RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions


Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )


Seems like even some conservatives are(30 posts)

Seems like even some conservatives areOldEdScott
Sep 8, 2003 5:27 AM
starting to worry that this Iraq situation is spiraling out of control. Did anyone find the President's speech last night reassuring?

I for one was sobered by it, literally and figuratively. All partisan politics aside, this has become a very nasty business with no easy resolution, and (if you want to think politically about it) BOTH parties are going to have some real trouble dealing with it.
I'm really worried...Dwayne Barry
Sep 8, 2003 5:41 AM
about the economic consequences of this whole deal. Fighting terrorism added enough of a burden, but invading Iraq seems to be taking it over the top. I know Bush et al. try to lump Iraq in with the fighting terrorism issue which it actually has become somewhat (talk about a self-fulfilling prophecy).

The one thing about conservatives that I used to be attracted to was their fiscal responsibility. That seems to be totally thrown out the window now.
why don't we just confiscate oil to pay for it? nmDougSloan
Sep 8, 2003 6:32 AM
that's the part I don't getmohair_chair
Sep 8, 2003 7:05 AM
Iraq is sitting on top of all this oil, and Bush wants ME to pay for the war? That's just a bad joke. As far as I am concerned, Iraq should be footing the entire bill. If what we are doing there is so great for the people of Iraq, I'm sure THEY won't mind paying for it.
That would be Big Government coersion.czardonic
Sep 8, 2003 10:04 AM
We need to put these resources in the hands of private interests, otherwise they will be squandered by bureaucrats. Right?

And of course the profits made by multi-national oil conglomerates will inevitably trickle down to the Iraqi people. I can't think of any logical basis for that assumption, but I am assured that this is simply the way that things work.
"to victor goes spoils" trumps privatization nmDougSloan
Sep 8, 2003 10:12 AM
But why should the Government get the money? It's THEIR moneyOldEdScott
Sep 8, 2003 10:25 AM
etc etc.

Wait a minute, wrong argument.
spoken like a true imperialist.rufus
Sep 8, 2003 5:27 PM
last i knew, there was vehement argument by those on the right that this war was "not about the oil". in fact, there were many arguments made to justify this action, and none of them were about seizing iraqi oil industry or profits. in fact, they went out of their way to state just the opposite. and now this is exactly what you advocate.

the iraqi people did not ask us to invade their country, although many are probably very happy now that we have. furthermore, the oil that lies under their land belongs to them to use as they see fit, and not simply to be turned over to us. it's there oil, and if we care anything at all about the sovereignty of nations, and people being free to do what they wish, we cannot simply annex their oil industry. although i daresay the agreements that we've been writing for their "provisional government" to abide by have probably already done so.

i don't like my tax dollars going to this any more than you do. in fact, there were many opposition voices before this war who predicted that we would find ourselves in just the position we have today, voices that were conveniently shouted down, laughed off, or simply ignored by this administration. like it or not, the mess we're in today is one of our own creation, and we're the ones responsible for fixing it.
Hey, it's our God given right to extract raw materialsOldEdScott
Sep 9, 2003 8:14 AM
from our colonies, isn't it? I mean, that's why we have an Empire, right? You don't go to all the bother of invading and occupying these nasty little hellholes without getting SOMETHING in return, you know?
but this is to pay for their own rebuilding nmDougSloan
Sep 9, 2003 8:19 AM
fine, once they have a legitimate government in placerufus
Sep 9, 2003 9:10 AM
then the iraqi people can make the decisions about who they want to contract to rebuild these things, and who they want their oil profits being sent to as payment.

instead of our phony iraqi team signing all these contracts for them and channelling multi-billion dollar contracts to halliburton and brown-root, et al. if the iraqis want a german or french company doing the work, they they should be able to make that decision. except we won't let them. as you said, we conquered it, now it's ours to exploit.
After we tore it down.OldEdScott
Sep 9, 2003 9:34 AM
Like me kicking your door down to save you from an intruder, then stealing money from your wallet to fix it. Just as an analogy.

I agree oil money should be used to pay for rebuilding, but 'to the victor goes the spoils' is indeed an imperialist statement.
more like...DougSloan
Sep 9, 2003 9:38 AM
More like the fire department putting out a fire at your house and then sending you the bill.

Doug
maybe not; never mind nmDougSloan
Sep 9, 2003 9:40 AM
The fire department doesn't ususally start the fires. (nm)czardonic
Sep 9, 2003 9:41 AM
rough analogy, I realize, but the idea was that Saddam did nmDougSloan
Sep 9, 2003 9:44 AM
let's bomb the crap out of southern africarufus
Sep 9, 2003 10:15 AM
and then get debeers to pay for its reconstruction with their diamonds.
What do you mean by "spiraling out of control"?TJeanloz
Sep 8, 2003 6:16 AM
From a political perspective, vis-a-vis the Bush reelection drive, I think the Iraq situation may be spiraling out of control.

From an on-the-ground, military perspective, I don't think Iraq is anywhere near out of control. I don't really know what people expected.

It's hard to say what the actual results are, yet. There is some terrorism on American troops - but if terrorists are too preoccupied with Tikrit to worry about bombing Los Angeles, I'm O.K. with that.

The issue of the week of greater concern was last week's jobless claim reports. The first bad economic news in weeks, and, after all, it is the economy, stupid.
Many always have been, Just to afraid to break ranks.Treason128
Sep 8, 2003 7:02 AM
as Republicans call talking back.

