SteveGA – “I assume that you support President Bush in 'staying the course' to achieve victory. Please define using SPECIFIC METRICS, what victory is.”
Actually… no. I believe that we screwed up in Iraq by not using enough force. The best example of how to do it right was Fallujah. There, finally the Marines were set loose. The situation there is much better than it was. When the Iraqi military disintegrated into the countryside we should have immediately brought in enough force to do a house to house search and we should sealed the damn borders. It’s trickier now because we have four basic groups operating there. The Kurds are doing OK. The Shiites are doing OK but are being egged on by Iran. The Sunni’s REALLY miss power and are being egged on by the fourth group – Al Queada.
Unfortunately the stakes are too high to take your simplistic course and just leave. But I don’t think just staying there will work either. The militias and thugs need to be caught or killed, or at least disarmed. But I don’t see leaving as an ultimate goal. Leaving a force in place for decades to be on the scene like our troops in Korea or Germany seems like a good idea to me.
One good point you missed is Libya. They flatly stated that they had and were abandoning a WMD program because of Iraq. You have to admit that this is at least ONE good outcome.
Now – could we apply more force? No. Why not? Because the defeatists won’t let us. Thus guaranteeing defeat. Ultimate victory? Iraq as a stable and democratic nation ruled by laws. But, we stay for decades (at vastly reduced numbers) for decades.
“incompetent Bush administration or the corrupt rubberstamp Republican Congress still in place.”
Uh huh. Good attitude. Watch as the Democrats keep up their obstructionist practices so the Republicans can’t say they achieved anything. Your hatred is a little too reflected in your agenda.
“Energy - NO subisidies for existing energy sources. Oil, natural gas, coal, nuclear all have been shown to be economically practical in a free market. The government should not be in the business of subsidizing marketable technologies. Instead, the government should heavily subsidize emerging technologies. This would include subsidies for American-made cars using hybrid technologies, increased wind and solar plants, consumer tax credits for energy efficient products, and funding for basic research on new technologies. If additional funds are needed, allow drilling in protected federal lands, and charge oil companies out the nose for the rights to drill. “
The energy for Hybrid cars still needs to come from someplace. We need to build some nuclear plants. NONE have been built in the USA since three mile island. We need to expand oil production on the mainland, in northern Alaska, and off-shore. But this will only help a little. We need nuclear.
Alternatives will be great if we can make them work. Please join me in attacking Ted Kennedy’s law to stop windmill deployment. In an effort to stop them being built off Cape Cod he crafted a law forcing every windmill project in the nation to undergo ANOTHER lengthy and complex reporting process. This has all but stopped windmills. Surely, you agree with me on this.
I’d like to see the cars move towards the model used in Brazil. The cars there run on gas, alcohol, or and mix of the two. The engines automatically sense the blend and adjust accordingly.
“Taxes - Our only goal here should be balancing the budget. Getting out of Iraq will help greatly on cutting spending. So will cutting non-working programs such as missile defense. (Fund the research, not the implementation, because it DOES NOT WORK!). Again, no more subsidies on products that are (or should be) commercially viable in a 'free market'. No more farm subsidies, no oil company tax breaks. Oh yeah, reinstate the estate tax. (Those who inherit the money have not paid any tax on it otherwise. Why should this income be given preferential treatment over other sources of income?) As far as the rest, I'm sure we will still be short. (GWB has spent us into quite a hole.) The beauty of having competent government with integrity is that you can rely on them to find an honest, equitable means to cover this shortfall.”
You make a couple of statements here that are wrong. The Missile Defense Force does work. It is a deterrent to North Korea. If you understood how Reagan beat the Soviet Union you would understand. Some of the things you said I like. Some I don’t. I note that the very rich Democrats in Congress have shielded their money from the estate (death) taxes. I also note that this money has already been taxed once either as income or capital gains.
“Social security - Gradually raise the retirement age, stop spending against the surplus. Private accounts don't work, only a child (or a Heritage Foundation economist) thinks they do.
