have gone too far, but it was well needed.

The tax cuts mostly went to the stock market and did little to stimulate growth. In fact I think the wealth gained from those tax cuts created a bubble so large that we are losing all of it now anyway. And that is the biggest reason that people want tax cuts today is so that the market can recover. It will just create another bubble.

Reagan's theory was to deregulate everything. You have even admited that you don't believe in that. They deregulated everything to help big business increase their profits. The increased profits did not amount to a better economy, in fact most of the deregulation had to be reversed because it was bad policy. The S&L crisis is the best example of bad Reagan economic policy.

[Jack_www]

In the end of all of this, the UN will really be useless even more so. These events just highlight how ineffective the UN is and how members are always divided and cant act or really do anything in terms of dissarming countries and stoping wars.

[Ned]

Hoek, "Truman Democrat!" Why not "Polk" or "Roosevelt" Democrat.

Truman in the end proved to be as feckless and virtually every other Democrat, save for Jefferson, Polk and Roosevelt, on issues of war and peace. Truman gave up fighting for victory and ended up with two years of stalemate with no end in sight. It took the election of Eisenhower who threatened dramatic escallation for the commies to agree to peace.

Hoek, Truman is more like Johnson or McClellan in 1864. He was willing to fight, but not too hard, and certainly not for victory.

This is the reason the Democrats do not have my vote and will never get my vote until they change on this issue.

As to funnelling American security through the UN -- well the UN appears to want to take a neutral stance when the US is involved. Democrats who say that the US must get the SC vote before we can protect ourselves from aggression will only further add to the ill repute that party has issues of security.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Because the tax cuts caused high interest rates and budget deficits on Reagan's watch. Reagan just decided to let someone else deal with the problems. Of course he deserves the blame.

Look at the gains realized from the tax cuts, and they were definetly worth it. The interest rates were not high, as they've been seen historically, especially looking at the 70s (actually right now, the interest rates are close to an all time low).

Who says we have to deal with deficits through tax increases? Growth in a boom will increase revenues that will pay off earlier tax cuts, but it doesn't matter if the revenues pay the entire debt off. You can increase taxes a small amount when there is a boom. Bush, sr. and Clinton bumped taxes when we were going into and were still in the bust cycle. How dumb is that?! (why do you think the Republican swept in in '94? You think the economy was doing that good then? HA!)

The fed did a good job keeping the economy intact after Volker was gone dispite the stupid Reagan policy. Isn't really responsible for the high interest rates.

Yeaaaaah... riiiight. Look at interest rates historically. The 80s didn't really have high interest rates after 1983. And why were they high in the early 80s? It could have something to do with the inflation of the 70s... hmmm

The tax cuts mostly went to the stock market and did little to stimulate growth. In fact I think the wealth gained from those tax cuts created a bubble so large that we are losing all of it now anyway. And that is the biggest reason that people want tax cuts today is so that the market can recover. It will just create another bubble.

Look at GDP growth then. And 'bubble' . Is that your way of describing a boom cycle?

Reagan's theory was to deregulate everything. You have even admited that you don't believe in that.

Really? Did you just make this theory up for him? He believed in more privatization but NOT total privatization. I'm sure he appreciates you putting words in his mouth. And yes, I agreed with his deregulation policies and continue to push for more deregulation.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Jack_www
WIth France and Germany.
In their eyes Iraq is dissarming.
They think that they can get Iraq to dissarm with the weapons inspectors. They see the little signs of dissarment an indication that he will dissarm.
While bush see it as the same old game Saddam played before.

They think that Saddam does not pose a dirrect threat to anyone and that they can still contain Iraq as they have done in the past. They never had a 9-11 type attack to change their view on things.

Also anther reason I suspect they are oppose to the war, is that they want to be a world power, and they dont like the US dictating to them what to do. They really I think want to be in the place US is right now as terms of power. They get really pissed that the US doing this all on their own, and basicly telling Europe that we are attacking weather or not you apporve of it, so you might as well come on board with us. well that is the way they see it anyways.

Thus there oppostion to US grows because of this. Also the anti american feelings of their people also play a part in it as well.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned
Hoek, "Truman Democrat!" Why not "Polk" or "Roosevelt" Democrat.

