Prelude to War in Iran.

http://portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/m...0/ixworld.html
Briefing frenzy in Washington over Iran nuclear fear

Quote:

---

A briefing war erupted in Washington yesterday over the threat posed by Iran's nuclear ambitions and how to counter them - a debate reminiscent of the countdown to the invasion of Iraq.

Washington has been thrown into a frenzy following Secretary of State Colin Powell's remarks that Iran is studying how to equip a missile with a nuclear bomb.

Even as officials pondered whether his remarks were a slip or a deliberate attempt to scupper [slang for fucked up] a new initiative by Germany, France and Britain, the debate intensified yesterday over reports that the intelligence had been based on a single, unvetted source.

According to the Washington Post a "walk-in" source approached US intelligence earlier this month with more than 1,000 pages of documents containing the information that Mr Powell cited.

The suggestion that the information was based on a single source aroused alarm. Many politicians and journalists in Washington are still reeling from their over-reliance on single sources for the misleading pre-war intelligence about the state of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

Mr Powell's comments initially fuelled speculation that Washington was seeking to undercut a tentative deal by three European Union states with Teheran for it to freeze its nuclear enrichment programme. Yesterday he played down the impact of his remarks, saying: "This shouldn't be brand new news. . .this shouldn't surprise anybody."

---

Let's see. We have a "rare stumble," a scuppering of plans, a "walk-in" source, and a well posited "debate reminiscent of the countdown to the invasion of Iraq." Doesn't leave much up to the imagination.

How about one Middle Eastern country at a time?

Quote:

---

American officials will be looking for clear means of verifying the Iranian claims that they are freezing their programmes from Monday.

---

Why bother?

Opinion article: Uranium-Enrichment Myths Busted
http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=4016

But anyways, we all know where this is going.

I know where this is going: Someone will rail against your sources as dubious and radically left-wing (and the Telegraph is kinda). Then they will proceed to trivialize the matter, citing just as your source does, that there isn't any real intellegence and it's only a jumping of conclusions that you (and the Telegraph) says is clearly a pre-war build-up with Iran. This amoung other things I forsee.

My thoughts? I think that pressure on Iran isn't unprecidented or hell, even unwarranted. Iran is as crooked as a lot of people suspect Bush to be (read: really crooked) and the Ayatolah is in desperate need of an asswhoping. Are we the ones to deliver it? Fuck no. The International Community seems better suited to it. Speculation of weapons non-withstanding. The only monkey-wrench here is the very disenfranchised Sunnis (as well as the terrorists/insurgents, pick one or both, in Iraq who also happen to be Sunni) in Iraq. Iran is popularly Sunni, yes? Iran may prove to be a woe on its own, with or without nuclear weapons.

The most pragmatic course of action, however, is stick to Iraq and take care of matters as they happen. Iran should be scrutinized (again, nuclear weapons suspicion nonwithstanding) reguarless of anything - but not warred upon.

It is, its coming. I called it like most people too.

Problem is we just can't do it. We can't physically do it, we really just can't.

Lets start thinking about whats good for America governement, and stop thinking about how much we want the rest of the world to look and act like us.

This will fail btw. It will fail harder than Iraq ever would or could.

Because you can't do this without a draft.

You can't.

You could do it poorly.

Anyway. Its an International conscern if nuclear armament is a problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tracer

Iran is popularly Sunni, yes?

---

No, they are Shiite... which is half the problem :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tracer

I know where this is going: Someone will rail against your sources as dubious and radically left-wing (and the Telegraph is kinda). Then they will proceed to trivialize the matter, citing just as your source does, that there isn't any real intellegence and it's only a jumping of conclusions that you (and the Telegraph) says is clearly a pre-war build-up with Iran. This amoung other things I forsee.

---

Hey, you took all the fun out of it. At least he didn't use the guardian. But anyway, like it would ever stop this guy in the future... I'm reminded of how well it worked with Almaci.

Shucks though, I wanted to do N. Korea next, but Punky Skunk and these sites believe Iran is next, so here we come! Might as well since the troops are in the area.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Punky Skunk

Opinion article: Uranium-Enrichment Myths Busted

---

Btw, is that antiwar.com site really the best source for antiwar news, viewpoints, and activities as they claim? Just curious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AstroBlue

No, they are Shiite...

---

Correct. Iran is just full of Shiite.

Where's that Abobo poster to tell us how the pro-democracy forces in Iran are just waiting for the right opportunity to rise up and overthrow the mullahs?? What ever happened to that??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tracer

I know where this is going: Someone will rail against your sources as dubious and radically left-wing (and the Telegraph is kinda). Then they will proceed to trivialize the matter, citing just as your source does, that there isn't any real intellegence and it's only a jumping of conclusions that you (and the Telegraph) says is clearly a pre-war build-up with Iran. This amoung other things I forsee.

---

You've got the wrong paper, the Telegraph is mildly-right-wing. I think that the threat of war is definitely on the table - I don't know if anything will happen.

Good post Tracer.

Even the UN thinks that Iran is trying to build up nuclear weapons and it is very possible they are, however Iran will not be able to shoot any of them to areas outside of the Middle East as any missile they may develop or attach it too will probably be ranged at a maximum of 300 miles.

We don't need a war to destroy their nuclear capability, Tom Clancy detailed a fictional situation in the book "Marine" where a MEU went into Iran, kicked ass, blew up all their nuclear shit and went back on their boats, the whole thing was over in about 6 hours once our forces hit the ground. It may be a fictional account but Clancy really knows his shit.




Do I think it's a good idea to go to war with Iran and occupy it like we did Iraq? No, I wouldn't say so, however if they do become a nuclear threat we have to disable that power. You can all say your shit about "why can't they have nuclear weapons if we can?" or "well if we prevent Iran from having them why don't we prevent China from having them?". They can't and shouldn't have them because unlike them we are unlikely to ever use ours again and whatever you may think about Bush we don't have an oppressive totalitarian regime with leaders who are arguably insane in power. And why don't we do something about China? Because they are unlikely to ever use there's as well and going to war with China would be a little bit different then going to war with Iran, their nuclear weapons are also protected by international treaty as are the United States, Russia, France and Great Britians weapons.

I think Israel should give up Gaza and the West Bank to the Palestinians, and then follow that up by bombing all of Iran's nuclear reactors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stone

I think Israel should give up Gaza and the West Bank to the Palestinians, and then follow that up by bombing all of Iran's nuclear reactors.

---

Didn't they do that to Iraq? All's it would take is just blowing up their nuclear reactor.

Yep, Israel blew up Osirak a while back.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stone

I think Israel should give up Gaza and the West Bank to the Palestinians, and then follow that up by bombing all of Iran's nuclear reactors.

---

This is my recipe for peace in the middle east, by the way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stone

This is my recipe for peace in the middle east, by the way.

---

And a good recipe it is, the whole Middle East is already pissed at Israel and there's not a damn thing they can do about it. If they hadn't blown up Iraq's nuclear plant then it's very likely that Iraq would've launched some type of nuclear attack, they used their chemical weapons in the past which is looked at (at least in technicallity) as the same as using nuclear or biological weapons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tracer

Are we the ones to deliver it? Fuck no. The International Community seems better suited to it.

---

What "International Community"? You mean our lives and our dollars under UN leadership? That is always, always the wrong answer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stone

I think Israel should give up Gaza and the West Bank to the Palestinians, and then follow that up by bombing all of Iran's nuclear reactors.

---

I wouldn't give up a land fill to the Palestinians. Let them keep trying to take land. Eventually, there won't be any of the terrorist assholes left.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yoshi

I wouldn't give up a land fill to the Palestinians. Let them keep trying to take land. Eventually, there won't be any of the terrorist assholes left.

---

Yeah, that'll work.

I'm serious, though. Go back to '67 borders, capitulate, basically, to show the world Israel will make huge, unnecessary sacrifices for peace, and then get rid of Iran's nuclear reactors, to show strength.

I'm starting not give a shit. the faster this world blows up, the quicker the world will be a better place..

fuck the world

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yoshi

What "International Community"? You mean our lives and our dollars under UN leadership? That is always, always the wrong answer.

---

Well, it is at all possible, when I said "International Community" I meant, more or less, that the burden should be distributed equally. If there's threat, you know, a real and serious one, then that should be enough to put the spurs to the sides of isolationist Germanys and Frances. Russia will likely balk, if anything, I'd fault them for Iran even posing a nuclear threat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yoshi

Eventually, there won't be any of the terrorist assholes left.

---

That's a LOLable comment.

Quote:

---

Btw, is that antiwar.com site really the best source for antiwar news, viewpoints, and activities as they claim?

---

I'm still shopping around. I think they're skimping on activities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tracer

Well, it is at all possible, when I said "International Community" I meant, more or less, that the burden should be distributed equally. If there's threat, you know, a real and serious one, then that should be enough to put the spurs to the sides of isolationist Germanys and Frances. Russia will likely balk, if anything, I'd fault them for Iran even posing a nuclear threat.

---

See, the catch is, the burden SHOULD be distributed equally. Unfortunately, countries like Germany and France are run by corrupt terrorist-funding scumbags. That's why the UN is useless and the United States has to lead the way for the greater good of humanity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AstroBlue

That's a LOLable comment.

---

There aren't that many Palestinians. I am not talking about all terrorists worldwide.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maruchan

I'm starting not give a shit. the faster this world blows up, the quicker the world will be a better place..

fuck the world

---

Same. Just try to not get North America nuked and I'll happily go along with whatever crackpot scheme the americans have to "rid the world of evil".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yoshi

There aren't that many Palestinians. I am not talking about all terrorists worldwide.