The private account fetish of you bushbots shows a striking lack of understanding of how the market works. You are proposing flooding the stock market with LOTS and LOTS of buyers for a limited number of stocks. When demand outstrips supply, what happens? Prices rise, in this case dramatically. That's great for those who got in on the ground floor, but what about those coming in over the next 60 years? They're gains simply aren't there. “
The private stock accounts would have been voluntary and only a small part of the plan. The Bush Plan was almost identical to the Clinton Plan. Republicans were wrong to kill Clintons plan and Democrats were wrong to kill Bush’s plan. You spout simplistic hate speech designed to build fear, yet your plan isn’t much is it? AND – the Democrats didn’t even put forward your plan. They didn’t propose ANYTHING. Besides, I thought we were the rich stock monkey’s. Do we know about money or not?
“Iran - Stop screaming about a crisis. All rational intelligence tells us that this is a dangerous but not imminent threat. Therefore, keep doing what the Administration is doing: fight for tough sanctions in the UN Security Council, and rattle the saber occasionally. Again, being out of Iraq would help our position greatly here. So would new leadership that hadn't already cried wolf once before.
North Korea - Same as above. Iraq is destroying our entire foreign policy, a resolution there helps all other situations.”
Did you know that we are still technically at war with North Korea? And, since last month when they said they were officially abandoning the armistice it’s not even just “technical”? I don’t think it’s wrong to build a missile defense. Iran? Have you really listened to these wackos? They have already killed quite a few Americans you know – through their covert Hizbollah force. Just let it be? Sorry – I disagree.
“Terrorism - Go after terrorists with the military, law enforcement, and diplomats. Attack the current actors and the root causes of terrorism. Our greatest strength is our moral superiority, do it all within the constraints of the US Constitution and the Geneva Conventions. (Sounds just like the Bush administration, except a competent, adult Democratic government would actually do what it said.)”
You talk the talk. But a Democratic government didn’t walk the walk. You are ignoring a lot of recent history in the Clinton administration. Your party has also fought tooth and nail against the Patriot Act and the NSA Foreign surveillance, and the financial tracking program. Just exactly how would you fight them without these tools? Form a coven?
I appreciate your post. Disagree with some of it, well lots of it. But at least you put forth your views. You are therefore a rarity in your party.
I believe that the MSM has in large, along with the liberal Dems, been responsible for much of the
"downward" poll numbers of the President, and much of the Negativity towards him, and fellow GOP members. First off, we KNOW, polls are a product of "where, by whom given, and the outcome
the polls want to achieve" as to their honesty in
the first place. I for one, DO NOT believe in the polls that are done, or reported, as I think they are skewed, by those who want to perpetuate
yet more negativity on the President and his administration. It would be my thought, that just like the "distortions that the President and his people NEED to get before cameras, to dispell-
the exact same thing needs to be done with this poll business" More emphasis against such false polls, being "outed", and countered with the truth, rather than letting the supposed pollsters
skew these polls to the public, as Gospel. Only when the President started to counter publicly his detractors, did the general public NOT take what was being said against him, as lies by the MSM. He will NEVER get a fair shake by the MSM,
who have bashed him from DAY ONE, and He needs to get out there, and dispute much of the rhetoric they spew out on a daily basis. I know he has his hands full with many things going on, but when one lets the slanted polls and lies continue, without refuting them(just as Rummy did recently against Pelosi/Reid/etal) the public perception is "maybe they just might be true"
SPEAK UP MR. PRESIDENT AGAINST ALL SLANTED POLLS,
MSM BIAS, AND DEMOCRATS LIES....-IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO.
...
My original comment is out there somewhere--it refers to a FOX News polls that shows a 14-point gap in favor of the DemoCRAPs. What gives, and why is this Gallup poll not out there?
The GOP stands to lose big in the House in November, and the Seanate looks like it will tighten. Impeachment? Maybe, but not enough votes in the Senate to convict.
In a way, I'm kinda looking forward to a GOP minority in the House--I want to see if my side acts as bad as the DemoCRAPs when they're not in power. If so, politics becomes a spectator sport for me. This country needs unity, but not the kind of unity offered by Reid-tard and Piglosi. We need a true consensus on foreign policy.