Are Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld (Cheney??) as neo-con figureheads about to take the fall as scapegoats for the fumble (No plan-after, little international support, too agressive, too closey sold as the terrorist threat) in Iraq?
While the old guard Republicans come back into the Presidential fold and try to get the mission back on track? (i.e A smarter approach to the mid-east and terrorist crises- a still VERY aggrssive approach I do support, but more finesse, more tactical.)

Reassuring? No way. Unsettling as he sends Powell back to square one, asks for an additional 87 billion dollar loan from the taxpayers, and continues to push for tax cuts. It's bad math.
"Continues to push for tax cuts"?TJeanloz
Sep 8, 2003 7:16 AM
Are there more proposed tax cuts? I though we were pretty much through cutting for a while.
I knew I was gonna get called on that. "continues to support"128
Sep 8, 2003 7:24 AM
tax cuts, as in to justify them in the face of such fiscal hemmoraging. Yes we are through cutting. We're hitting bone now.

You caught a great game in the Bronx, eh? 11-0.
Reasonably, yesterday was betterTJeanloz
Sep 8, 2003 7:31 AM
3-1 was the better game. Just a worse outcome. I've never seen so many Sox fans at Yankee Stadium, but definitely a fun weekend.

I find it interesting that people feel like we've got a tax cut from our "normal" level of taxation, and we should go back, as opposed to we have reestablished a new tax level. Any change now would not be a tax cut repeal, but a tax increase...
aren't some of the cuts phased in over years?ColnagoFE
Sep 8, 2003 7:38 AM
For instance the inheritance tax...doesn't that cut increase over time?
Good point,TJeanloz
Sep 8, 2003 7:42 AM
That is a good point. But if you want to go there, you have to point out that many (most?) of the cuts have 'sunset' clauses, which make them temporary in nature regardless. This is true of the estate tax, which will go from 0 to whatever it was last year in, I believe, 2011.

I don't know what the income tax curves look like.
actually, bush and his economic advisorsrufus
Sep 8, 2003 5:30 PM
support a plan of cutting taxes every year. i don't have a source i can link to, but i read it somewhere not too long ago.
Wow. Rummy edges closer to charges of 'Treason!'OldEdScott
Sep 8, 2003 9:23 AM
Rumsfeld Strikes Back at Critics of U.S. Effort on Terror
By DOUGLAS JEHL

HANNON, Ireland, Sept. 8 — With costs and casualties rising in the war on terrorism, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld struck back today at the administration's widening circle of critics, saying they were complicating an already difficult task.

Mr. Rumsfeld did not mention any of the domestic critics by name. But he suggested that those who have been critical of the administration's handling of the war in Iraq and its aftermath might be encouraging American foes to believe that the United States might one day walk away from the effort, as it has in past conflicts.

(This is yellow journalism from the New York Times)
Wow. Rummy edges closer to charges of 'Treason!'Jon Billheimer
Sep 8, 2003 10:06 AM
More neocon disingenuousness. The prescription seems to be if what we're doing doesn't work, the cure is more of the same. And any rational being who questions either our premises or tactics is aiding and abetting the enemy.

Frankly I found Bush's remarks both lame and graceless. He doesn't have the integrity to admit that his major premise for leading the country into this debacle was totally baseless and false. Nor will he admit that the entire plan itself is tragicomically flawed. But he does have the balls to beg the U.N., who he and his administration dismissed as irrelevant, to help carry the can.
Bush the Father & his people seem to agree.OldEdScott
Sep 8, 2003 10:19 AM
Maureen Dowd (another yellow journalist for the Times, Dumocrat mouthpiece, and bald-faced liar; I'll save you the trouble, Steam) writes:

Some veterans of Bush 41 think that the neocons packaged their "inverted Trotskyism," as the writer John Judis dubbed their rabid desire to export their "idealistic concept of internationalism," so that it appealed to Bush 43's born-again sense of divine mission and to the desire of Mr. Bush, Rummy and Mr. Cheney to achieve immortality by transforming the Middle East and the military.

These realpolitik veterans of Bush 41 say that Bush père, an old-school internationalist who ceaselessly tried to charm allies as U.N. ambassador and in the White House, "agonized" over the bullying approach his son's administration used at the U.N. and around the globe.

Some of the father's old circle are thinking about forming a Republican group that would speak out against the neocons. "What's happening in Iraq is puzzling," said one Bush 41 official. "The president ran on no-nation-building. Now we're in this drifting, aimless empire that is not helping the road map to peace."
The effectiveness of "framing" and dissimulationJon Billheimer
Sep 8, 2003 11:21 AM
With respect to a recent article at prospect.org on the Republicans' effective job of "framing" their message over the past two decades--and the Dems corresponding lack of effectiveness--the results of a recent poll of Americans' views on Iraq are particularly instructive as well as disturbing. According to Canadian media reports a substantial majority of Americans still believe that Iraq was responsible for the attack on the World Trade Center. Now if that's not an effective use of disinformation and propaganda on the part of Bush & Co. I don't know what is.
Not that I'm arguing with you or our seniorsn69
Sep 8, 2003 7:12 PM
statesman, Ed--see...silence CAN equal consent.

But, there are often gross inaccuracies in public polls. I know; I was a journalism/PR major and I took a great many classes about the manipulation of questions to produce predetermined results.

That said, Jon, lest we forget...a substantial majority of Germans currently think that we staged the World Trade Center attack ourselves. ...And, after all, they also consider David Hasselhoff to be a valid pop music star......

FWIW,
Scott