It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

2008 Conservative Presidential Candidates

page: 29
15
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 10 2007 @ 01:32 AM
link   
OK assuming that a Republican wins the 08 election and one follows Justin thinking I must raise a couple of questions.
How would an Republican president withdraw a single troop from Iraq without causing a revolt in his own party ?
How How would an Republican president with his own party revolting against him as soon as he takes office ?




posted on Jun, 10 2007 @ 02:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
OK assuming that a Republican wins the 08 election and one follows Justin thinking I must raise a couple of questions. How would a Republican president withdraw a single troop from Iraq without causing a revolt in his own party?


First and foremost, the President...whoever that is...is the Constitutionally designated Commander in chief. He or She can give orders to the military as they see fit. the party may not like it, but can't nay-say it unless they can legally challenge it in court. Congress can chooseto not fund anything the President does, but its real hard to un-fund a military withdrawl.


Originally posted by xpert11
How How would a Republican president with his own party revolting against him [do that] as soon as he takes office?


I understand what you meant to say. As one of their first official acts, the President can advise the Secretary of Defense that he/she is going to order the military to begin a withdrawl from Iraq. By official order, the President may then direct the Joint Chiefs of Staff to commence that withdrawl on whatever time table that the President specifies.

Let's remember that the withdrawl from Vietnam was not popular with Republicans when Mr. Nixon started what he called "the process of Vietnamization." I'm sure Don can tell us more from actual memory, when he checks in.



posted on Jun, 10 2007 @ 02:54 AM
link   
Sorry I wasn't very clear to begin with I understand that the possible future Republican President could order the withdrawl from Iraq. I am trying to ask is what would happen when the flock turns on there leader ?
While Republican members of Congress couldn't stop the withdrawl they could turn on the President and perhaps stop his legislative program.



posted on Jun, 10 2007 @ 09:40 AM
link   


posted by xpert11

The next president will need to deal with the misadventure in Iraq. The Iraq misadventure isn’t a death kneel to the War on Terror. [Edited by Don W]


On September 12, 2001, we and to a lesser extent the world had choices. I begged people to stop, look, and ask, WHY did those people do that? Hardly anyone, nay, I cannot recall anyone, wanting to take time to look at the motive behind the Nine Eleven Event. Why did 19 otherwise rational Arab men give up their (comfortable) futures to work such a horrid event on a far off place? It did not happen in a vacuum. No! That’s too hard. I'm pretty sure B41 called B43 late on September 11 and said, "Sonny, you have just been re-elected in '04! War trumps Economy. Go for it!” We (as a leaderless people also) wanted only vengeance, not understanding! Simple minded, blind vengeance. And Bush43 led the charge!

Battle of Balaclava
Half a league, half a league,
Half a league onward,
All in the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.

Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them,
Cannon behind them
Volley'd and thunder'd;

When can their glory fade?
O the wild charge they made!
All the world wondered.

Honor the charge they made,
Honor the Light Brigade,
[Honor the] Noble six hundred.


From A. Lord Tennyson

When the 1993 explosion in one of the WTC took place, Pres. Clinton said it was a criminal act. He sent the FBI after the perpetrators. After 4 years, the leader was found, put in custody, taken to court, tried and found guilty. Today, the “blind” sheik is in prison.

In 1993, We did not construct a Guantanamo Bay prison, off shore to avoid the reach of America’s courts. That’s one heck of a bad motive and tells you something up front about the people in charge. Like AG Gonzales. Clinton did not suspend civil liberties via the Patriot Act nor did he sign a plethora of secret executive orders. Clinton had people around him who were members of the CFR - Council on Foreign Relations - an old study group of like minded persons - anyone can join for $245 a year. People who knew about foreign countries other than Mexico. No slur meant to Mexico. Knowledge either as a vocations or an avocation. But knowledge and understanding. Not grads of Liberty College and other religion-inspired institutes of dubious standards of learning that Bush43 had and has around him. Faith counts more than knowledge in this GOP administration.

The UN was ready in ‘01 to help us seek out those wrong-doers and bring them to justice. Instead, here we are, 6 years later, Osama is still at large, and we have killed 10,000 in Afghan, 70,000 in Iraq, lost 4,000 of our own and 1,000s of others; spent $1 t. and counting and have violated our own political liberty heritage for which so many gave their all; we have tortured and we ran Abu Ghraib until we were caught; ran secret prisons in Europe and elsewhere and violated every law we ever wrote ;and we are in worse shape today that we were on September 10. All of this thanks to Bush43. America’s FIRST Neo Con president.