Yes, unity is the number one priority. To achive that, one must root out the problem that is causing the divisions, IE: Bush and Cheney.
As for impeachment, you are likely correct about the senate, however unlike Clinton who stayed the course in the face of impeachment, as the charges were a mole hill made into a mountain, I believe that proper investigations will lead to signifigant evidence of wrong doing, at which point, hopefully bush will resign and spare the country an embarassing impeachment trial.
I do firmly believe that the democrats will retake the house, but also believe that the GOP stands a darn good chance at maintaining the Senate, although they are likely to have a slimmer majority than now.
The country is clearly on the wrong course, even republicans are admitting this in greater and greater numbers, but the GOP is all out of ideas, other than fear, fear, fear, and more of the same and so democrats are the only solution to the problem.
Axis:
I find it totally disingenous that you forget to mention that in order for there to be disagreements you need to parties. There is no way that Bush and Cheney are the reasons for the vitrol that takes place for public discourse.
For instance, if you really think Bush and Cheney are the problem, how do you see repairing this problem by saying the things you say about the people who support Bush/Cheney.
No political party operates in a vacuum.
Also, YOU believe that there has been wrongdoing, but time and time again, as I'm sure more will be brought forward that the Bush Administration didn't lie (ie. Plamegate). It's interesting you're unwilling to recant your BELIEFS. (but you'll refuse to even deal with the reality of that).
I don't see the Senate switching hands, and I'd love to see how long a Speaker Pelosi led Democratic House would last. You also say the Republicans are out of ideas. Give me a list of ideas the Democrats have that could actually get passed with a Republican Senate and Republican President? Good thing you don't get to decide the direction of this country... because you've never articulated anything beyond "get Bush, and being Conservative is EVIL."
You're living in a fantasy world if you think Bush will get impeached EVEN if your party wins the House. FANTASY WORLD.
Well ya know, I just wonder what time for change and smarter government means?
Will a Democrat Congress:
Tighten gun laws?
Loosen abortion laws?
Tighten controls on speech (again)with campaign finance laws?
Do anything to promote oil exploration in the USA?
Allow any new refineries to be built?
How about nuclear power?
Teddy Kennedy killed wind power project in the country. Any thought to undoing the damage he did?
More welfare to promote addiction to government?
How about health care? Any plans you care to share with us?
What about that old social security problem? Will yopu EVER publish a plan?
Pull out of Iraq immediately?
Stay in Iraq and pick some future artificial date to pull out?
How will they deal with Iran? What exactly does "smarter" mean?
How about North Korea? What's the plan?
And - will you finally KILL the Patriot Act like you wanted to? What about the NSA projects and financial tracking projects? Kill 'em?
What exactly will you differently?
Jeeeezz, with all the liberal posters here no-one can tell me what you stand for and HOW you'll do ANYTHING differntly. This is normal and cool I guess.
Insult me now.
"the country is clearly in the wrong direction"
SHUT YOUR CANADIAN MOUTH AXIS!!! You are not an American so how DARE you tell us the country is in a wrong direction as if you are an American.
Shut your fat, liberal, pussy mouth!
They don't stand for anything except one thing.
They are anti-Bush. Period. No plans, no ideas, nothing.
Just "I hate Bush" is the mantra and has been for years. Nothing more.
Warrior, don't let axis' comments get to you--I completely ignore her. She can't even write the left's talking points without numerous grammatical errors and misused words.
Bush and Cheney are not what's wrong with this country---liberal DemoCRAP's are the main problem, with RINO's and lily-livered Republicans holding up the middle and rear, respectively.
We're handing these pukes the House in November, for what? So they can unite the country? I highly doubt it--not as long as Reid-tard, Piglosi, Boxer, Schumer, Leahey, Kennedrunk, Spitball Kerry, Hitlery, et.al., are in charge. There's no way in hell their agenda--if they have one--is gonna unite this country...
Like I said, Warrior--don't worry about axass...
Here's what a Democratic government would stand for. Its real simple: competency and integrity. That's it, that's the big difference. For too long we've heard from Republicans that the federal government is bad and needs to be destroyed. Not surprisingly, those same Republicans have done a terrible job governing. (What did you expect, really? Why would you hire someone for a job who professes to hate the very place he is applying to work?)