Truman in the end proved to be as feckless and virtually every other Democrat, save for Jefferson, Polk and Roosevelt, on issues of war and peace. Truman gave up fighting for victory and ended up with two years of stalemate with no end in sight. It took the election of Eisenhower who threatened dramatic escallation for the commies to agree to peace.

Hoek, Truman is more like Johnson or McClellan in 1864. He was willing to fight, but not too hard, and certainly not for victory.

This is the reason the Democrats do not have my vote and will never get my vote until they change on this issue.

As to funnelling American security through the UN -- well the UN appears to want to take a neutral stance when the US is involved. Democrats who say that the US must get the SC vote before we can protect ourselves from aggression will only further add to the ill repute that party has issues of security.

Ned: when will you stop making blanket statements about an entire political party, including over time? Wilson was a democrat as well, so was Andrew Jackson, so was Cleveland..parties change over time... look at the 1948 Republican candidate, governor Dewey of NY.. would Pataki ever be given a chance? As for the Civl War.. all those confederate supporters are now republicans. As for truman.. it is Eisenhower who decided to end the war in Korea, and wisely. As more geereal war would have done noone any good.

THe "reputation" of democracts over secutiry is one that developed solely from the time after Johnson, maily in the times of Humphrey, Mondale, Carter, and continually exploited by conservatives. I dont see many in 1912 who could ahe said: yeah, the republicans are tougher on national security.


As for the notion that we are responding to aggression: what aggresion? When's the last time Iraq did anything to the US? 1993 when they tries to call Papa Bush? Yoiu can't show us eveidence of a single stick of dynamite going from Saddam to Osama..so what aggresion do you speak of?

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Because the tax cuts caused high interest rates and budget deficits on Reagan's watch. Reagan just decided to let someone else deal with the problems. Of course he deserves the blame.

Look at the gains realized from the tax cuts, and they were definetly worth it.

In the stock market yes. That's where the money went. They didn't create much growth in the economy though.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
The interest rates were not high, as they've been seen historically, especially looking at the 70s (actually right now, the interest rates are close to an all time low).

Were you there? I was. That's all everyone talked about was the high interest rates and how they were costing home owners and choking off private investment.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Who says we have to deal with deficits through tax increases? Growth in a boom will increase revenues that will pay off earlier tax cuts, but it doesn't matter if the revenues pay the entire debt off.

ARGH! The tax cuts didn't increase tax revenue or even bring it to anywhere near what it was! They never do and they never will! Get off of that! It's absurd.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

The fed did a good job keeping the economy intact after Volker was gone dispite the stupid Reagan policy. Isn't really responsible for the high interest rates.

Yeaaaaah... riiiight. Look at interest rates historically. The 80s didn't really have high interest rates after 1983. And why were they high in the early 80s? It could have something to do with the inflation of the 70s... hmmm

The seventies are a different deal. Those interest rates were caused by inflation. It's better to compare the interest rates of the 80s to the interest rates of the 90s after the budget was balanced.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

The tax cuts mostly went to the stock market and did little to stimulate growth. In fact I think the wealth gained from those tax cuts created a bubble so large that we are losing all of it now anyway. And that is the biggest reason that people want tax cuts today is so that the market can recover. It will just create another bubble.

Look at GDP growth then. And 'bubble' . Is that your way of describing a boom cycle?

The gains in the stock market dwarfed the gains in the GDP.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Reagan's theory was to deregulate everything. You have even admited that you don't believe in that.

Really? Did you just make this theory up for him? He believed in more privatization but NOT total privatization. I'm sure he appreciates you putting words in his mouth. And yes, I agreed with his deregulation policies and continue to push for more deregulation.

The man did nothing but talk about deregulating business. Oh, yeah and the russians, but really he talked about both at the same time.