Bush43 is a poorly educated Texas big mouth whose rich and powerful Daddy got him unearned degrees from America's "best" universities. A man who shoots first and asks questions later, if at all. He is single minded - simple minded too - and he has no depth of thought. This is HIS War on Terror and as soon as we can cancel it and begin to use our brains, and save 90% of the money we are squandering on fireworks and 100% of the lives, the better off we and the world will be.



The idea occurred to me that the free world should set a goal of defeating Islamic extremism within ten years and go on a complete war footing like nations did in WW2. It wont happen but its worth thinking about and it’s a topic for another thread as well. [Edited by Don W]


You cannot kill an idea. Even if we think it a bad one. We must acknowledge the pott-1922 role played by Euro-Americans in Arab affairs. We must for once "see" the harm we did in 1948 when we were acting on good motives to give Jewish people a secure homeland. We had no regard for the people who lived there. They were dumb camel riding A-rabs. You know the litany. And now those ill advised chickens are coming home to roost. There will be no peace with Islam until this is resolved, fairly.

Well, it is a bit on the edge of this thread, but it does relate to choosing the Conservative candidate to succeed Bush43. Whoever the next president is, he or she will have ONE golden opportunity to bring rationality and common sense to our self-destructive self-proclaimed War on Terror. To bring to bear the much touted often ballyhooed American traits of pragmatism and improvisation. (As if we were the only people on this planet who are pragmatic and capable of improvising?)

We made all the wrong choices in ‘01. OK, that’s understandable, we were surprised and we were scared. Geez, the Prez was hiding on AF1, and the VP was GOD knows where. In some luxo ‘spider hole’ I’d guess. Two draft dodgers on the run. I’m glad for the world in 1941 we had Roosevelt and Churchill instead of George Bush and Dick Cheney. Heck, if we had had B43 and VP Cheney, we’d all be saying Zeig Heil!

[edit on 6/10/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Jun, 10 2007 @ 08:56 PM
link   
Just a few days after the events of 9/11, I convened a meeting of my inner circle to discuss ongoing edits in my first novel, which was not then finished. I had made a few guesses that were 9/11-like, but not on target. I used the occasion of that meeting to pick the brains of the people I trust most. We all agreed that Afghanistan was the obvious and logical target for Ameircan vengence.

We also agreed that Iraq would be the most foolish military adventure to be undertaken...which meant...it would be the most likely second strike made by President Bush. I can't prove any of this, except to say that you'll notice some things in my writing that will bear out those edits.

You need to understand one thing about political science people. We joke about the Feds doing the most stupid things imaginable, but there is some validity to our thinking. If it's the wrong thing to do, we joke that our leaders will be the first ones to recommend it. We are seldom wrong. That's not a good thing. That's just what it is.

Old School conservatism failed us totally when the esteemed members of Congress decided to allow a two front war without greater mobilization. During a large gathering during Thanksgiving of that year (2001), I found myself to be the soul minority opinion. "Nobody is that stupid," they said. Iraq was unthinkable to those reasonable and rational party-goers.

Okay, yes. I did make a few friendly wagers. Yes, I did eventually collect on all of them. It was easy money, and I don't feel bad that I profited from Iraq in that way. If it's good enough for Haliburton, its good enough for me.



posted on Jun, 10 2007 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite
The UN was ready in ‘01 to help us seek out those wrong-doers and bring them to justice. Instead, here we are, 6 years later, Osama is still at large, and we have killed 10,000 in Afghan, 70,000 in Iraq, lost 4,000 of our own and 1,000s of others; spent $1 t. and counting and have violated our own political liberty heritage for which so many gave their all; we have tortured and we ran Abu Ghraib until we were caught; ran secret prisons in Europe and elsewhere and violated every law we ever wrote ;and we are in worse shape today that we were on September 10. All of this thanks to Bush43. America’s FIRST Neo Con president.


Back up the truck there is a difference between supporting the War on Terror and supporting torture. Powell has spoken out against Guantanamo Bay and the system used to try the detainees. You can guarantee if the detainees were held in the US the locals who live near the prison would cry foul. I agree that Bush as been a disaster as a leader of any kind. The US must recapture the moral high ground this is something which the Republican party seems to be incapable of doing expect for maybe McCain.