As far as a plan for fixing our country, its also real simple. Put the adults back in charge. Get Democrats elected is step #1. All other steps don't matter unless step #1 is achieved. (By the way, your constant asking for a Democratic 'plan' is starting to sound like begging. Don't cry, you made your bed, now sleep in it.)
Yeah its all the liberals fault...lol!!!
Warrior should be a comedian or a Canadian.
Dipstick.
Well, so much for this theory huh? Doesn't sound like they are satisified with "more of the same" to me
------------
Voters are anti-incumbent and angry, new poll finds
POSTED: 9:10 p.m. EDT, September 4, 2006
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Most Americans are angry about "something" when it comes to how the country is run, and they are more likely than in previous years to vote for a challenger this November, a new poll suggests.
A majority of Americans surveyed -- and a higher percentage than recorded during the same time last year -- said things in the United States are going "badly." Among this year's respondents, 29 percent said "pretty badly" and 25 percent -- up from 15 percent a month ago -- answered "very badly." By comparison, 37 percent described the way things are going as "fairly well," and 9 percent answered "very well."
Of these people, 76 percent said there was "something" to be angry about in the country today. By comparison, 59 percent felt that way when polled in February. (Watch Bill Schneider's take on angry voters -- 1:40)
Only 21 percent said they were "generally content" in the latest poll.
Nine percent said they considered the economy to be "very good," a number unchanged from a June CNN poll. But the number who considered conditions "somewhat good" dropped from 42 percent to 35 percent over the same period.
The number of respondents who consider the economy "somewhat poor" rose from 31 percent to 34 percent, and the number who called the economy "very poor" jumped from 16 percent to 22 percent.
A majority -- 55 percent -- said they are more likely to back a challenger in races on this year's ballot. Such anti-incumbent sentiment is higher than the 48 percent recorded as "pro-challenger" in a similar survey in 1994, when the GOP took control of both houses of Congress.
Nonetheless, 48 percent said that, if most of the present members of Congress were replaced with new members, there would be no difference. By contrast, 42 percent said such a scenario would change Congress for the better, and 7 percent said it would change Congress for the worse.
The results, based on a half-sample of 1,004 adult Americans polled by Opinion Research Corporation for CNN Wednesday through Saturday have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4.5 percentage points.
More than 60 percent of those surveyed said government policies need either major changes or a complete overhaul, while 30 percent said minor changes were needed. Only 7 percent said no change is necessary.
The economy topped the list of respondents' concerns, with 28 percent calling it the most important issue when deciding how to cast their ballots. Coming second was Iraq at 25 percent, followed by terrorism (18 percent), moral issues (15 percent) and immigration (14 percent). (Watch Bush dispute idea that Iraq is in civil war - 4:09)
Democrats lead Republicans by a 10-point margin, 53 to 43 percent, among likely voters asked which party's congressional candidate they would support in November, and Democrats held a 56-40 lead on the same question among registered voters.
The survey has a sampling error of 3 percentage points among the full group and 4 percentage points among likely voters.
Nearly half of the respondents -- 49 percent -- said they considered the GOP the party of strong leadership. But 56 percent said they considered the Democrats the party of change, with 49 percent considering them the more forward-looking party.
SteveGA. "Competency and integrity"? "Put the adults back in charge"?
Those sound like real good bumper stickers, I must admit. But what is the plan? When the "adults" get back in charge, just what are they going to do?
Iraq -
a) Stay?
b) Pull out?
c) Pick an arbitrary pull-out date?
d) Send MORE troops?
e) other?
Can explain what consequences the “adult” choice might have in the region?
Energy - (you can choose more than one)
a) More drilling? (any specifics?)
b) Less drilling?
c) More Refineries (any specifics?)
d) Nuclear (any specifics?)
e) Cancel Teddy Kennedy's hold on wind mills so we can build more?
f) Force a move to alcohol based vehicles? (Like Brazil)
g) other
Taxes - (you can choose more than one)
a) Increase them on everyone?
b) Increase them only on the rich (please define rich)?
c) Decrease them on everyone
d) Decrease them only for a select group?
e) Re-instate estate (death) tax?
f) Other?