---

True. But...

How many "Palestinians" are Palestinian? Answer: Not many.
How many "Isrealis" are Isreali? Answer: Not many.

Isreal is just the place all the jews and muslims go to blow each other up. Terrorists go to where the action is, which is the main reason a lot of the arseholes we're capping in Iraq aren't actually Iraqi. For instance, I knew this Lebanese guy who was a part of Hezbollah, he wen't to Isreal to blow up jews; and my mother's Jewish boss, funded his son to go to Isreal to blow up muslims.

In that way, Isreal is so broken it's not funny. I think, even if Palestine comes into fruition there will still be bullshit going on. Because the jewish right will think it will be too much, and the muslim right will think it will be too little.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gohron

We don't need a war to destroy their nuclear capability, Tom Clancy detailed a fictional situation in the book "Marine" where a MEU went into Iran, kicked ass, blew up all their nuclear shit and went back on their boats, the whole thing was over in about 6 hours once our forces hit the ground. It may be a fictional account but Clancy really knows his shit.

---

I really don't think you should be using a Tom Clancy book as proof that war isn't needed to remove Iran's nuclear capabilities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpoDaddy

See, the catch is, the burden SHOULD be distributed equally. Unfortunately, countries like Germany and France are run by corrupt terrorist-funding scumbags. That's why the UN is useless and the United States has to lead the way for the greater good of humanity.

---

I love that line of thinking. Its the line of thinking that gets soldiers killed and makes politicians and big business rich.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tracer

Well, it is at all possible, when I said "International Community" I meant, more or less, that the burden should be distributed equally. If there's threat, you know, a real and serious one, then that should be enough to put the spurs to the sides of isolationist Germanys and Frances. Russia will likely balk, if anything, I'd fault them for Iran even posing a nuclear threat.

---

Of course, but there won't be a distribution, partly because this administration is not concerned with dimplomacy and talking, they'd rather just jump in. Sorry if we didn't wait for anyone in Iraq and made up the lies we did to get in there, we aren't holding our breath for Iran. This administration is dumb enough to overextend us to the point of a draft becoming neccessary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gohron

We don't need a war to destroy their nuclear capability, Tom Clancy detailed a fictional situation in the book "Marine" where a MEU went into Iran, kicked ass, blew up all their nuclear shit and went back on their boats, the whole thing was over in about 6 hours once our forces hit the ground. It may be a fictional account but Clancy really knows his shit.

---

When are you getting back into the Corps?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AstroBlue

Isreal is just the place all the jews and muslims go to blow each other up. Terrorists go to where the action is, which is the main reason a lot of the arseholes we're capping in Iraq aren't actually Iraqi. For instance, I knew this Lebanese guy who was a part of Hezbollah, he wen't to Isreal to blow up jews; and my mother's Jewish boss, funded his son to go to Isreal to blow up muslims.

---

Sounds like that's a self-solving problem then. We just need some cameras and a cable channel for it. "Brownies Go Boom" or GGBTV. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yoshi

Sounds like that's a self-solving problem then. We just need some cameras and a cable channel for it. "Brownies Go Boom" or GGBTV. :D

---

:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The_Meach

When are you getting back into the Corps?

---

I'm going for an October enlistment, however being in the "real-world" for a little bit has showed me how little the military pays and it's going to be a harder desicion this time around.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saint of Killers

I really don't think you should be using a Tom Clancy book as proof that war isn't needed to remove Iran's nuclear capabilities.

---

Just saying, it's a problem that can be solved tactically and not strategically.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gohron

(Iran is) a problem that can be solved tactically and not strategically.

---

Negative. Politically doing a tactical strike is a no-go. We just shoot them up they're gonna be pissed.

And if pay is a prob, why not do the Marine Reserves?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The_Meach

Negative. Politically doing a tactical strike is a no-go. We just shoot them up they're gonna be pissed.

---

They'll be pissed but that's not much different then their feelings now. Why commit 300,000 troops to a country over one nuclear reactor? A tactical strike is a possibility, will require a small task force (likely a Marine Expeditionary Unit just going on their Mediterrain cruise on Indian Ocean cruise) which will be able to blow shit up then go back home in under a week. If the government does decide to go to war with Iran I will likely support it however we're getting a little stretched out here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The_Meach

And if pay is a prob, why not do the Marine Reserves?

---

It's not the same experience and I have a bit of disdain for reservists, they're a whole different group of guys who look at the military in a completely different way and arn't always effective. Plus I would have to take 3 months off of work and come back home again and settle back into normal life after the government completeled my killer training :P

I have awhile to figure things out so I'm putting a lot of thought into my future because eventually I'm gonna be too old to do all this shit and I want to make certain I'm making the best desicions for my life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cka

Same. Just try to not get North America nuked and I'll happily go along with whatever crackpot scheme the americans have to "rid the world of evil".

---

Change "The Americans" to "The American President". We don't have much of a say in what goes on over here.

protip: The Americans choose their leader.

Protip: Not my fault we chose this guy.

protip: touche, but that's the way of democracy.

Protip #2: Psst, this isn't a democracy anymore.

Protip: Stop using the the word "Protip"

I agree, it's not a democracy. It's become a Whineocracy. GG, you fucking hippies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by youandwhosearmy

Protip #2: Psst, this isn't a democracy anymore.

---

STFU. Wanna move to Canada then? If it'll mean not being treated to your fanatical frenzied hysterical rants, I'll pay for it. You only need ask.

No, actually its Jesusland. but not really cause Jesus was a hippy so its really whatever isn't a hippy but has lots of power but also runs big businesses.


I guess you could call it Waynecorp.

Don't sully that good name by mentioning it in here.

I'll remember to amend the definition of Democracy to "Democratic Party Victory" in the future.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NightWolve

STFU. Wanna move to Canada then? If it'll mean not being treated to your fanatical frenzied hysterical rants, I'll pay for it. You only need ask.

---

"The bulk of government is not legislation but administration." "Men can never escape being governed. Either they must govern themselves or they must submit to being governed by others." -Theodore Roosevlet.


I quoted that cause I want you to get that I don't believe any of my interests or about 50 million of the people who pay taxes to live in this country are being represented anymore. All I have left is the rant Wolve. The Republicans didn't even show up to debate the deficit auction this week for chrissake.

So just deal with it. Its not like there will ever be a recount, or anyone will really ever question this administration for anything that they do and have it go somewhere.

So just fucking put up with it, cause you get to go home at night and feel all comfy knowing that the country is shaping into and supports your ideals and mine, no matter what they may be, is just crazy liberal talk.

One of the defining aspects of liberal democracy is that all participants agree that the majority will rule. One doesn't have to be happy with election results. But one should at least recognize the legitimacy of the election and respect the decision of one's fellow citizens.

If their decision is illegitimate one would need to explain how/why. (Vague, tired rants don't cut it.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NightWolve

Where's that Abobo poster to tell us how the pro-democracy forces in Iran are just waiting for the right opportunity to rise up and overthrow the mullahs?? What ever happened to that??

---

They probably wouldn't want our support even if that were the case. We've got a history of helping to incite uprising and then letting our 'allies' get slaughtered (i.e.; Bay of Pigs, Post-Gulf War, etc).

There is an inconsistency in the election polls Meach, and there is and will be because of the system currently in place, no way to confirm it or deny it. I can't accept that, not as an American who believes not so much that the election was stolen or not, as we as a people would accept our government putting a system in place that allows no feasible, independent way to check it.

Thats the most reasonable thing I can give you about my outrage. I am sorry if the arguments sound tired everyone, I truly am, but I just think we as people deserve, and more importantly are, better than that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by g0zen

They probably wouldn't want our support even if that were the case. We've got a history of helping to incite uprising and then letting our 'allies' get slaughtered (i.e.; Bay of Pigs, Post-Gulf War, etc).

---

This is an important, credible criticism of US policy in the past. W has spent 3+ years trying to change that perception and is one of the (many) adjustments for the better that the Bush=Hitler crowd refuses to give his administration credit for.

If we don't see this (Iraq, not Iran) through I WOULD move to Canada. And I hate Bush.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The_Meach

This is an important, credible criticism of US policy in the past. W has spent 3+ years trying to change that perception and is one of the (many) adjustments for the better that the Bush=Hitler crowd refuses to give his administration credit for.

---

Trying to change it how?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by youandwhosearmy

There is an inconsistency in the election polls Meach, and there is and will be because of the system currently in place, no way to confirm it or deny it.

---

What do you mean, "inconsistency in the election polls"? Do you mean that exit polls in some states showed Kerry to be up early on 11/2? Do you mean that ppl in different areas of the country use different means of voting (electronic/absentee/paper/butterfly)? What, precisely is 'inconsistent' about the election?

Also, what do you mean there is 'no way to confirm (inconsistency) or deny (inconsistency)'?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YAWA

I can't accept that, not as an American who believes not so much that the election was stolen or not, as we as a people would accept our government putting a system in place that allows no feasible, independent way to check it.

---

Are you wanting a recount? Do you believe the votes were tabulated erroneously? Do you think Bush didn't really win (either the popular vote or the electoral college)?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YAWA

Thats the most reasonable thing I can give you about my outrage. I am sorry if the arguments sound tired everyone, I truly am, but I just think we as people deserve, and more importantly are, better than that.