After 9-11 many nations supported the War on Terror initial aims you could fill a room full with the flags of the nations that took part in the invasion of Afghanistan. The US wasn't prepared to deal with the post invasion insurgency (some how this happened in Iraq to ! ) and instead of committing the resources to win the war in Afghanistan Bush and co started there own war in the ME. So in less then four years the Bush admin managed to alienate most of the support it gained post 9-11 that's quiet a feat.

You cant just quit the real War on Terror (Iraq is excluded ) because the going has gotten tough. As for the causalities the free world and its leaders have to be prepared to make sacrifices or perish.

It wasn't just the Conservative movement in the US that suffered a leadership failure many of the Dems supported the Iraq war. Those of us who opposed the War in Iraq from the beginning have been vindicated and the wars supporters can now only harp on about defeating the extremists in Iraq. Never mind about the fact that there are terrorists in Iraq then there was before the war.

Rommel said at best.
"Don't fight a battle if you don't gain anything by winning. "

Now I'm more of a hawk then a dove But I oppose any war that the doesn't gain anything useful or further the security of the free world.

The next occupant of the oval office needs to restore trust and faith in the US as the leader of the free world and the War on Terror. I am in now way convinced that any of the candidates on either side of the fence could do this.





Former US Secretary of State Colin Powell says the US military prison at Guantanamo Bay for foreign terrorism suspects should be immediately closed and its inmates moved to the United States.

Powell, who in a 2003 speech to the UN Security Council made the case for war against Iraq for possessing weapons of mass destruction that were never found, said the controversial prison in Cuba has become a "major problem" for the United States' image abroad and has done more harm than good.

"Guantanamo has become a major, major problem ... in the way the world perceives America, and if it were up to me I would close Guantanamo not tomorrow but this afternoon ... and I would not let any of those people go. I would simply move them to the United States and put them into our federal legal system," Powell told NBC's Meet the Press.


source





Well, it is a bit on the edge of this thread, but it does relate to choosing the Conservative candidate to succeed Bush43. Whoever the next president is, he or she will have ONE golden opportunity to bring rationality and common sense to our self-destructive self-proclaimed War on Terror. To bring to bear the much touted often ballyhooed American traits of pragmatism and improvisation. (As if we were the only people on this planet who are pragmatic and capable of improvising?)


Well I can tell you that globally Americans aren't known for there improvisation. While you cant kill an idea you can deny the enemy havens and allow people to live under the umbrella of democracy. The extremists can be isolated by the moderate Muslims and then defeated. Don by your logic after Pearl Harbour the US should have issued arrest warrants for Japanese leaders rather then declare war.

[edit on 10-6-2007 by xpert11]

[edit on 10-6-2007 by xpert11]



posted on Jun, 11 2007 @ 05:11 AM
link   
OR

One Man's Terrorist is Another Man's Hero!



posted by xpert11
Back up the truck! There is a difference between supporting the War on Terror and supporting torture. You could fill a room with the flags of the nations that took part in the invasion of Afghanistan. The US wasn't prepared to deal with the post invasion insurgency. Instead of committing the resources to win the war in Afghanistan Bush and Co started there own war in the ME. [Edited by Don W]


There could be a difference between supporting the WoT and torture, but there is not. Our Maximum Leaders have obviously signed off on torture. B43, VP Cheney and Rumsfeld. The JCOS went along to get along. You do not need secret prisons, rendition, military tribunals and enemy combatant status to do honorable things. Abu Ghraib showed they misread the American public and gave not a dam about world opinion. That philosophy is part and parcel with Neo Con strategic thinking. And patronizing us and thinking of themselves as wise Machiavelli Jrs reborn. The Bush43 mantra is about spreading democracy in the Middle East. That is his goal in Iraq, “A stable democracy able to defend itself and friendly to the United States” or sometimes he says, “friendly to the West.” But he does not define what he means by "democracy." (I doubt he knows. In his world, it’s irrelevant).

When we add in those qualifiers, then we get the glum message that we’re looking at 10 to 20 years of fighting and struggling in Iraq. Whatever the merits of that goal are, we simply cannot afford to put $2 b. a week over there. Plain and simple. A Boy Scout Jamboree yes, a WoT in Iraq, no. As at Las Vegas, when you have lost your stake, it is time to go home. Do not “borrow” on the “if come” line. After you’re broke, it ain’t gonna get any better.