Social Security - (you can choose more than one)
Really any stated position here would be acceptable
Iran –
Maybe you could give a short lesson on what we should do?
North Korea –
Maybe you could give a short lesson on what we should do?
Terrorism (you can choose more than one)
a) Rescind the Patriot Act?
b) Keep the Patriot Act?
c) Modify the Patriot Act? (please explain)
d) Stop the NSA programs?
e) Keep the NSA programs?
f) Modify the NSA programs (please explain)
g) Pursue Terrorists as Criminals?
h) Pursue Terrorists as Enemy Soldiers?
i) If terrorists don’t follow the war guideline (uniforms, attacking civilians), then what? (please explain)
j) Reinstate the “wall” between intelligence and law enforcement?
k) Leave the “wall” between intelligence and law enforcement down?
IF, IF you can answer these I’ll be impressed. If not, well then you would have exposed yourself as being completly full of crap.
I await your next bumper sticker motto with bated breath.
Oh and Axis.... This is America talk. Foreigners really need not comment.
Kahn, I would love to see SteveG answer the questions you posed. But as you know, neither he nor any other AMERICAN Liberal or Democrat will give such specific answers. That is not how they govern. And I hope that Carter and Clinton are not Steve's idea of "Competency and integrity."
Axis,
A half-sample of adults is worth just about nothing as an indicator of how the votes will go in November.
Denial from Mark and anger from warriornation. Both have finally begun to see the light and see that the GOP is circling the drain and there is nothing that can be done about it whatsoever.
Remember the words from Mark Jagger Mark, "You can't always get what you want"... "But if you try sometime, you might find you get what you NEED" And what you really NEED mark, is for a strong democratic element in government to fix all the mistakes you are making before it is too late.
Denial from Mark and anger from warriornation. Both have finally begun to see the light and see that the GOP is circling the drain and there is nothing that can be done about it whatsoever.
Remember the words from Mark Jagger Mark, "You can't always get what you want"... "But if you try sometime, you might find you get what you NEED" And what you really NEED mark, is for a strong democratic element in government to fix all the mistakes you are making before it is too late.
Axis,
How's Harper doing? How are his poll numbers? Care to comment?
Kahn,
I will answer your questions about what a adult government operating with competency and integrity would do. Obviously, none of the solutions below would work with the incompetent Bush administration or the corrupt rubberstamp Republican Congress still in place.
Iraq - Phased withdrawal. This could be either posted to arbitrary dates (e.g., within one year, remove 10% of our force) or could be posted to conditions on the ground (in the safest province, remove 90% of our forces, repeat.) The end result of this would probably be a smaller reaction force of about 30-40k stationed. It would probably take 3-5 years to get to this point.
As an adult, I'm aware of the inherent dangers of this policy. However, we have to accept that the Iraq War has been a strategic and political mistake, and our continued presence there does not help us achieve our goals. You can scream about it, call me names, or otherwise do the things children do. However, adults are able to admit mistakes, reassess a situation, and adjust their course accordingly.
Energy - NO subisidies for existing energy sources. Oil, natural gas, coal, nuclear all have been shown to be economically practical in a free market. The government should not be in the business of subsidizing marketable technologies. Instead, the government should heavily subsidize emerging technologies. This would include subsidies for American-made cars using hybrid technologies, increased wind and solar plants, consumer tax credits for energy efficient products, and funding for basic research on new technologies. If additional funds are needed, allow drilling in protected federal lands, and charge oil companies out the nose for the rights to drill.
Taxes - Our only goal here should be balancing teh budget. Getting out of Iraq will help greatly on cutting spending. So will cutting non-working programs such as missile defense. (Fund the research, not the implementation, because it DOES NOT WORK!). Again, no more subsidies on products that are (or should be) commercially viable in a 'free market'. No more farm subsidies, no oil company tax breaks. Oh yeah, reinstate the estate tax. (Those who inherit the money have not paid any tax on it otherwise. Why should this income be given preferential treatment over other sources of income?) As far as the rest, I'm sure we will still be short. (GWB has spent us into quite a hole.) The beauty of having competent government with integrity is that you can rely on them to find an honest, equitable means to cover this shortfall.