---

Fair enough. It's fine to be upset at a loss. Really! I would be too. But unless I have some serious, legit proof that my otherwise lawfully elected leader wasn't really lawfully elected, I would not doubt his legitimacy.

I'll be honest. I was never a big fan of Clinton personally. But my opposition was always to (some of) his policies. I never questioned whether he should be considered President (knowing full well he never won 50% and if it weren't for Perot, he never would've gotten in to begin with).

Saying things like, "So-and-so isn't really my president" is, when you get down to it, undemocratic. We must, as citizens ostensibly supportive of democracy, either accept the premise that the majority will rule or we cannot call ourselves democrats.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by g0zen

Trying to change it how?

---

It would have been incredibly easy (politically) to just drop some bombs on the Taliban and call it good. Or to assist the N. Alliance and get the heck out.

But we have not, irregardless of reports that say we do not do enough, cut and run in Afghanistan. One may point out the many problems in the country (including the US not coming thru w/ALL the money it promised) but it cannot be said that we have pulled a Bay of Pigs or Beirut or Mog.

Also, we are staying in Iraq for the foreseeable future. There are a multitude of criticisms for this policy which I do not need to delineate. Absent from the list would be a sort of coitus interruptus once the going got tough (see: a year-and-a-half on the ground, campaign in Fallujah, reconstruction efforts).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by youandwhosearmy

So just fucking put up with it, cause you get to go home at night and feel all comfy knowing that the country is shaping into and supports your ideals and mine, no matter what they may be, is just crazy liberal talk.

---

Ironic. Moderates are labeled as conservatives and convervatives are labeled as radicals, all the while liberals are labeled as "normal" or "moderate" but yet you're complaining that your views are being construed as crazy liberal talk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The_Meach

What do you mean, "inconsistency in the election polls"? Do you mean that exit polls in some states showed Kerry to be up early on 11/2? Do you mean that ppl in different areas of the country use different means of voting (electronic/absentee/paper/butterfly)? What, precisely is 'inconsistent' about the election?

---

I believe that yes, the errors reported on electronic voting machines were far to large and inconsistent to not justify such thing. There are counties, and I'll have to do my research to get it all as drudge report is not loading for me, that had tallies in the thousands and the tens of thousands in complete contrast to the population of said counties. I believe the biggest was a county in Ohio that reported about 500 votes for Kerry, and 3000 for Bush when the registered population was somewhere arouind 1000.

Quote:

---

Also, what do you mean there is 'no way to confirm (inconsistency) or deny (inconsistency)'?

---

Electronic voting, and this is my ultimate point, (this election being corrupt or not) does not allow for an independent double check. It is a system we are integrating into elections, that does not keep a paper trail, or a physical trail at all. It tallys the votes in its own machine and then to a network of computers.

So my rant about all of this has been an expressed and I believe anyone who cares about the integrity of our system should at least agree with me here, that this is the wrong way to do it. Should there ever be a call for this, and yes to answer another question I do believe there are enough people and enough weird evidence to ask for a simple double check (not so much to put a new president in as for the integrity of the system we have put in place) in this election. Unfortunately there is no way to check the votes themselves as the system leaves no independent way to do sucha thing and any electronic tampering would have been wiped by now.

Quote:

---

Are you wanting a recount? Do you believe the votes were tabulated erroneously? Do you think Bush didn't really win (either the popular vote or the electoral college)?

---

I believe the process in which the election was done was faulty enough to justify reforms, and as much effort into a physical recount as we possibly can, yes I do. Whether or not it was the diffference in the election if the above example I gave was true (it is) and others are true (they are) of e-voting machines not talllying counts properly, than every effort must be made to find out why they didn't.

Quote:

---

Fair enough. It's fine to be upset at a loss. Really! I would be too. But unless I have some serious, legit proof that my otherwise lawfully elected leader wasn't really lawfully elected, I would not doubt his legitimacy.

---

I am just putting a see above here cause I already gave my reasons for this.

Quote:

---

I'll be honest. I was never a big fan of Clinton personally. But my opposition was always to (some of) his policies. I never questioned whether he should be considered President (knowing full well he never won 50% and if it weren't for Perot, he never would've gotten in to begin with).

---

I agree with the Perot thing for the first election. I think though Clinton's ultimate record speaks for itself. He did a lot for us domestically. A lot. And whether you like him or not, his presidency needs to stop being singled out for the negatives that this administration likes to say were in his hands, Clinton didn't make excuses about the mess he had to clean up and Bush should not be making excuses about the mess Bush made.

Quote:

---

Saying things like, "So-and-so isn't really my president" is, when you get down to it, undemocratic. We must, as citizens ostensibly supportive of democracy, either accept the premise that the majority will rule or we cannot call ourselves democrats

---

This time unfortunately for the Dems is different. The one general sweeping thing I will say without some tounge in cheek exaggeration is that its your government now either way. There are no checks here anymore. Its pretty hard to accept a president you completely disagree with and disapprove of in and of itself. Its really hard to accept a president, a house, a senate, and soon to be a Supreme court that are all now very one sided.

The Dems don't feel represented anymore, at all and honestly I hope I'm wrong about Bush, I hope he is just a bumbling idiot, and not the evil, lying, single agenda president the rest of us think he is, Because y'know what, there ain't anyone going to stop him now.

Quote:

---

It would have been incredibly easy (politically) to just drop some bombs on the Taliban and call it good. Or to assist the N. Alliance and get the heck out.

But we have not, irregardless of reports that say we do not do enough, cut and run in Afghanistan. One may point out the many problems in the country (including the US not coming thru w/ALL the money it promised) but it cannot be said that we have pulled a Bay of Pigs or Beirut or Mog.

---

We just weren't done there man. Thats really it. I don't think its over over there by any means, I don't believe we abandoned them. I think we very poorly and very quickly decided to overextend ourselves into Iraq, and if we decide to stretch it out a little thin again and go into Iran before the other two are finished, well, we deserve whats coming next.

Thats not politics, thats not a left or right wing agenda, these decisions are just a giant lack of common sense.

Quote:

---

Also, we are staying in Iraq for the foreseeable future. There are a multitude of criticisms for this policy which I do not need to delineate. Absent from the list would be a sort of coitus interruptus once the going got tough (see: a year-and-a-half on the ground, campaign in Fallujah, reconstruction efforts).

---

Of course we are. I accepted this when we went in. You can't pull out of the mess we created and leave a giant black hole for every terrorist organization in the world to fill.

It was still the wrong decision, however you look at it. It was false pretense, followed by a complete lack of forsight. The most damaging though is our lack of care for our own perception to the rest of the world. I'm not talking about France and Germany, I'm talking about those we invaded to fight an organization with no roots really, and how our own actions have gained sympathy for these terrorists that would destroy us.

Did I hear someone ask for me??

Honestly though, I have said this tons of times..there is no need for anyone to take any Military action in Iran. NONE. You have a population of 70 Million people out of which 85% DESPISE the government. Trust me when I tell you that Iranians are MORE pro american than most americans!!! When Bush won the election there were people partying in the streets!!! You would never hear that in the Media, but it's true. I had family memebers call me and tell me how happy they were when Bush won, because they knew they would be next.

Sadly Americans have a completely wrong view of Iran and Iranians. We are NOT the same as Iraqi's or Afghanis. The Iranian Gov't has led the world to believe that Iranians are a group of fundementalist muslims, but that is so far from the truth. We are Persians first, with our own culture that was hijacked by those sick muslims. I was in Iran this past March and let me tell you that if it weren't for the fact the there were some women wearing head scarves, I would have thought I was walking around in a western European country!! Iran is NOT what people think it is.

Sadly the people don't have that charismatic leader to rally behind and get their act together. The Gov't has put such a horrible burden on the lives of most Iranians, that all they can do is live day to day just to put food on the table for their families. This is a country where Prostitution is Rampant and Drug use and AIDS are in an all time high. The situation in Iran is so volitile right now, it just needs that spark.

It will not come with military strikes though, all that would do is give those bastard Ayatollahs even more ammo against the US and Israel. You don't hear it in the Media when there are Riots in most Cities in Iran every other week. You don't hear it when a Victory in a small soccer match is enough of an excuse for people to get out and chant anti-gov't slogans. Trust me, the US media is focusing on the wrong thing. Does Iran want to build nukes? Hell Ya!!! Would they use them? No. Those Mullas are the most conniving evil weasles on this planet. They are using all of this just to get their way. They are so afraid of what has happened in Iraq and Afghanistan, they know they are next. I don't want to see my country bombed. The Iranian people have really been through alot of crap in the past 50 years. All they want is democracy and freedom. I actually blame the stupid European countries on this one, they keep appeasing those damn Mullahs. For once I am totally on the side of the US Administration, I never thought I would ever say that!!! I'm telling you...if the US and Eurpoeans came out and said "WE ARE BEHIND THE IRANIAN PEOPLE %100, WE WANT THEM TO OVERTHROW THE GOVERNMENT, AND WE WILL HELP THEM DO IT!!" The Gov't would be gone in less than a month. No Troops, Bombs, or needless death.

Every time I skim the forum I keep thinking this thread reads "Prelude to war in Japan."

Now that would be interesting.

Quote:

---

Honestly though, I have said this tons of times..there is no need for anyone to take any Military action in Iran. NONE. You have a population of 70 Million people out of which 85% DESPISE the government.