You can’t just quit the real War on Terror (Iraq I exclude) because the going has gotten tough. The US must recapture the moral high ground. This is something which the Republican party seems incapable of doing expect maybe for McCain. As for the causalities the free world and its leaders have to be prepared to make sacrifices or perish.


Probably the reason you and I have diametrically opposing POV on the de-merits of losing the Bush43 type WoT is that I was alive and well all during the earlier American mis-adventure into South Vietnam. I was in the Air Force at MacDill AFB when JFK was assassinated. I have seen the escalation under Johnson. I have seen the original tv segment where the US Army captain said, “We had to destroy the village to save it.” Every sensitive and thoughtful person in America knew then and there we had lost that war.

Give the Iraqi people some credit, please. They will end the civil war when it appears to them it is time to end it. We don’t know why or what motivates them and we sure as heck can’t stop it as we have watched for 4 years. But they will not go further than they want to go or need to go. This is not the first civil war in the world. Give them credit. They are after all, 5,000 years into this civilization thing. Compared to our 400. Hmm?

So how do we get out of Iraq? Nixon ran in ‘68 promising he “had a plan” to end the Vietnam War. He (being Nixon) barely won. Instead of ending the war as the voters wanted, he prolonged the war 6 or 7 more years. 22,000 of the KIA were on his watch. That's really dying in vain. No wonder we had a small war on the streets of America. We have been there and done that. We’ve heard all the dire predictions. Bloodbaths. Hegemony. For me this is a tragic re-run of history.

We paid 59,000 KIA in Vietnam. We killed many more than 1 million of those good folks, 99% of whom fit the popular definition of “innocent.” A word which I don’t like and almost never use. We talk about that - killing 1 million people - as if it was nothing more complicated than killing mosquitos. We have no regard (here) for lives lost other than our own and dam little for those. OK, end of tirade.


The next occupant of the oval office needs to restore trust and faith in the US as the leader of the free world AND the War on Terror. I am in no way convinced that any of the candidates on either side of the fence could do this.


There will never be trust for the United States around the world until we settle the Arab-Israeli Dispute that we - the US - created in 1948. If we do that and do it right, then we will have respect. The WoT - itself a serious misnomer - chosen under the discredited Goebbels doctrine - as envisioned by Bush443 is a fraud on the world.

A realistic WoT is worth a multi-national force of 2 or 3 brigades and the application of some brains. We can end this WoT anytime we will seriously address the underlying causes. Anytime. We do not have to solve the problems to end the WoT. Which began for the West in 1922. But we do have to seriously address the problems. It's not a four letter word but it is a three letter word. O I L

[edit on 6/11/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Jun, 11 2007 @ 06:13 AM
link   
Flawed logic IMO do you believe McCain doesn't support the War on Terror because he opposes the use of torture ?
Iraq is a no win situation all round as for paying the war in Iraq and the War on well there is no need for private firms to do jobs that the US military can do perfectly well and most likely for less . Throw in an more competitive defence industry and then re appraise the cost of the current wars. After taking the above measures if the war is still unaffordable then the option of reducing spending in other areas or raising taxes could be looked into. I do see your point many Americans would cry foul if there taxes went up but they would also cry foul if the War on Terror was ended on economic gains.

Your a bit off base in your next section thou no fault of your own. While I wasn't yet born when the Vietnam War raged I have seen some of the after effects because my dad who was with the Australian contingent lost an eye after some one near him trigged a land mine. The US wasn't the only nation scared by the Vietnam war. Incidentally Vietnam was another war that was lost due to poor leadership , mismanagement and the We had to destroy the village to save it mentality.

Hollywood obliged the aspects of the American public who refused to admit that the US lost the Vietnam war with the one wins the war and frees the POW movies. Just wait until Chuck Norris goes into Iraq and single handily wins the war on the big screen.

As I have said the Arab-Israeli situation needs to be solved within the region. I would say that Bush and co leadership is a fraud rather then the concept of the War on Terror. The war in Afghanistan is winnable via military means the US Army and Marines should have been expanded after 9-11 to ensure that the US had the resources needed to win the war in Afghanistan.

The War on Terror has had it success its just that no one has heard of them see this thread
Maybe post 9-11 many Americans thought that the coalition would invade Afghanistan and the war would be won by Christmas.