[Sprayber]

French Committment To Peace

A French company has been selling spare parts to Iraq for its fighter jets and military helicopters during the past several months, according to U.S. intelligence officials.
The unidentified company sold the parts to a trading company in the United Arab Emirates, which then shipped the parts through a third country into Iraq by truck.
The spare parts included goods for Iraq's French-made Mirage F-1 jets and Gazelle attack helicopters.
An intelligence official said the illegal spare-parts pipeline was discovered in the past two weeks and that sensitive intelligence about the transfers indicates that the parts were smuggled to Iraq as recently as January.
Other intelligence reports indicate that Iraq had succeeded in acquiring French weaponry illegally for years, the official said.
The parts appear to be included in an effort by the Iraqi military to build up materiel for its air forces before any U.S. military action, which could occur before the end of the month.
The officials identified the purchaser of the parts as the Al Tamoor Trading Co., based in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. A spokesman for the company could not be reached for comment.
The French military parts were then sent by truck into Iraq from a neighboring country the officials declined to identify.
Iraq has more than 50 Mirage F-1 jets and an unknown number of Gazelle attack helicopters, according to the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies.
An administration official said the French parts transfers to Iraq may be one reason France has so vehemently opposed U.S. plans for military action against Iraq. "No wonder the French are opposing us," this official said.
The official, however, said intelligence reports of the parts sale did not indicate that the activity was sanctioned by the French government or that Paris knows about the transfers.
The intelligence reports did not identify the French company involved in selling the aircraft parts or whether the parts were new or used.
The Mirage F-1 was made by France's Dassault Aviation. Gazelle helicopters were made by Aerospatiale, which later became part of a consortium of European defense companies.
The importation of military goods by Iraq is banned under U.N. Security Council resolutions passed since the 1991 Persian Gulf war.
Nathalie Loiseau, press counselor at the French Embassy, said her government has no information about the spare-parts smuggling and has not been approached by the U.S. government about the matter.
"We fully comply with the U.N. sanctions, and there is no sale of any kind of military material or weapons to Iraq," she said.
A CIA spokesman had no comment.
A senior administration official declined to discuss Iraq's purchase of French warplane and helicopter parts. "It is well known that the Iraqis use front companies to try to obtain a number of prohibited items," the official said.
The disclosure comes amid heightened anti-French sentiment in the United States over Paris' opposition to U.S. plans for using force to disarm Iraq.
A senior defense official said France undermined U.S. efforts to disarm Iraq last year by watering down language of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 that last fall required Iraq to disarm all its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs.
France, along with Russia, Germany and China, said yesterday that they would block a joint U.S.-British U.N. resolution on the use of force against Iraq.
French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin told reporters in Paris on Wednesday that France "will not allow a resolution to pass that authorizes resorting to force."
"Russia and France, as permanent members of the Security Council, will assume their full responsibilities on this point," he stated.
France has been Iraq's best friend in the West. French arms sales to Baghdad were boosted in the 1970s under Premier Jacques Chirac, the current president. Mr. Chirac once called Saddam Hussein a "personal friend."
During the 1980s, when Paris backed Iraq in its war against Iran, France sold Mirage fighter bombers and Super Entendard aircraft to Baghdad, along with Exocet anti-ship missiles.
French-Iraqi ties soured after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait that led to the 1991 Persian Gulf war.
France now has an estimated $4 billion in debts owed to it by Iraq as a result of arms sales and infrastructure construction projects. The debt is another reason U.S. officials believe France is opposing military force to oust Saddam.
Henry Sokolski, director of the private Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, said French transfers of military equipment to Iraq would have "an immediate and relevant military consequence, if this was done."
"The United States with its allies are going to suppress the Iraqi air force and air defense very early on in any conflict, and it's regrettable that the French have let a company complicate that mission," Mr. Sokolski said.
Secretary of State Colin L. Powell last month released intelligence information showing videotape of an Iraqi F-1 Mirage that had been modified to spray anthrax spores.
A CIA report to Congress made public in January stated that Iraq has aggressively sought advanced conventional arms. "A thriving gray-arms market and porous borders have allowed Baghdad to acquire smaller arms and components for larger arms, such as spare parts for aircraft, air defense systems, and armored vehicles," the CIA stated.
Iraq also has obtained some military goods through the U.N.-sponsored oil-for-food program.
A second CIA report in October on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stated: "Iraq imports goods using planes, trains, trucks, and ships without any type of international inspections — in violation of UN Security Council resolutions."

Perhaps the French goverment should be as diligent in restraing their companies as it is trying to restraining the US.

edit: link added

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030307-545570.htm

[Drake Tungsten]

God damn. Are the French the biggest pieces of **** on earth or what?

[Jack_www]

I figured as much, the French are not total innocient in this matter. Everyone has their reasons for blocking the war and a lot of them are not noble as many would like to believe.