---

IBTN. I read an article from the AP, I think (which is hardly credible nowadays, it was basically campaigning for Kerry in October) about the first few screenings of Fahrenheit 9/11 in Iran. A lot of the young people that came out basically said, "This is bullshit, I'm not buying it, its propaganda, of course the government is showing us this, because they want us to hate America."

The Iranian government is really representative of the whole problem with the Middle East... Iranians dont want them, they dont hate the USA, but the government tries to stir up hate and anti-Israel/US sentiments through oppression and fear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ViciousJazz

Every time I skim the forum I keep thinking this thread reads "Prelude to war in Japan."

Now that would be interesting.

---

Their giant mech program is light years ahead of ours. And if those don't do us in, the idol singers will.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bacon McShig

Their giant mech program is light years ahead of ours. And if those don't do us in, the idol singers will.

---

I'm having horrid flashbacks of Gasaraki.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Abobo

Did I hear someone ask for me??

---

Hehe. There you are. And you're still talking a good game it appears. I wanted to see if you still had that same confidence you had way back when this subject came up. =)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by youandwhosearmy

Protip #2: Psst, this isn't a democracy anymore.

---

Protip: It never was. It was always a Republic not a democracy. Democracy is just media bullshit for "We know it's a Republic, but our viewers are too stupid and we don't feel like explaining it to them".

Protip: A Presidential System will always have a large amount of disproportionality with regards to the President. Because there's only one seat, so everyone who voted for the other guy is naturally not going to be represented with their vote.

Stop acting like this election is the first time this has ever happened or something. It happens with every presidential election.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Abobo

Sadly Americans have a completely wrong view of Iran and Iranians.

---

You're right, most Americans know very little about Iran, so if we were to push troops into the country, no one would realize what we're messing up. In most American minds the Middle East is a far away blur and most people don't even have their facts straight on the current war. The interest in preserving goodwill then is nil for people here, since they don't know it exists and are conditioned to think civilian deaths are part of "the game."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Abobo

I don't want to see my country bombed. The Iranian people have really been through alot of crap in the past 50 years. No Troops, Bombs, or needless death.

---

Me too, I would really hate to see one of the few Middle Eastern countries whose population is pro-America to have their minds changed through embroiling them in a messy war. Sadly, I see Bush as one of the worst possible men for the job of taking care of anything tactfully.

The paradox of anti-Americanism in Iran
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article....ticle_id=10165

Quote:

---

Frankly, America has done much to feed this ambivalence. In 1953, a CIA-sponsored coup overthrew the only democratically elected prime minister in Iran's 2,500-year history, Mohammad Mossadeq.

---

Our history of respecting your country?

Quote:

---

As I was cautioned by Hamid, a 25 year-old student activist, "If one U.S. soldier comes to Iran, all this [positive sentiment toward America] will change. It is like we are in the 90th minute of a soccer match. Anything can happen."

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

Protip: A Presidential System will always have a large amount of disproportionality with regards to the President. Because there's only one seat, so everyone who voted for the other guy is naturally not going to be represented with their vote.

Stop acting like this election is the first time this has ever happened or something. It happens with every presidential election.

---

Diffusion read what I said. Democrats are so outraged because they aren't represented in any aspect of government anymore. The outrage comes now because there is nothing we can do, there is no one besides his own party to stop him from trying to get things passed.

Thats why. This administration hated explaining itself as it, but at least they forced themselves to confront the other side, if the deficit bill is any indication though, they aren't gonna be doing that ever again.

Maybe the story would be different if the Democrats werent a bunch of idiotic, whiny, Michael Moore-embracing retards.

No it would be diffferent if the republican party wasn't a corrupt, oil stealing, bunch of theives, who so gradually let the religoius fanatics hijack their party and claim their morals so they could win the vote and continue their single minded big business concerned campaign to fuck anyone who doesn't make more than 200,000 a year.


We can attack both sides all day, it still doesn't make it right for one party to have all the power Diffusion. Thats basic civics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by youandwhosearmy

No it would be diffferent if the republican party wasn't a corrupt, oil stealing, bunch of theives, who so gradually let the religoius fanatics hijack their party and claim their morals so they could win the vote and continue their single minded big business concerned campaign to fuck anyone who doesn't make more than 200,000 a year.


We can attack both sides all day, it still doesn't make it right for one party to have all the power Diffusion. Thats basic civics.

---

"Make it right"?

THIS IS A DEMOCRACY.

The Republicans win because more Americans think they are Republicans than they do Democrats. If you don't want the Republicans to have all the power, then figure out a way to start winning elections.

Look, I agree with you that the Republicans have a lot of problems, and I'd like to see a stronger opposition, but, good lord, man, stop being such a pussy about it - the way you're acting is representative of the way a lot of Democrats are acting.

I don't like this constant whining about how checks and balances are gone. Look, if the Republicans mess everything up, the balance for that is WE VOTE THEM OUT. The check for that is they mess everything up beyond a certain point. There's nothing they can do that can't be beaten or undone over time.

If you think otherwise, please refer to my official statement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike

Look, if the Republicans mess everything up, the balance for that is WE VOTE THEM OUT.

---

Oh yeah, that worked well. Haha.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Punky Skunk

Oh yeah, that worked well. Haha.

---

Well, apparently, the line of "fucking up" was not crossed from 2000 to 2004 for most people. I think a lot of fucking up was done behind the scenes, but not enough was shown during American Idol and on the TV screens at Wal-Mart for the general public to react. I don't know if Bush will do enough fucking up for the Democrats to win in 2008, but I don't think all these Republican representatives will do much good. (The new ones, that is, and maybe some of the old ones like that dick Brownback.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stone

"Make it right"?

THIS IS A DEMOCRACY.

The Republicans win because more Americans think they are Republicans than they do Democrats. If you don't want the Republicans to have all the power, then figure out a way to start winning elections.

Look, I agree with you that the Republicans have a lot of problems, and I'd like to see a stronger opposition, but, good lord, man, stop being such a pussy about it - the way you're acting is representative of the way a lot of Democrats are acting.

---

Forgive me for having a problem with the very roots of said democracy (y'know the idea that one adminsistration could never assume complete control of the government), because that is dangerous. When republicans (and it started this week) stop showing up to debate bills because its getting passed either way, thats bad. When a very closed in and secretive administration as it is, sets itself up to run without any opposition after four very, VERY, questionable years, that scares me.

The outrage as I said above, is bad enough when your excepting a president you don't like, its very hard for 48 percent of america to accept now that the entire governement will now fall under those who completely shit on our beliefs, not just one office. I am trying very hard to keep my reasons as far away from single accusation as possible and focus on the what I believe to be things such as a faulty voting system, etc... but you can't blame such a massive amount of people for feeling that not one branch of the government they pay taxes to represents them anymore, because really, it doesn't. I know it must be hard to see being on the other side and all, but that kind of sucks man. If they wanna pass unconstitutional shit,.they can. Really they dont' even have to explain themselves anymore, they can just do it.


I'll strum the note as long as I have to listen to people on the otherside call me a pussy, I'm not gonna back down and enjoy it. Democracy is participation and expressing your beliefs, not stopping because a bunch of people got what they wanted and tell you too.



Acceptence would be the pussy way out.

"No it would be diffferent if the republican party wasn't a corrupt, oil stealing, bunch of theives, who so gradually let the religoius fanatics hijack their party and claim their morals so they could win the vote and continue their single minded big business concerned campaign to fuck anyone who doesn't make more than 200,000 a year."

Look...I'm not going to prefer the other side simply because you don't like the way things are right now. If there was a good enough reason for me to pick Kerry over Bush, then maybe you'd have a point, but as it stands "he's not Bush" is not a point that I even give consideration to. It's not like the Dems are above lying to gain appeal. And no, I don't care that so-and-so has the power in the government and there's nothing the other side can do. The fact is that their own party keeps them in check, not just the other party.

"Democrats are so outraged because they aren't represented in any aspect of government anymore."

Yeah well if Dems adopted some good policy I would care what they think.

"Really they dont' even have to explain themselves anymore, they can just do it."

And how many times has that happened before? Like someone's going to snap their fingers and it's done? That's all doomsday crap talk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by youandwhosearmy

Diffusion read what I said. Democrats are so outraged because they aren't represented in any aspect of government anymore. The outrage comes now because there is nothing we can do, there is no one besides his own party to stop him from trying to get things passed. .

---

They have no one to blame except themselves. They ran their own campaigns, outspent the Republican party and fucking lost. Talk about sore losers that consistently outwhine the Republican Party at every turn and it's no wonder they lost by nearly 4 million votes. Pussies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stone

"Make it right"?

THIS IS A DEMOCRACY.

---

No, it isn't. Even if it were, Bush still won the popular vote, etc...

Ladies and Gentlemen, we live in a *REPUBLIC*, we DO NOT live in a DEMOCRACY. Majority does NOT rule.

Check the constitution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike

I don't like this constant whining about how checks and balances are gone. Look, if the Republicans mess everything up, the balance for that is WE VOTE THEM OUT. The check for that is they mess everything up beyond a certain point. There's nothing they can do that can't be beaten or undone over time.

If you think otherwise, please refer to my official statement.

---

Mike it shouldn't come to that

Two things.

They will mess up and overstep because any one side unopposed is going to try to take the easy way out at leat once or twice over four years.

Its the fact that people aren't disturbed by that. We formed this nation to get away from that Mike, its why we became a fucking nation. So that no one can possibly abuse this power, don't say things like that man. don't. Your tired of hearing it? Well if they fuck up who are you gonna complain too? If bush brings us into two more wars, starts a draft because of it, and watches the economy collapse before our eyes, who you gonna complain to? Your really cool with waiting till next election to vote him out?