Social security - Gradually raise the retirement age, stop spending against the surplus. Private accounts don't work, only a child (or a Heritage Foundation economist) thinks they do.
The private account fetish of you bushbots shows a striking lack of understanding of how the market works. You are proposing flooding the stock market with LOTS and LOTS of buyers for a limited number of stocks. When demand outstrips supply, what happens? Prices rise, in this case dramatically. That's great for those who got in on the ground floor, but what about those coming in over the next 60 years? They're gains simply aren't there.
Iran - Stop screaming about a crisis. All rational intelligence tells us that this is a dangerous but not imminent threat. Therefore, keep doing what the Administration is doing: fight for tough sanctions in the UN Security Council, and rattle the saber occassionally. Again, being out of Iraq would help our position greatly here. So would new leadership that hadn't already cried wolf once before.
North Korea - Same as above. Iraq is destroying our entire foreign policy, a resolution there helps all other situations.
Terrorism - Go after terrorists with the military, law enforcement, and diplomats. Attack the current actors and the root causes of terrorism. Our greatest strength is our moral superiority, do it all within the constraints of the US Constitution and the Geneva Conventions. (Sounds just like the Bush administration, except a competent, adult Democratic government would actually do what it said.)
I've answered all your questions, I guess your impressed now, right? But now that I've put considerable time into answering your questions, maybe you could spend some time answering one of mine? I've asked this before, and never gotten a response.
I assume that you support President Bush in 'staying the course' to achieve victory. Please define using SPECIFIC METRICS, what victory is. If you can't do this, I'll have to assume that you're completely full of crap.
Kahn,
I will answer your questions about what a adult government operating with competency and integrity would do. Obviously, none of the solutions below would work with the incompetent Bush administration or the corrupt rubberstamp Republican Congress still in place.
Iraq - Phased withdrawal. This could be either posted to arbitrary dates (e.g., within one year, remove 10% of our force) or could be posted to conditions on the ground (in the safest province, remove 90% of our forces, repeat.) The end result of this would probably be a smaller reaction force of about 30-40k stationed. It would probably take 3-5 years to get to this point.
As an adult, I'm aware of the inherent dangers of this policy. However, we have to accept that the Iraq War has been a strategic and political mistake, and our continued presence there does not help us achieve our goals. You can scream about it, call me names, or otherwise do the things children do. However, adults are able to admit mistakes, reassess a situation, and adjust their course accordingly.
Energy - NO subisidies for existing energy sources. Oil, natural gas, coal, nuclear all have been shown to be economically practical in a free market. The government should not be in the business of subsidizing marketable technologies. Instead, the government should heavily subsidize emerging technologies. This would include subsidies for American-made cars using hybrid technologies, increased wind and solar plants, consumer tax credits for energy efficient products, and funding for basic research on new technologies. If additional funds are needed, allow drilling in protected federal lands, and charge oil companies out the nose for the rights to drill.
Taxes - Our only goal here should be balancing teh budget. Getting out of Iraq will help greatly on cutting spending. So will cutting non-working programs such as missile defense. (Fund the research, not the implementation, because it DOES NOT WORK!). Again, no more subsidies on products that are (or should be) commercially viable in a 'free market'. No more farm subsidies, no oil company tax breaks. Oh yeah, reinstate the estate tax. (Those who inherit the money have not paid any tax on it otherwise. Why should this income be given preferential treatment over other sources of income?) As far as the rest, I'm sure we will still be short. (GWB has spent us into quite a hole.) The beauty of having competent government with integrity is that you can rely on them to find an honest, equitable means to cover this shortfall.
Social security - Gradually raise the retirement age, stop spending against the surplus. Private accounts don't work, only a child (or a Heritage Foundation economist) thinks they do.
The private account fetish of you bushbots shows a striking lack of understanding of how the market works. You are proposing flooding the stock market with LOTS and LOTS of buyers for a limited number of stocks. When demand outstrips supply, what happens? Prices rise, in this case dramatically. That's great for those who got in on the ground floor, but what about those coming in over the next 60 years? They're gains simply aren't there.
