Outline · [ Standard ] · Linear+ does this make sense?, politics

[cdoyal]

That's why "bi-partisan" efforts are scary. The worst foriegn policy disaster in our history is a direst result.

You got it!
Personally, I'm all for gridlock. The less done in Washington, the better.

[RGBII]

You got it!
Personally, I'm all for gridlock. The less done in Washington, the better.

What are you agreeing to?
The '"bi-partisan" efforts" or the worst "foreign policy decision in our history."
Collect Hard!,
RGBII

[cdoyal]

What are you agreeing to?
The '"bi-partisan" efforts" or the worst "foreign policy decision in our history."
Collect Hard!,
RGBII

The "bi-partisan" part, of course.

[hernant15]

I'm not "assuming" anything. Based on what he said he do:
He would weaken our security and that of the middle east by withdrawing from Iraq. Further weaken our economy by raising taxes and increasing spending. Lower our quality of healthcare by having the government run it. Hopelessly screw up our judicial system by appointing activist judges. Support infanticide by allowing abortion at any time during preganancy. Are those enough reasons or do you want more?
You seem to be quite the expert on George Bush's presidency. Do you live in this country and have first hand knowledge of it? Or do you base your beliefs on what you read on the internet and what you see on the news?

Weaken security? Do you think you're safer because you send troops to the Middle East? I would say that oil is safer but not USA; USA reputation has been affected a lot during the past years because of this strategy is has put on in that region, so as to keep the oil routes safe. The only thing they have done is to be hated by most people there, due to their support to Israel. There's a lot of anti-USA feeling in the Middle East as a cause of your invations, which I hope Obama can bringto an end.

I believe that by increasing spending you don't weaken the economy

[ffman]

As if invading Iraq on faulty intel didn't weaken our security by removing troops that could be protecting our country or helping with our own disasters on our own soil and further destabilize the middle east?

I try not to post in the political forum. However, for the above - touche. Great point.

[stlbaseball15]

I believe that by increasing spending you don't weaken the economy

Yep. Any economist will tell you that an increse in gov't spending can give a boost to the economy, just like increased spending in the housing market or foreign trade can do so as well. When any entity with a budget of trillions of dollars is a part of the market, it will influence it heavily.

It's called congressional fiscal policy. They adjust their spending to spur the economy or occassionally lower it to try and control inflation. It's the sad state of our not-so-free-market thast it has become dependent on Federal Reserve money supply and congressional fiscal measures.

The Federal Reserve (and Alan Greenspan) are to blame for our economic crisis by their imposition of dirt cheap interest rates that spurred the housing boom and inevitable collapse.

And Obama and Clinton are calling for MORE market control. We're going to be just like modern Russia before you can say motherland.

[hernant15]

Yep. Any economist will tell you that an increse in gov't spending can give a boost to the economy, just like increased spending in the housing market or foreign trade can do so as well. When any entity with a budget of trillions of dollars is a part of the market, it will influence it heavily.

It's called congressional fiscal policy. They adjust their spending to spur the economy or occassionally lower it to try and control inflation. It's the sad state of our not-so-free-market thast it has become dependent on Federal Reserve money supply and congressional fiscal measures.

The Federal Reserve (and Alan Greenspan) are to blame for our economic crisis by their imposition of dirt cheap interest rates that spurred the housing boom and inevitable collapse.

And Obama and Clinton are calling for MORE market control. We're going to be just like modern Russia before you can say motherland.

Yes, and it seems that the FED didn't learn because now they have lowered the interest rate to 2.25% so I guess that inflation will rise, the dollar will continue to lose against the Euro and a new wave of cheap credits will flourish.

[cdoyal]

That's why "bi-partisan" efforts are scary. The worst foriegn policy disaster in our history is a direst result.

I'd have to say the Vietnam War would be the worst foriegn policy disaster that I can think of in terms of lives lost, money spent, and innocents killed vs. the objective accomplished. (or not accomplished)
Some people's memories are short these days.

[hernant15]

I'd have to say the Vietnam War would be the worst foriegn policy disaster that I can think of in terms of lives lost, money spent, and innocents killed vs. the objective accomplished. (or not accomplished)
Some people's memories are short these days. 

And you're putting Vietnam before Iraq? I don't know as much as you do as regards to Vietnam, but I think that this war is worst because of the reasons. Each and every war is awful, but it's even less rational to go to war looking for a resource or to make some large companies earn profits while some Americans are dying for their country.

[cdoyal]

And you're putting Vietnam before Iraq? I don't know as much as you do as regards to Vietnam, but I think that this war is worst because of the reasons. Each and every war is awful, but it's even less rational to go to war looking for a resource or to make some large companies earn profits while some Americans are dying for their country.

Dude, you've GOT to understand a few things.