Sorry to be so negative but I cannot believe the indiifference in this country to something that is at the least a foundation of democracy.

"If bush brings us into two more wars, starts a draft because of it, and watches the economy collapse before our eyes, who you gonna complain to?"

Huh? Not every Republican thinks like Bush on every issue. You think everything is just going to go unchallenged in Congress?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by haohmaru

They have no one to blame except themselves. They ran their own campaigns, outspent the Republican party and fucking lost. Talk about sore losers that consistently outwhine the Republican Party at every turn and it's no wonder they lost by nearly 4 million votes. Pussies.

---

Sigh and this statement, is why, these two sides will remain split right down the middle till the bitter end. Haoh we are sore fucking losers. I wasn't and still am not content to sit by and watch bad choice after bad choice destroy this country, but I'm dying to hear the excuses your party makes when Bush fucks up again. Not that they'll have anyone to answer to y'know, god forbid Clinton had to but doesn't, but I can't wait to hear the ond sided American government tell me that the reasons we fucked in Iran or North Korea is The Democrats fault. I can't fucking wait for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joust Williams

"If bush brings us into two more wars, starts a draft because of it, and watches the economy collapse before our eyes, who you gonna complain to?"

Huh? Not every Republican thinks like Bush on every issue. You think everything is just going to go unchallenged in Congress?

---

Yes. I do. There will be disparity in the party, but its still the same parties, the same basic ideals are gonna go through, or be won over pretty easily. Sorry that scares the crap out of me and yes I believe it wholeheartedly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by youandwhosearmy

Mike it shouldn't come to that

Two things.

They will mess up and overstep because any one side unopposed is going to try to take the easy way out at leat once or twice over four years.

Its the fact that people aren't disturbed by that. We formed this nation to get away from that Mike, its why we became a fucking nation. So that no one can possibly abuse this power, don't say things like that man. don't. Your tired of hearing it? Well if they fuck up who are you gonna complain too? If bush brings us into two more wars, starts a draft because of it, and watches the economy collapse before our eyes, who you gonna complain to? Your really cool with waiting till next election to vote him out?

Sorry to be so negative but I cannot believe the indiifference in this country to something that is at the least a foundation of democracy.

---

You seem to be so set on the draft and the possibility of war with N. Korea or Iran. If a war happens with either of those countries it will likely be the cause of both of them, a UN coalition will probably hit Iran if they keep fucking around and N. Korea will get caught in between the might of the US and China and the war will likely be over in less then a week.

There MIGHT be a draft but I highly doubt it, another Korean war will be a conventional war, modern conventional wars end very quickly, even more so when a little third world country is caught in between two military super-powers, Iran may be a different story but as I said, it will likely be a UN coalition if we get into that mess. Everyone says we are stretched too thin but we have less then 10% of our military committed to Iraq at anytime and those numbers will decrease over-time.

A war with China would be a different story but the chances of that happening in the time-frame of the Bush Administration are just about nil. We rely too heavily on eachother, it's going to take both of us being backed into a corner which may or may not happen in the next 15 years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by youandwhosearmy

Sigh and this statement, is why, these two sides will remain split right down the middle till the bitter end. Haoh we are sore fucking losers. I wasn't and still are not content to sit by and watch bad choice after bad choice destroy this country, but I'm dying to hear the excuses your party makes when Bush fucks up again. Not that they'll have anyone to answer to y'know, god forbid Clinton had to but doesn't, but I can't wait to hear the ond sided American government tell me that the reasons we fucked in Iran or North Korea is The Democrats fault. I can't fucking wait for it.

---

How exactly did the government blame Iraq on the Democrats? Last I heard they said we were doing quite well over there and for the most part I am inclined to agree with them, on a tactical stand-point anyhow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by youandwhosearmy

Mike it shouldn't come to that

Two things.

They will mess up and overstep because any one side unopposed is going to try to take the easy way out at leat once or twice over four years.

Its the fact that people aren't disturbed by that. We formed this nation to get away from that Mike, its why we became a fucking nation. So that no one can possibly abuse this power, don't say things like that man. don't. Your tired of hearing it? Well if they fuck up who are you gonna complain too? If bush brings us into two more wars, starts a draft because of it, and watches the economy collapse before our eyes, who you gonna complain to? Your really cool with waiting till next election to vote him out?

Sorry to be so negative but I cannot believe the indiifference in this country to something that is at the least a foundation of democracy.

---

Who are you, Nostradamus? Sounds like you're heavily relying on some crystal ball that's foretelling the future. Two more wars? A draft? A collapsed economy? Rampant llama population explosion? Oh, you didn't say that last one.

Please, gloom and doom might be your interpretation of the future, it's certainly not mine. I would've predicted a far less bright future, however, with the Senator from Massachusettes and his increased spending. Did you hear even half of the shit that he wanted to fund? More troops in Iraq? Huge border patrol increases? Inspecting the other 95% of cargo ships? National Health Insurance? More funding for No Child Left Behind? And all of this was somehow, once again, supposed to be funded by small businesses that are NOW struggling to survive against giant corporations?

I think we voted for the lesser of two evils, thank you very much.

"There will be disparity in the party, but its still the same parties"

Do you know what voting is like? Not everyone votes along party lines.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gohron

You seem to be so set on the draft and the possibility of war with N. Korea or Iran. If a war happens with either of those countries it will likely be the cause of both of them, a UN coalition will probably hit Iran if they keep fucking around and N. Korea will get caught in between the might of the US and China and the war will likely be over in less then a week.

There MIGHT be a draft but I highly doubt it, another Korean war will be a conventional war, modern conventional wars end very quickly, even more so when a little third world country is caught in between two military super-powers, Iran may be a different story but as I said, it will likely be a UN coalition if we get into that mess. Everyone says we are stretched too thin but we have less then 10% of our military committed to Iraq at anytime and those numbers will decrease over-time.

A war with China would be a different story but the chances of that happening in the time-frame of the Bush Administration are just about nil. We rely too heavily on eachother, it's going to take both of us being backed into a corner which may or may not happen in the next 15 years.



How exactly did the government blame Iraq on the Democrats? Last I heard they said we were doing quite well over there and for the most part I am inclined to agree with them, on a tactical stand-point anyhow.

---

I appreciate your logic, but for me its more that this administration lost me in Iraq, and I just can't believe what they say anymore. I know its probably gonna go down like that, like you say, well except for the draft, I really do think there will be one and I'll stick by that till the end.

I don't. And Iraq no, terroism, yes. Fedrrel surplus going to deficit, yes. You can't tell me that this administration has taken any blame on their shoulders and nobly walked on with it. It hasn't. It has been passed of to the Clinton years, and if you don't believe me that most of the hardcore Republicans think that way, go look up any post by Yoshi in the past two years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by haohmaru

Who are you, Nostradamus? Sounds like you're heavily relying on some crystal ball that's foretelling the future. Two more wars? A draft? A collapsed economy? Rampant llama population explosion? Oh, you didn't say that last one.

Please, gloom and doom might be your interpretation of the future, it's certainly not mine. I would've predicted a far less bright future, however, with the Senator from Massachusettes and his increased spending. Did you hear even half of the shit that he wanted to fund? More troops in Iraq? Huge border patrol increases? Inspecting the other 95% of cargo ships? National Health Insurance? More funding for No Child Left Behind? And all of this was somehow, once again, supposed to be funded by small businesses that are NOW struggling to survive against giant corporations?

I think we voted for the lesser of two evils, thank you very much.

---

Good post, YAWA I see where you're coming from because it doesn't feel good to feel like you're hopeless but Bush isn't going to drive this country into the deepest pit it's ever been in. This stuff has been said over and over again since the beginning of the US and it never happened, both sides are at fault, I thought Kerry was dangerous because he wanted to fuck with gun laws and a lot of Americans (including myself) are very fanatical about defending their second amendment but I didn't think he was going to throw this country into disparity and I would've just weathered his administration as best as I could.

"It has been passed of to the Clinton years"

Well, Clinton really didn't do nearly all that he could do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by haohmaru

Who are you, Nostradamus? Sounds like you're heavily relying on some crystal ball that's foretelling the future. Two more wars? A draft? A collapsed economy? Rampant llama population explosion? Oh, you didn't say that last one.

Please, gloom and doom might be your interpretation of the future, it's certainly not mine. I would've predicted a far less bright future, however, with the Senator from Massachusettes and his increased spending. Did you hear even half of the shit that he wanted to fund? More troops in Iraq? Huge border patrol increases? Inspecting the other 95% of cargo ships? National Health Insurance? More funding for No Child Left Behind? And all of this was somehow, once again, supposed to be funded by small businesses that are NOW struggling to survive against giant corporations?

---

When history somehow changes itself back to this administration not spending a 4 trillion dollar surplus in its first two years, and turning it into now after last week an 8 trillion dollar deficit, when that circumstance ceases to exist, then I'll let you get away with telling me that Bush could do better with money than anyone else at all.

I don't subscribe to doom and gloom, just with this president. I find him in my eyes to have his own selfish agenda, and now no one can stop him from doing it.

Mark my words, if there is another war, there will be a draft in some form in this country. The only thing Nader ever said that didn't make me wanna slap him was the shit he said about the draft this year, he was right on. Its already a backdoor draft, soon though it won't be.

Quote:

---

I think we voted for the lesser of two evils, thank you very much.