Iran - Stop screaming about a crisis. All rational intelligence tells us that this is a dangerous but not imminent threat. Therefore, keep doing what the Administration is doing: fight for tough sanctions in the UN Security Council, and rattle the saber occassionally. Again, being out of Iraq would help our position greatly here. So would new leadership that hadn't already cried wolf once before.
North Korea - Same as above. Iraq is destroying our entire foreign policy, a resolution there helps all other situations.
Terrorism - Go after terrorists with the military, law enforcement, and diplomats. Attack the current actors and the root causes of terrorism. Our greatest strength is our moral superiority, do it all within the constraints of the US Constitution and the Geneva Conventions. (Sounds just like the Bush administration, except a competent, adult Democratic government would actually do what it said.)
I've answered all your questions, I guess your impressed now, right? But now that I've put considerable time into answering your questions, maybe you could spend some time answering one of mine? I've asked this before, and never gotten a response.
I assume that you support President Bush in 'staying the course' to achieve victory. Please define using SPECIFIC METRICS, what victory is. If you can't do this, I'll have to assume that you're completely full of crap.
Warrior sez: "You are not an American so how DARE you tell us the country is in a wrong direction as if you are an American."
This is absolutely true.
How dare people stick their nose into the doings of another country? Imposing their view of how a country should be run upon a wholly sovereign people is just plain wrong, and Warrior is right to call you out on it.
Can you imagine what it would be like if a nation decided to try to change the way a people determine their government? I shudder to think...
steveGA - I will address your points later.
One thing though, I notice you say wind power... so you join me in condemning Ted Kennedy for his law to stop the Cape Cod windmill project which has virtually stopped ALL windmill projects in the country?
Kahn,
I didn't ask you to address my points. I asked for an answer to the question of how you define victory in Iraq? Be specific, now...
I'm still waiting...
SteveGA – “I assume that you support President Bush in 'staying the course' to achieve victory. Please define using SPECIFIC METRICS, what victory is.”
Actually… no. I believe that we screwed up in Iraq by not using enough force. The best example of how to do it right was Fallujah. There, finally the Marines were set loose. The situation there is much better than it was. When the Iraqi military disintegrated into the countryside we should have immediately brought in enough force to do a house to house search and we should sealed the damn borders. It’s trickier now because we have four basic groups operating there. The Kurds are doing OK. The Shiites are doing OK but are being egged on by Iran. The Sunni’s REALLY miss power and are being egged on by the fourth group – Al Queada.
Unfortunately the stakes are too high to take your simplistic course and just leave. But I don’t think just staying there will work either. The militias and thugs need to be caught or killed, or at least disarmed. But I don’t see leaving as an ultimate goal. Leaving a force in place for decades to be on the scene like our troops in Korea or Germany seems like a good idea to me.
One good point you missed is Libya. They flatly stated that they had and were abandoning a WMD program because of Iraq. You have to admit that this is at least ONE good outcome.
Now – could we apply more force? No. Why not? Because the defeatists won’t let us. Thus guaranteeing defeat. Ultimate victory? Iraq as a stable and democratic nation ruled by laws. But, we stay for decades (at vastly reduced numbers) for decades.
“incompetent Bush administration or the corrupt rubberstamp Republican Congress still in place.”
Uh huh. Good attitude. Watch as the Democrats keep up their obstructionist practices so the Republicans can’t say they achieved anything. Your hatred is a little too reflected in your agenda.
“Energy - NO subisidies for existing energy sources. Oil, natural gas, coal, nuclear all have been shown to be economically practical in a free market. The government should not be in the business of subsidizing marketable technologies. Instead, the government should heavily subsidize emerging technologies. This would include subsidies for American-made cars using hybrid technologies, increased wind and solar plants, consumer tax credits for energy efficient products, and funding for basic research on new technologies. If additional funds are needed, allow drilling in protected federal lands, and charge oil companies out the nose for the rights to drill. “
The energy for Hybrid cars still needs to come from someplace. We need to build some nuclear plants. NONE have been built in the USA since three mile island. We need to expand oil production on the mainland, in northern Alaska, and off-shore. But this will only help a little. We need nuclear.