[edit on 11-6-2007 by xpert11]



posted on Jun, 11 2007 @ 06:52 AM
link   


posted by xpert11

Flawed logic IMO. Do you believe McCain doesn't support the War on Terror because he opposes the use of torture?


I don’t know where he stands on torture. After 6 years in the Hanoi Hilton he should have an insider’s POV on that. I thought McCain did support the WoT as now being waged. At least he is backing the Bush43 surge.

I grow so weary of listening to people asking me to vote for them 18 months from now, I cannot believe I live in such a place. Sweet Jesus! Is it not the law of the UK that an election must be held not sooner than 30 days nor longer than 60 days when a government falls? Even the every 5 years term of Parliament does not have a fixed election date, does it?



Iraq is a no win situation all round. As for paying for the war in Iraq and the War on Terror well there is no need for private firms to do jobs that the US military can do perfectly well and most likely for less .


Yes but. Under Clinton and Rumsfeld, but not for the same reasons, the US Military was shrunk. I believe we have 1.2 million men and women in uniform. 450K Army, 300K Navy, 300K AF and 120K USMC. The Rumsfeld vision was an America capable of waging a number of quick strike high intensity wars around the globe - hey, we’re into global hegemony - with 1 or 2 brigades transported and supported by the 12 super carrier battle groups. They probably planned on up to 6 engagements at one time. You know, putting down dissenters. Putting down people who don’t like ExxonMobil or United Fruit Company. Etc. What we call spreading democracy.



Throw in an more competitive defense industry and then re appraise the cost of the current wars.


Can’t be done. It never was, really, but it looked like it was to outsiders and insiders had no reason to complain. In War 2 everybody built all he could of what he was building. All contracts were negotiated then as now. There is only one company here that can build nuclear subs. Electric Boat owned by General Dynamics. I read the US is planning a replacement for the B52 and it will be a manned bomber. Only Boeing or Lockheed Martin can build it. As in the F22 when one gets the General Contract, the other gets the major sub-contracting. One is designated the “lead” contractor. With high tech and low volume, competition is not in the cards.



I do see your point many Americans would cry foul if their taxes went up but they would also cry foul if the War on Terror was ended on economic grounds.


Yes to the former, but I’m not sure about the latter. You know this anti-tax thing started with Ronald Reagan. Before that, Nixon, Ford, and all the presidents ahead of them regarded paying taxes as a civic obligation. Good citizenship at work. Reagan OTOH, hated government. He said so. He knew that Congress would not vote to end all the programs it funds. NIH, National Institute of Health. CDC. Center for Disease Control. Food Stamps which is part of the Agricultural subsidy. And so on. So he and his gang concocted this scheme that if they could reduce the governments income - cut taxes - then he could accomplish by de-funding what he could not accomplish on up or down votes in Congress. And here we are, we don’t want to pay for the War on Terror although we are waned America will be either seriously wounded or destroyed if we don’t wage it indefinitely. But no taxes to pay for the war. You figure.



The War on Terror has had it success its just that no one has heard of them . . Maybe post 9-11 many Americans thought that the coalition would invade Afghanistan and the war would be won by Christmas.


I’d like to agree but at this moment, I can’t recall a “success” that has not dissipated later. Or is it disappeared?

[edit on 6/11/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Jun, 11 2007 @ 07:25 AM
link   


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Arizona Sen. John McCain used his own experience as a prisoner of war in Vietnam to explain why he does not believe in torturing suspects.

"When I was in Vietnam, one of the things that sustained us as we underwent torture ourselves is the knowledge that if we had our positions reversed and we were the captors, we would not impose that kind of treatment on them," McCain said. "It's not about the terrorists, it's about us. It's about what kind of country we are."


source


Rumsfeld puzzles me his own ideas that he put into practice went directly against the current needs of the US military. Despite the US military already relying to much on technology Rumsfeld wanted to increase the reliance on technology and shrink the size of the US military in order to create a flexible force that could fight cold war style limited wars.

World War Two was a differnt kettle of fish there were far more Aircraft manufactures around then. Other then aspects of weapons systems that have to be developed in the US for national security reason there is no legit reason why the likes of vehicles and ships couldn't come from overseas firms. The way to go would be to have overseas defence firms based in the US so the market remains competitive without large job losses.