---

I think we voted out of fear as a nation, I think we didn't at all sorry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joust Williams

"It has been passed of to the Clinton years"

Well, Clinton really didn't do nearly all that he could do.

---

Clinton's effective presidency was really only 5 to 6 years considering he was under grand jury investigation pretty much all through his second term. Its amazing he got done what he did under that bullshit. I'm really not saying its a hugely valid excuse, but you try running the fucking country while every detail of your life is being investigated to the ninth degree and every day you wake up your not sure much longer you get to be president all because you made a personal choice. Hell if the democrats put half the pressure on Bush that was put on Clinton back then he'd shatter into a million pieces.

You should really watch the Peter Jennings interview if you haven't, its really fascinating to hear his perpsective on it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gohron

Good post, YAWA I see where you're coming from because it doesn't feel good to feel like you're hopeless but Bush isn't going to drive this country into the deepest pit it's ever been in. This stuff has been said over and over again since the beginning of the US and it never happened, both sides are at fault, I thought Kerry was dangerous because he wanted to fuck with gun laws and a lot of Americans (including myself) are very fanatical about defending their second amendment but I didn't think he was going to throw this country into disparity and I would've just weathered his administration as best as I could.

---

Oh believe me Gohron I'm screaming at the wind because I don't believe in it, but I still wake up and hope I'm wrong about it.

You can always trust to that. I'd rather have to eat my own bullshit than wind up being right.

And you think Bush has it easy? I dunno why you say that.

Anyway, think what you want, but this majority in Congress should be the least of your worries.

P.S you quoted Haoh not me, Gohron.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joust Williams

And you think Bush has it easy? I dunno why you say that.

Anyway, think what you want, but this majority in Congress should be the least of your worries.

---

Easier than Clinton? Yes he does have it way easier than Clinton, there's not even a comparison.

No its the most of my worries. I was triggered last week when I watched them not show up to debate the deficit bill. There is something horribly wrong with that, sorry if it doesn't bother you so much then enjoy.

Oh please, again. You're saying that GWB is responsible for the 8 Trillion Dollar Debt? Do you have ANY IDEA what you're talking about?

Check this graph of the national debt, per person, and note that it began to sharply increase the day CLINTON entered the White House: http://home.att.net/~mwhodges/debt.gif

As a percentage of the economy: http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

Know what the largest portion of the budget deficit goes to fund? Health and Human Services, something that your boy, Kerry, wanted to increase by ONE TRILLION DOLLARS.

When Clinton left, the National Debt was SIX TRILLION DOLLARS (http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/history.gif) and now, a war later, it's increasing more. Yeah, the National debt is a HUGE issue, but to lay it all at Bush's feet is a complete crock of shit. Remember, Congress had to vote/pass the budget, and the last time I checked the two houses were fairly equally represented.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by youandwhosearmy

You should really watch the Peter Jennings interview if you haven't, its really fascinating to hear his perpsective on it.

---

LOL! It shows what a lunatic he is... "DON'T GO THERE, PETER! DON'T DO IT!! DON'T YOU GO THERE!! YOU DON'T WANNA GO THERE!!!11" Yeah, I think everyone should see it. Dick Morris probably was telling the truth after all in his claim that Clinton tackled him down once and luckily Hillary was around to break it up. What's more fascinating was his play on the victim card and you swallowing it up nicely. Poor Bubba.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by youandwhosearmy

P.S you quoted Haoh not me, Gohron.

---

Yes, I know. I was referring to his post then going to your issues with what's going on. Might've been a bit of a typo there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by haohmaru

Oh please, again. You're saying that GWB is responsible for the 8 Trillion Dollar Debt? Do you have ANY IDEA what you're talking about?

---

I didn't. But I have heard nothing but Republicans blame Democrats for this, and thats simply not true, check out the numbers for Bush Senior and Ronald Regan beofre Clinton.

Quote:

---

Check this graph of the national debt, per person, and note that it began to sharply increase the day CLINTON entered the White House: http://home.att.net/~mwhodges/debt.gif

---

Fascinating.

Quote:

---

As a percentage of the economy: http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

---

More fascinating, tell me though...

Quote:

---

Know what the largest portion of the budget deficit goes to fund? Health and Human Services, something that your boy, Kerry, wanted to increase by ONE TRILLION DOLLARS.

---

Yes what a bullshit thing to throw money into, we should so be spending that shit on missles and the rebuilding of buildings we blow up.

Quote:

---

When Clinton left, the National Debt was SIX TRILLION DOLLARS (http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/history.gif) and now, a war later, it's increasing more. Yeah, the National debt is a HUGE issue, but to lay it all at Bush's feet is a complete crock of shit. Remember, Congress had to vote/pass the budget, and the last time I checked the two houses were fairly equally represented.

---

Uh there was still a surplus of money guy. We were in better shape with him than with Bush, as even the most avid Bush supporter will admit that all he does is, spend, spend, SPEND, with absolutely not one thought about the future.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NightWolve

LOL! It shows what a lunatic he is... "DON'T GO THERE, PETER! DON'T DO IT!! DON'T YOU GO THERE!! YOU DON'T WANNA GO THERE!!!11" Yeah, I think everyone should see it. Dick Morris probably was telling the truth after all in his claim that Clinton tackled him down once and luckily Hillary was around to break it up. What's more fascinating was his play on the victim card and you swallowing it up nicely. Poor Bubba.

---

Lets talk about Bush's emabarrassing public moments shall we?

God forbid the man should allowed to be human for two seconds and get emotional about something. You think he deserved to be impeached for it? I mean really thrown out prematurely?

Cause personally I believe starting a war under false pretenses suprecedes a blowjob, but of course you'll just give some some bullshit about how it was faulty intelligence and not the president's fault war was declared. I mean it can't be the president's fault, not if he's as fine and upstanding like Mr. G.W., who never yells at his staff and isn't on anti-psychotics every other day because he has a problem dealing with people. Never George.

Either way impeached or not, that sure was one important potential threat to our national security, blowjob right there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by youandwhosearmy

Yes what a bullshit thing to throw money into, we should so be spending that shit on missles and the rebuilding of buildings we blow up.

---

Yeah, fuck national defense, let's just feed everyone that doesn't feel like getting a job, is an illegal immigrant, and tax the middle class even more. Sounds like a great economic plan to me. At least with missiles, you're actually creating something other than a welfare state.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by youandwhosearmy

Uh there was still a surplus of money guy. We were in better shape with him than with Bush, as even the most avid Bush supporter will admit that all he does is, spend, spend, SPEND, with absolutely not one thought about the future.

---

Uh, there wasn't a war, guy. There also wasn't an internet crazed stock market that burst soon before Clinton left office. There are also those that argue that the projected 450 billion surplus was actually a 500 billion dollar deficit depending on how you percieve them. Clinton road the internet stock craze wave and got off the surfboard just in time for Bush to have his shot at what turned out to be the Sargasso Sea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by haohmaru

Uh, there wasn't a war, guy. There also wasn't an internet crazed stock market that burst soon before Clinton left office.

---

And, uh, you realize that when Dubya was governor, in that very same time when there was no war and the internet-fueled stock market bubble had yet to burst, he did the exact same thing he did in his presidency, came in with a record surplus and left with a record debt? Yeah, a war and a stock market decline was a shit situation to be put in, but if those hadn't happened I'm not convinced he wouldn't have done almost as badly based on his track record. He just spends with no concern for the consequences.

Iran Says It Has Halted Uranium Enrichment
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...ar_agency_iran

Quote:

---

VIENNA, Austria - Iran said Monday it has frozen all uranium enrichment programs, weakening a U.S. effort to refer Tehran's suspect nuclear activities to the U.N. Security Council. President Bush (news - web sites) said he hoped the statement is true but "there must be verification."

---

Fantastic. I can just see the disappointment on Bush's face. Hopefully this all goes well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by youandwhosearmy

Democracy is participation and expressing your beliefs, not stopping because a bunch of people got what they wanted and tell you too.

---

Here you are referring to those in the GOP who would have you "Suck it down!" I want to point out the advice applies to what you and I were originally talking about: how democracy doesn't work unless the losers accept majority rule.

You participated, you expressed your beliefs and your side lost. This happens all the time. It doesn't mean you quit or move to Canada or pout or start breathing fire (see: Gore). The current administration is not unopposed (see: filibustering by Dems in coming years).

The beautiful thing about democracies (yeah, yeah, representative democracy) is that there are checks/balances; the most powerful of which (thx Mike) is the next election cycle. (ADDED): This is assuming, of course, the Dems can muster reasonable opposition (Reason #345 Moore-ish radicals are bad for Dems)</ADDED>

I would encourage you to stop worrying about what might happen (which you cannot control) and get involved promoting those policies you believe are right for America (this is something you can control). I would urge you to take your own advice and keep participating. Don't withdraw or resort to meaningless opposition from Fantasyland (omgBush=notreallyPrez).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by youandwhosearmy

Lets talk about Bush's emabarrassing public moments shall we?

---

Which are attacked every other day here. You brought up Clinton and how this particular interview will give one "perspective." I very much agreed, but for different reasons.

Quote:

---

God forbid the man should allowed to be human for two seconds and get emotional about something.

---

LOL. I'm sorry, that's just fucking hilarious. He pulled the same drama with a BBC interview awhile back. It's a cute act.

Quote:

---

You think he deserved to be impeached for it? I mean really thrown out prematurely?