Alternatives will be great if we can make them work. Please join me in attacking Ted Kennedy’s law to stop windmill deployment. In an effort to stop them being built off Cape Cod he crafted a law forcing every windmill project in the nation to undergo ANOTHER lengthy and complex reporting process. This has all but stopped windmills. Surely, you agree with me on this.
I’d like to see the cars move towards the model used in Brazil. The cars there run on gas, alcohol, or and mix of the two. The engines automatically sense the blend and adjust accordingly.
“Taxes - Our only goal here should be balancing the budget. Getting out of Iraq will help greatly on cutting spending. So will cutting non-working programs such as missile defense. (Fund the research, not the implementation, because it DOES NOT WORK!). Again, no more subsidies on products that are (or should be) commercially viable in a 'free market'. No more farm subsidies, no oil company tax breaks. Oh yeah, reinstate the estate tax. (Those who inherit the money have not paid any tax on it otherwise. Why should this income be given preferential treatment over other sources of income?) As far as the rest, I'm sure we will still be short. (GWB has spent us into quite a hole.) The beauty of having competent government with integrity is that you can rely on them to find an honest, equitable means to cover this shortfall.”
You make a couple of statements here that are wrong. The Missile Defense Force does work. It is a deterrent to North Korea. If you understood how Reagan beat the Soviet Union you would understand. Some of the things you said I like. Some I don’t. I note that the very rich Democrats in Congress have shielded their money from the estate (death) taxes. I also note that this money has already been taxed once either as income or capital gains.
“Social security - Gradually raise the retirement age, stop spending against the surplus. Private accounts don't work, only a child (or a Heritage Foundation economist) thinks they do.
The private account fetish of you bushbots shows a striking lack of understanding of how the market works. You are proposing flooding the stock market with LOTS and LOTS of buyers for a limited number of stocks. When demand outstrips supply, what happens? Prices rise, in this case dramatically. That's great for those who got in on the ground floor, but what about those coming in over the next 60 years? They're gains simply aren't there. “
The private stock accounts would have been voluntary and only a small part of the plan. The Bush Plan was almost identical to the Clinton Plan. Republicans were wrong to kill Clintons plan and Democrats were wrong to kill Bush’s plan. You spout simplistic hate speech designed to build fear, yet your plan isn’t much is it? AND – the Democrats didn’t even put forward your plan. They didn’t propose ANYTHING. Besides, I thought we were the rich stock monkey’s. Do we know about money or not?
“Iran - Stop screaming about a crisis. All rational intelligence tells us that this is a dangerous but not imminent threat. Therefore, keep doing what the Administration is doing: fight for tough sanctions in the UN Security Council, and rattle the saber occasionally. Again, being out of Iraq would help our position greatly here. So would new leadership that hadn't already cried wolf once before.
North Korea - Same as above. Iraq is destroying our entire foreign policy, a resolution there helps all other situations.”
Did you know that we are still technically at war with North Korea? And, since last month when they said they were officially abandoning the armistice it’s not even just “technical”? I don’t think it’s wrong to build a missile defense. Iran? Have you really listened to these wackos? They have already killed quite a few Americans you know – through their covert Hizbollah force. Just let it be? Sorry – I disagree.
“Terrorism - Go after terrorists with the military, law enforcement, and diplomats. Attack the current actors and the root causes of terrorism. Our greatest strength is our moral superiority, do it all within the constraints of the US Constitution and the Geneva Conventions. (Sounds just like the Bush administration, except a competent, adult Democratic government would actually do what it said.)”
You talk the talk. But a Democratic government didn’t walk the walk. You are ignoring a lot of recent history in the Clinton administration. Your party has also fought tooth and nail against the Patriot Act and the NSA Foreign surveillance, and the financial tracking program. Just exactly how would you fight them without these tools? Form a coven?
I appreciate your post. Disagree with some of it, well lots of it. But at least you put forth your views. You are therefore a rarity in your party.