I hate debating the war because it's a losing battle but here goes:
The reason we went into Iraq was primarily because of WMDs.
The intellegence was faulty. But if you believe in a conspiricy, then you
have to believe every country that went in with us, primarily Australia and Great Britain, were in on it. Do you think Bush just said "trust me" and they went along with it???? They saw the same intellegence everyone else saw and they agreed. That's why so many democrats voted for Bush to have the authority (even though he didn't need it). They believed it too.

Secondly, if we went in for oil, how come we're paying record prices???
We have access to their oil but we're not taking it. Are we?????
By stating that American companies are getting rich, who do you mean? Companies like Halliburton? Who else could do what they do? If not them, then someone else would have to do it.

The bottom line is around 55,000 Americans died in Vietnam. The politicians didn't really want to fight the war the way it should have been fought and look what happened: We cut and ran and thousands and thousands of innocent people died at the hands of the Khmer Rouge and the North Vietnamese. Dith Prahn (watch the "The Killing Fields") died yesterday. That movie showed what happened when we just pulled out. What do you think would happen if we just pulled out of Iraq? Do you think Iran would just sit there with a defenseless enemy exposed and ripe for picking?

In typical Democrat/Liberal fashion, you just want to look at the intentions of a decision, not the actual results. You state that Iraq is worse because of the reasons we went to war. Is that your position? Do you want to look at the results? (even though the Iraq war isn't over yet?)

[baseballguy601]

Sen. Obama

is a Ron Paul supporter?

[sahetu]

Vietnam and Iraq are different things with different beginnings.

However, both are/were disastrous blunders. That's the bottom line, to say otherwise is ignorance.

The consequence of each is our reputation on the world stage being bloodied and our people loathsome of government policies of all kinds simply because they can't trust those in charge to make the right decisions.

[stlbaseball15]

I'd have to say the Vietnam War would be the worst foriegn policy disaster that I can think of in terms of lives lost, money spent, and innocents killed vs. the objective accomplished. (or not accomplished)
Some people's memories are short these days. 

As far as international prestige and respect, I would have to say Iraq is worse. Most of Europe and the western world was supportive of our misguided efforts in SE Asia.

[jkseb1972]

Why are you assuming that Obama could do harm to USA? I think that after having Mr Bush as president, every candidate will do a better government than him

at least we have been safe for the last 4 years!

[ffman]

at least we have been safe for the last 4 years!

Again, did Iraq attack us? No. Al Qaeda - headed by Bin Laden - did. Is Bin Laden in Iraq? No.

Are the 4,010 dead American soldiers "safe"?

[stlbaseball15]

at least we have been safe for the last 4 years!

Except for our freedoms....

[sahetu]

at least we have been safe for the last 4 years!

As if we wouldn't be "safe" with any other president after 9/11?

Safe here, MAYBE... Imagine, if you will - and God forbid, if we had something go terribly wrong again, like Katrina or a terrorist attack, when the majority of our national guard, reserves, and other resources are not even here. Heck, the tsunami survivors and dead got more respect than our own - and faster response! We still have displaced people from that fiasco. Might I also remind you that this safety of yours may be at the expense of certain civil freedoms due to the Patriot Act, like all your phone conversations being recorded (yeah, some guy is paid to listen in on anything private of yours, nice huh?) and in larger cities your every move is video taped (yeah, that was you picking your nose on 4th and Main). Oh, and keep feeling safe after you pause and consider our still open borders... It's not just people looking for work, drugs, and iguana's sneaking into our country - and I don't mean the chupacabra.

Safe elsewhere? Not so much. I needn't remind you that it's 4,000 dead and 60,000+ wounded in Iraq alone since 2003 and Osama is yet free to plot elsewhere. Oh, but that's war, right... Yeah. Wasn't "mission accomplished" years ago? I didn't know we were nation builders or the world's police... I must have missed that because I don't watch Fox News. Why yes, let's spend oodles of our money on foreign AIDs relief and rebuilding Iraq's economy while our dollar tanks, our housing market goes south, our jobs go overseas, our gas prices reach record prices, and so on.

How about some perspective?

[coltsfan23]

I think its way too early to argue about whether Vietnam or Iraq was worse. Vietnam was horrid, as 50,000+ Americans died and it had huge implications on the rest of the world, but Iraq has had a huge effect as well. While only 4,000 Americans have died, the War in Iraq is all but over.

[sahetu]

the War in Iraq is all but over.

Yeah.... I've heard that before, 10 or 12 times.

[cdoyal]

Might I also remind you that this safety of yours may be at the expense of certain civil freedoms due to the Patriot Act, like all your phone conversations being recorded (yeah, some guy is paid to listen in on anything private of yours, nice huh?) and in larger cities your every move is video taped (yeah, that was you picking your nose on 4th and Main).

I've got to address this one yet again. Your phone calls aren't being recorded. If you speak repeatedly with someone in Afghanistan, it MIGHT be recorded. As far as the Patriot Act goes, I've asked this repeatedly with others and never gotten one response: Show me one incident where one person's rights have been violated due to the Patriot Act - just one.
It can't be that hard, can it?