---

No, and I wasn't apart of the vast right-wing conspiracy calling for it either, but I sure as hell don't feel sorry for him. I do like irony though. Hillary Clinton actually worked for the committee preparing to impeach former President Richard Nixon and didn't believe he should get legal representation either. Who would've thought her husband would later wind up on the receiving end of it.

Next, you're gonna talk about how lying about reasons for going to war is worse than lying about a blowjob (even though nobody was actually trying to argue otherwise), right? Ah, you don't disappoint.

Quote:

---

Cause personally I believe Starting a war under false pretenses suprecedes a blowjob, but of course you'll just give some some bullshit about how it was faulty intelligence and not the presidents fault war was declared.

---

Then you should call for Bush's impeachment. You most certainly can better mask the revenge element to it under those justifications. And no, I'm not gonna rehash pre-war intelligence with you, bullshit or otherwise. Let's skip all that and come to the correct conclusion: Bush is a lying liar! Happy?

Quote:

---

I mean it can't be the president's fault, not if he's as fine and upstanding like Mr. G.W., who never yells at his staff and isn't on anti-psychotics every other day because he has a problem dealing with people. Never George.

---

WTF are you talking about? Man, I'm so sick of you. Proof please? And that better not be that capitolhillblue article. Vague bullshit from fringe sites about "unnamed" sources saying Bush=psycho and yells at his staff isn't gonna cut it. You're so unbelievably full of shit.

Quote:

---

I'd rather have to eat my own bullshit than wind up being right.

---

You will eat your own bullshit, not that you could lose anymore credibility as a poster 4 years from now when there isn't one. You wanna bet on that draft? If you really believe that, you should be able to put your money where your sorry conspiratorial mouth is. Tell me, how's it gonna go down? Bush will give a wink and a nod to Charles Rangel to resurrect his draft bill again, but this time all the republicans will vote for it in lockstep? I really wanna hear this.

Quote:

---

Your really cool with waiting till next election to vote him out?

---

What the fuck is Mike supposed to do, incite and lead a revolution to overthrow the government??? I swear, I don't think I can read anymore of your crap.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by haohmaru

Yeah, fuck national defense, let's just feed everyone that doesn't feel like getting a job, is an illegal immigrant, and tax the middle class even more. Sounds like a great economic plan to me. At least with missiles, you're actually creating something other than a welfare state.

---

Some people work very hard and get no where in life due to no fault of their own, these are know as the "working poor", and I think are nearing 8 million in the US. I see no problem in not helping those who will not help themselves, and yes, by restricting education and health spending you will be punishing a lot of "lazy" people, but you're also going to be punishing the "salt-of-the-earth" people who work very hard but stay impoverished because of socio-economic reasons.

EDIT (clarity): I am aware there is a high amount of motility with capitalism (a very good thing), the "working poor" of today are not always the "working poor" of tommorow'; and that most of the "working poor" are their because unfortunate choices. But they still work hard and contribute to society.

I can understand how welfare, such as unconditional unemployment benefits, can reduce the motility of the workforce. Something Clinton addressed very well with Welfare Reform. But how can you possibly rationalise that efficiently-run, well-resourced state health and education systems (run parrallel to private systems) can be BAD for class motility, is beyond my comprehension.

"Oh shit, I'm dependent on good education and excellent health care, I have no chance of becoming anything."

Why do conservatives hate Clinton, he's the best conservative (neo-liberal) you've ever produced.

Quote:

---

Which are attacked every other day here. You brought up Clinton and how this particular interview will give one "perspective." I very much agreed, but for different reasons.

---

And they shouldn't be? My ultimate point was no one comes to Clinton's defense like that, you attack Bush and the party shields him like he was being pummled with so many flaming arrows. The media in my opinion, has been fucking great to him because if they did half their jobs he'd have been well on the impeachment trail.

Quote:

---

LOL. I'm sorry, that's just fucking hilarious. He pulled the same drama with a BBC interview awhile back. It's a cute act.

---

I saw that too. I still don't get it, I prefer regret, no matter how fake it is, to utter indifference to a mistake, but then again you are obviously firmly in the Bush camp, so I could never expect a thing from you.

Quote:

---

No, and I wasn't apart of the vast right-wing conspiracy calling for it either, but I sure as hell don't feel sorry for him. I do like irony though. Hillary Clinton actually worked for the committee preparing to impeach former President Richard Nixon and didn't believe he should get legal representation either. Who would've thought her husband would later wind up on the receiving end of it.

---

Oh irony your right. I just don't see how the blowjob meant shit, other presidents do that shit, lets face it, deal with it, and let him do his job. Human lives weren't lost over his blowjob.

Quote:

---

Next, you're gonna talk about how lying about reasons for going to war is worse than lying about a blowjob (even though nobody was actually trying to argue otherwise), right? Ah, you don't disappoint.

---

OMG TEH PSYCHIC ABILITY, LOL!!!!11111111

Quote:

---

Then you should call for Bush's impeachment. You most certainly can better mask the revenge element to it under those justifications. And no, I'm not gonna rehash pre-war intelligence with you, bullshit or otherwise. Let's skip all that and come to the correct conclusion: Bush is a lying liar! Happy?

---

I should? By myself, I pretty much have. Do you believe its impeachable, or more impeachable than the standard set by Presidential blowjobs? The problem with this argument is that its off limits because its old, tell that the people of Iraq after everything that had was bombed into the ground after not one effort was made at diplomacy from this administration and thank your president for using 9/11 as an excuse to get away with ANYTHING THAT HE FUCKING WANTS.

Quote:

---

WTF are you talking about? Man, I'm so sick of you. Proof please? And that better not be that capitolhillblue article. Vague bullshit from fringe sites about "unnamed" sources saying Bush=psycho and yells at his staff isn't gonna cut it. You're so unbelievably full of shit.

---

It might be the same article, I got it off of drudge, which is a predominantly Pro-Bush site. If you find it to be bullshit then thats the same spin that makes all my Micheal "OMG" Moore crap uselss, just applied in a different context. Christ almighty, Nightwolve if it bothers you this much just stop reading what I have to say.

Quote:

---

You will eat your own bullshit, not that you could lose anymore credibility as a poster 4 years from now when there isn't one. You wanna bet on that draft? If you really believe that, you should be able to put your money where your sorry conspiratorial mouth is. Tell me, how's it gonna go down? Bush will give a wink and a nod to Charles Rangel to resurrect his draft bill again, but this time all the republicans will vote for it in lockstep? I really wanna hear this.

---

There will be a justification for it, and it will be something that when it happens you will throw it right back in my face under the guise, "Uhh how else were we supposed to get it done."

I'll tell you how its gonna go down. There will be a trigger, another war, another invasion, another terroist attack, but there will be a trigger. They will overextend themselves. The time between now and then will make the idea of a draft sound more reasonable to even you than it sounds now.

What do you want me to say though, I'm calling it, and my money is where my mouth is Nightwolve because I am saying there will be one. I don't believe we can finish any, ANY, of the things we started without one.

One more thing, I love how you just accuse of me being so fucking simple that I'm buying into this propaganda, but all you've sold me is the same shit from the opposite side of the fence. I have my own feelings about this because of my own experiences, stories, and personal moral beliefs. Just like you scream at me wondering how I could buy into all this crap, I sit here and wonder how someone as fucking smart as you can find this administration as anything less than a complete and utter failure, to its people, and to the constitution.

I will be proven right by their actions, because there will be no one left to blame at the end. If you believe for one second that people who assumed control of your party and made it into the massive juggernaut that it is do not have their own particular ideas about how to rule (yes rule I said it) this country and that it is not dangerous when the entire majority side of the legislative branch doesn't even show up to sessions to justify their own fucking bills anymore is going to lead us down the right fucking path, than you really don't know the first thing about this country, and the foundation it was built on. This is not the means to a proper end, Nightwolve, it simply is not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by youandwhosearmy

I'll strum the note as long as I have to listen to people on the otherside call me a pussy, I'm not gonna back down and enjoy it. Democracy is participation and expressing your beliefs, not stopping because a bunch of people got what they wanted and tell you too.



Acceptence would be the pussy way out.

---

This is absurd - Kerry could have not put on that fucking wetsuit and gone windsurfing, and in doing so camoflauged his WASPishness just enough that he would have won more voters at the margin, and would have won the election. If that had happened, you wouldn't be saying any of this. You are acting like a baby.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stone

This is absurd - Kerry could have not put on that fucking wetsuit and gone windsurfing, and in doing so camoflauged his WASPishness just enough that he would have won more voters at the margin, and would have won the election. If that had happened, you wouldn't be saying any of this. You are acting like a baby.

---

Wait let me be a bit clearer on this.


He's my president, Bush is my president, and this is my government. Doesn't mean I won't question or disapprove of what they do or how they got there if I think there is something to question, especially considering there really won't be any one offically questioning them..

Make more sense? Or none at all?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by youandwhosearmy

And they shouldn't be?

---

I said they are. Where did you read they shouldn't be? The point was there hasn't been a deficit of Bush hate & attack on this board in case you hadn't noticed.

Quote:

---

My ultimate point was no one comes to Clinton's defense like that, you attack Bush and the party shields him like he was being pummled with so many flaming arrows.

---

I don't believe that for a second. From my experience, if Clinton comes up and you've got a liberal pundit or Democratic politician, they have no problem defending his legacy.

Quote:

---

The media in my opinion, has been fucking great to him because if they did half their jobs he'd have been well on the impeachment trail.