Questions do need to be asked about how the US is going to pay for the War on Terror but the media and the public are more interested in Pairs Hilton going to jail. At some point American Conservatives may call for the privation of Social Security in order to pay for the war without a tax hike.

Personally I am a moderate supporter low taxes and free market but I am not glued completely to either concept.



posted on Jun, 11 2007 @ 09:57 AM
link   


posted by xpert11

Sen. John McCain used his own experience as a prisoner of war in Vietnam to explain why he does not believe in torturing suspects. McCain said. "It's not about the terrorists, it's about us. It's about what kind of country we are." [Edited by Don W]


Exactly. There is no dishonor in being tortured, but there is no honor in being a torturer. Or, who wants to live in a country where many of your soldiers and secret agents are trained experts in torture? We had that once upon a time. The US Army ran a school for Latin American countries called the School of the Americas.

After the fact, we discovered many of the torturers of native people - often tortured to death in the 1960s and 1970s in Central America - in our War on Communism - had been trained in the Army‘s School of the Americas. Someone revealed a Torture Manual bearing the school’s imprimatur. I recall one incident were 4 Maryknoll nuns were stripped naked, raped and “baptized” in a septic tank in Guatemala before being shoot to death. I wonder how much good intel the perpetrators gleaned before the murders? Make up your own mind. News in 1980, Óscar Arnulfo Romero Archbishop of San Salvador, was assassinated by gunshot shortly after his homily. His death provoked an outcry for human rights reform in El Salvador. At the Church of San Sebastian, where Bishop Gerardi was killed on April 26, 1998, just two days after releasing a report blaming the country's military for most of the violence during Guatemala's 36-year civil war. Pres. Dwight Eisenhower’s administration campaigned to destroy the popularly elected Guatemalan government of Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán (1950–1954). Attacked by unknown individuals immediately after taking part in an event commemorating the killing of six Jesuit priests by the security forces in 1989. End of Story but NOT the end of viciousness on somebody's part who is highly placed. Who gains by this mayhem?

Although our Government denied any role in the Maryknoll atrocity, or in the assassinations in El Salvador or Nicarauga, some of the officers in charge of the Guatemalan soldiers were graduates of the School of the Americas. I believe it was Jimmy Carter who ordered the school closed. I also believe Bush43 has reactivated it. I guess it is a tool in the spreading of democracy, American style?



Rumsfeld wanted to increase reliance on technology and shrink the size of the US military in order to create a flexible force that could fight cold war style limited wars. The way to go would be to have overseas defense firms based in the US so the market remains competitive without large job losses.


I’m not sure that would work. It is only capital that counts. Money. Profit. Not labor. There is no regard for lost jobs except on election day then all the candidates are against it. To say otherwise is to be naive. We already out source more of our defense industry that many people think wise. There was a brouhaha recently when someone discovered some of the “secret” work on planes was being done in China.

When we first let capital move inhibited about the globe, the game was lost. Us non-capital types are just now catching up to what began in the 1960s. Like gravity, it accelerates according to time squared. What with capital - say money - 'owning' the legislatures of the world - even China has gone under - it is the worst of all times for laboring people. Who would ever have thought it was to be China that represented the last best hope for mankind?



Questions do need to be asked about how the US is going to pay for the War on Terror.


As they say in court, “asked and answered.” It’s called tax burden shift. You shift the burden from today until tomorrow, by borrowing instead of taxing. This has a multiplier effect for the Rich and Famous, because money made surplus by borrowing is now available to buy debt. So the $100K you don’t pay in taxes is used to buy 20 year US bonds at 5%. You reap the benefit of the untaxed money all your life - interest - and you can leave the bonds - principal - to your children who get a head start! Which is why I urge the continuance of the estate tax. It is an economic disaster in the making.



At some point American Conservatives may call for the privation of Social Security in order to pay for the war without a tax hike.


No. That won’t work. Ordinary people can’t grasp “tax shifting” but they know a good thing when they see it. Putting your retirement money in the stock market is nearly as bad as going to Las Vegas. In “retirement” you want a sure thing, only the US Government - bad as it is - is a sure thing.



I am a moderate supporter low taxes and free market but I am not glued completely to either concept.