---

Just cause they haven't attacked him to the point it aided in getting impeachment going, doesn't mean they've been "great to him." They were after 9/11, but not before it and not after Iraq created division. You know, which began tearing down that 90% approval rating he had back to where it was when he entered office.

Quote:

---

I saw that too. I still don't get it, I prefer regret, no matter how fake it is, to utter indifference to a mistake, but then again you are obviously firmly in the Bush camp, so I could never expect a thing from you.

---

You don't think you're coming off as a Clinton sycophant to me?

Quote:

---

I should? By myself, I pretty much have. Do you believe its impeachable, or more impeachable than the standard set by Presidential blowjobs? The problem with this argument is that its off limits because its old, tell that the people of Iraq after everything that had was bombed into the ground after not one effort was made at diplomacy from this administration and thank your president for using 9/11 as an excuse to get away with ANYTHING THAT HE FUCKING WANTS.

---

Obviously yes if the wrongdoing is proved. The GOP will have that hanging over its head. And not one effort at diplomacy? You know that isn't true.

Quote:

---

It might be the same article, I got it off of drudge, which is a predominantly Pro-Bush site. If you find it to be bullshit then thats the same spin that makes all my Micheal "OMG" Moore crap uselss, just applied in a different context. Christ almighty, Nightwolve if it bothers you this much just stop reading what I have to say.

---

Well, gimme the link. I look at Drudge all the time, but him putting it up doesn't always mean he agrees or believes it. He put up links to Michael Moore's site in the past which is meant either to ridicule and/or bring attention to his tactics.

Quote:

---

There will be a justification for it, and it will be something that when it happens you will throw it right back in my face under the guise, "Uhh how else were we supposed to get it done."

I'll tell you how its gonna go down. There will be a trigger, another war, another invasion, another terroist attack, but there will be a trigger. They will overextend themselves. The time between now and then will make the idea of a draft sound more reasonable to even you than it sounds now.

What do you want me to say though, I'm calling it, and my money is where my mouth is Nightwolve because I am saying there will be one. I don't believe we can finish any, ANY, of the things we started without one.

---

OK, good, then I'm a fool that needs to be swindled. I want actual money behind your rhetoric. So, $100, $200? How much do you want that bet to be? Gimme a figure and I'll tell you if I'm game. Make easy money off me since clearly I'm deluded and you're gonna come out right by the end of Bush's 2nd term. I can do Paypal or check. You can pm on the rest.

Quote:

---

One more thing, I love how you just accuse of me being so fucking simple that I'm buying into this propaganda, but all you've sold me is the same shit from the opposite side of the fence. I have my own feelings about this because of my own experiences, stories, and personal moral beliefs. Just like you scream at me wondering how I could buy into all this crap, I sit here and wonder how someone as fucking smart as you can find this administration as anything less than a complete and utter failure, to its people, and to the constitution.

---

Look, I chose the lesser of two evils also. Wanting Kerry not to get into the WhiteHouse and sticking with Bush does not equal "OMG, YOU'RE A BUSH LOVER. YOU CAN'T SEE ANY OF HIS MISTAKES!" I don't share the values of the Democratic Party, it's that simple. Remember, I'm a religious fanatic; the ones you keep ranting about which negates the possibility of me being "fucking smart." And while I could go with 3rd Party chumps like the Constitution Party, they can't win, so I'm settled with the GOP.

Eh, I think we have a very different view of who's been attacking the Constitution and who would better handle something like judicial appointments.

Quote:

---

I will be proven right by their actions, because there will be no one left to blame at the end. If you believe for one second that people who assumed control of your party and made it into the massive juggernaut that it is do not have their own particular ideas about how to rule (yes rule I said it) this country and that it is not dangerous when the entire majority side of the legislative branch doesn't even show up to sessions to justify their own fucking bills anymore is going to lead us down the right fucking path, than you really don't know the first thing about this country, and the foundation it was built on. This is not the means to a proper end, Nightwolve, it simply is not.

---

*Sigh* I get it. Grim future; unapologetic abuses of power to come; the end of the world and all that. Look, you win. You've made me dizzy. I don't think you believe everything you're saying though.

I can't quote anymore my head is spinning to fast as well.

I think your a smart guy Nightwolve, I really do. It was your choice and I don't and won't hold it against you. The smart ones I don't hold it against, but I am forced as per my nature to fight them on it. Your comment about the religious fanatic thing, I don't want that going out of context, because I don't believe a majority of the people on these boards represent that, just like I'd like them to believe that liberals on here aren't micheal moore dems, y'know what I mean?

I don't really back the Micheal Moore philosphy, partly because nothing he said in his documentry was presented properly, or conspiracy wise, went far enough into the the things that I myself have looked into and chosen to believe. He dropped the ball big time and didn't focus on enough of the truth, and put spin on things that didn't require it.

I'd like to also state that I, go for both sides of something usually before I decide on it. I have spent as much time listening to Rush Limbaugh during the day, as I have Al Franken. I try to get the information that shapes my beliefs from both sides before I decide on it. This administration I guess the best way to put it, is incapable of fitting my basic nature, I like my questions answered, and my governments actions explained, and when they do something like invade Iraq like that, or put limits on a 9/11 report, I am inclined immediatley to distrust.

When two bullheaded idiots like us butt heads like this, neither one of us will ever accept the other one being wrong and ultimately leads nowhere.

So I guess our best bet, is to just stop singling eachother out and point out things as this term plays out that inspire or anger us, because all we've established here is that I hope I'm wrong about Bush more than you do, and that has to make us somewhat on the same side.


Well thats my learned lesson for the day anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AstroBlue

I can understand how welfare, such as unconditional unemployment benefits, can reduce the motility of the workforce. Something Clinton addressed very well with Welfare Reform. But how can you possibly rationalise that efficiently-run, well-resourced state health and education systems (run parrallel to private systems) can be BAD for class motility, is beyond my comprehension.

"Oh shit, I'm dependent on good education and excellent health care, I have no chance of becoming anything."

---

You can't work because of a brain tumor? Look, guy, we really need you and if you can't show up we're going to have to replace you. I know, that's tough son, but this is AMERICA. Pull yourself up by the bootstraps, dust yourself off and work really hard for that cancer treatment, meals for your kids, rent and laughable efforts to save money or invest it wisely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AstroBlue

Some people work very hard and get no where in life due to no fault of their own, these are know as the "working poor", and I think are nearing 8 million in the US. I see no problem in not helping those who will not help themselves, and yes, by restricting education and health spending you will be punishing a lot of "lazy" people, but you're also going to be punishing the "salt-of-the-earth" people who work very hard but stay impoverished because of socio-economic reasons.

EDIT (clarity): I am aware there is a high amount of motility with capitalism (a very good thing), the "working poor" of today are not always the "working poor" of tommorow'; and that most of the "working poor" are their because unfortunate choices. But they still work hard and contribute to society.

I can understand how welfare, such as unconditional unemployment benefits, can reduce the motility of the workforce. Something Clinton addressed very well with Welfare Reform. But how can you possibly rationalise that efficiently-run, well-resourced state health and education systems (run parrallel to private systems) can be BAD for class motility, is beyond my comprehension.

"Oh shit, I'm dependent on good education and excellent health care, I have no chance of becoming anything."

Why do conservatives hate Clinton, he's the best conservative (neo-liberal) you've ever produced.

---

Well, I really didn't address the welfare system at all, merely that more money is being placed there than any other facet of government and it's responsible for most of the national debt. You can make whatever case you want about the benefits of healthcare and human services and I won't argue with you - the substantial problem here, however, is that we cannot afford to pay for it as is clearly evidenced by the deficit and the percentage of that that is comprised of Health and Human Services.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by haohmaru

Well, I really didn't address the welfare system at all, merely that more money is being placed there than any other facet of government and it's responsible for most of the national debt. You can make whatever case you want about the benefits of healthcare and human services and I won't argue with you - the substantial problem here, however, is that we cannot afford to pay for it as is clearly evidenced by the deficit and the percentage of that that is comprised of Health and Human Services.

---

Can we afford our government at all? It's not a matter of how much money is being placed where so much as it is a HUGE waste no matter where it goes. People complaining about the military being underfunded need a wake up call. The money is threre (it accounts for 1/3 of government spending) but the money is not used efficiently, towards effective programs, and being wasted, or worse yet, lost. Actually lost. 428 Billion a year on defence is what we spend not counting conflicts (wherein an additonal sum is spent). The next most expensive military force (Brittish) spends 38 Billion a year.

It was roughly 200 Billion a year under Clinton. 400 after 9/11 and 428 after a hike last year.

Homeland Security recives none of this. It has its own budget of 280 Million, woefully underfunded, though much better managed.

Defence is only one example, albeit the largest, of over-funded, under-managed and (quite possibly) down-right corrupt government agencys with reguards to spending. They cannot account for all of their spending, they spend too much and always need more even when not directly in combat. When wars or campaigns arise, more money is required. Like paying for a fire department and when a fire breaks out, they need at least half a year in advance to put it out on top of the annual amount they recive.


But yeah. Welfare sure is draining us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tracer

428 Billion a year on defence is what we spend not counting conflicts (wherein an additonal sum is spent). The next most expensive military force (Brittish) spends 38 Billion a year.

---

We desperately need to allow competition between manufacturers for production of military products, I'm pretty sure that's a BIG part of the costs... goods manufactured for military use are only produced by a few companies, which charge a huge amount because they can. IIRC, I read something along the lines of a simple hammer costing the military like $75 each... just ludicrous.