Well, we need to keep current in public outlays when we are in economic good times. In a recession or depression there is a good excuse to borrow. Keynesian economics. Pump priming. Etc. As for a “free” market, where is one? It is offered to the poor as an illusion and cover for the Rich. If “Free” means unrestrained, yes, we have one. We have mainly a monopoly market. Called a ‘free” market by those who are getting richer in it. Or off it. Etc.

[edit on 6/11/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Jun, 11 2007 @ 03:46 PM
link   
the bulk of our success in the War on Terror have originated in Afghanistan. It's worth noting that the two thaters are very different in their contrasts. In general terms, we are wanted in Afghanistan and the NATO committment is significant. Our lack of troops in the region seems to be wwhat keeps us from the decisive 'win,' but the mere fact that the average Afghani wants us there in the first place makes all the difference.

There is one other factor of note in Afghanistan. The government of Hamid Karzai. He's had no choice but to make a lot of conecessions to the warlords who put him in office, but he is building a government from the ground up that his people seem content to live with. There's a lot they don't like about it, ut they know that thay have it in their power to change things in the long run.

That contrasts severely with the regime of PM Al Malaki in Iraq. Malaki wakes up each day wondering if he still has a job.



posted on Jun, 11 2007 @ 05:21 PM
link   

posted by Justin Oldham
The bulk of our success in the War on Terror have originated in Afghanistan. It's worth noting that the two theaters are very different. In general terms, we are wanted in Afghanistan and the NATO commitment is significant. Our lack of troops in the region seems to be what keeps us from the decisive 'win,' but the mere fact that the average Afghani wants us there in the first place makes all the difference.

There is one other factor of note in Afghanistan. The government of Hamid Karzai. He's had no choice but to make a lot of concessions to the warlords who put him in office, but he is building a government from the ground up that his people seem content to live with. There's a lot they don't like about it, but they know that they have it in their power to change things in the long run.

That contrasts severely with the regime of PM Al Malaki in Iraq. Malaki wakes up each day wondering if he still has a job.


Well put Mr J/O. Concise. Competent. Comprehensive. Complete. And yes, compassionate.

[edit on 6/11/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Jun, 12 2007 @ 03:32 PM
link   
There are any number of ways for the Republicans to sell either war, but they're slaves to a poorly written party line. It hurts me to see so many candidates going down to defeat because of bad management at "the top."



posted on Jun, 12 2007 @ 07:03 PM
link   
Well it shouldn't be to hard for the Republican spin doctors to sell the war in Afghanistan the northern parts of the country are relatively stable and the coalition still flies under many flags.
The only hard question to answer would be.
why isnt the reconstruction taking place in the Northern Afghanistan ?
Of course the answer is that the funds that could have been used for reconstruction have been blown and then some on the Iraq Iraq misadventure. Maybe Halliburton cant adjust from feeding US troops to building power plants.

Of course the Republican party spin doctors cant say either of those things.
The Iraq war is naturally near impossible to sell because the war had no strategic objective to begin with. The reasons for the Iraq war changed as it suited the Bush admin.



posted on Jun, 16 2007 @ 11:01 PM
link   
I've noticed Senator McCain on the t.v. trying to sell the immigration bill, and it doesn't seem to matter who's network he is on. He can't sell it. GOP leaders in every State are in the same boat. They can't carry this water for this President.



posted on Jun, 17 2007 @ 12:50 AM
link   
I'd say Mitt Romney, though he is Mormon. At least they aren't warmongers!



posted on Jun, 17 2007 @ 03:51 AM
link   
Any President, regardless of party, could be sucked in to something like Iraq. Being wrong is not the province of just one political party or ideology. Let's remember that after she takes office, Hillary could make the decision to go after Iran. Not likely, but she could. She could also be proven wrong about her choices.



posted on Jun, 17 2007 @ 05:04 AM
link   
Well if McCain and any of the Republican candidates haven't yet figured out that it is politically unwise to be connected to anything that Bush supports they never will work it out. As for notion that other leaders could have been sucked into Iraq well the leaders that supported the war failed the leadership mandrel badly. It true that other leaders could have done the same thing due to the leadership drought on capital hill.

You have to hold your leaders because they (should ) serve you and your fellow man.

[edit on 17-6-2007 by xpert11]



posted on Jun, 18 2007 @ 07:09 PM
link   
Well, Rudy lost his play book at one point and how Barack Obama has had THiS happen to him. Proof that we are all human. I don't know who Obama's chief of staff is, but that person needs to get on the ball.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join