dwight wrote:
> "Michael Johnson" <cds@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:lrWdnZmNDf_6jDvanZ2dnUVZ_ommnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> dwight wrote:
>>> "Michael Johnson" <cds@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>> news:zOKdndScRdL3djjanZ2dnUVZ_uSgnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>> c) Play cowboys and indians
>>>> .... or he is trying to bring democracy to the Middle East and get
rid
>>>> of a mass murdering dictator claiming he had WMDs.
>>> Uh... No offense, but the invasion came first. Then, while we were
there,
>>> it was HEY, let's establish democracy! Yeah, that's the ticket.
>>> Revisionist history.
>> I don't think the plan was to invade, capture Saddam and then
immediately
>> leave either. The biggest mistake made, IMO, was to disband the Iraqi
>> military and let them meld back into society with no chance of gainful
>> employment. The second was to not wait until we could come in from the
>> north through Turkey and therefore seal off the escape routes out of
>> Baghdad. There are several vying for third.
>>
>>> Establi****ng a democracy had nothing to do with the original invasion
and
>>> came up as a reason for the invasion long after we were already in
there.
>>> About the time that the whole WMD thing was proven wrong, as I recall.
>> If establi****ng a democracy wasn't part of the original plan then what
was
>> the original plan?
>
> Isn't that the very question we are ALL asking? WHAT was the plan, if
any,
> and how were we supposed to go about it? After the part where we were
> "greeted as liberators", I don't think there was anything written in
after
> the words "Fill in the blank______________." As soon as Bush called
Mission
> Accomplished, the question "What do we do now?" was finally asked. But
don't
> try to tell me that the democratization of the Middle East was anywhere
on
> the table before then.
I think leaving Iraq with a democracy was always the intent. We didn't
plan to leave cold turkey. The thing that wasn't planned was how to go
about creating a democracy. The plain fact is we don't understand that
part of the world and how it works. Also, there was nothing to build
from once Saddam was gone. The Bath Party was the only game in town and
it couldn't be used as a legitimate vehicle to facilitate change. We
also had to find leaders that could represent their respective people.
We could have done a much better job than we did after the invasion. We
didn't but that doesn't mean we can't make the proper corrections and
move Iraq into a better condition. Hopefully we are seeing the
beginnings of stability in the country. Time will tell. I have faith
that the Iraqi people want to live in peace.
My nephew came back from a tour in Iraq last September. He had quite a
few positive things to say about the conditions there. He is a Marine
and was stationed in the Sunni Triangle near the Syrian border. For the
seven months his group was there the area they patrolled saw a drop in
violence of 60% and an increase in commerce of 700%. When he saw the
news coverage last fall he was disgusted with the media's coverage of
Iraq and the diatribe from the anti-war Democrats.
>>> But all that aside, I'm still confused about the whole conservative
>>> thing. I'm a lifelong Republican, but I seem to become more liberal as
>>> the party becomes more conservative. There are a couple of things
about
>>> the conservatives that I just don't understand.
>> I'm right there with you. I am fiscally conservative but lean to the
left
>> on many social issues. I am also for a strong national defense and a
>> proactive position on fighting terrorism and sealing our borders. I
don't
>> care for the Republican party trying to enforce morals on the the
m*****.
>> Much of the social issues need to be left up to the States to address
or
>> on the local level. Religion based issues like gay marriage and
abortion
>> needs to be left out of the party platform, IMO. OTOH, the left needs
to
>> quit targeting religion to exclude it from the public arena.
>
> Okay, we're 90% in agreement. I'm a strong believer in the separation of
> religion from government. It might have something to do with the fact
that I
> am not a Christian. Now, I don't mind the display of the 10 commandments
at
> our local courthouse, and I certainly don't mind government offices
shutting
> down for the CHRISTMAS holidays, so I'm not a rabid,
foaming-at-the-mouth
> separationist. But I would argue that, if Christians are allowed to be
part
> of government programs, all religions must be afforded equal time. Or,
at
> least, a percentage of equal time based upon their percentage of the
> population.
>
> Yeah. That would be fun.
The fact is this country is overwhelmingly Christian and always has
been. I think we do quite well regarding religious tolerance
considering this fact. The USA is one of the few countries in the world
that has this level of integration of so many religions and personal
beliefs. It will never be perfect and no one is going to get 100% of
what they want. I'm not a card carrying Christian and can see that most
religious expressions here will be Christian. No ones religious rights
are being trampled in this country. Muslims and atheists just can't
expect equal space on the court house lawn. They can expect to practice
their beliefs in peace though.
>>> Smaller federal government, lower taxes, fiscal responsibility, less
>>> government intrusion in our personal lives. I thought that's what it
was
>>> about.
>> I am right there with you. The problem is the Republicans spend money
>> just like the Democrats anymore. Government is getting bigger by the
year
>> and more intrusive. This is on all levels and not just the Federal
level.
>> I see it here where I live all the time. IMO, local governments are
far
>> worse in this regard than State and local governments. The sad fact is
we
>> just roll over year after year and let them get away with it. We are on
a
>> slow march to a socialistic form of government. I don't want this and
if
>> it happens we will all suffer for it.
>
> And I'm torn. This is the United States of #*%& America, goddammit.
There
> has to be a way that we can care for those who cannot care for
themselves,
> without going all socialist about it. There is NO reason why anyone
should
> sleep on the streets in this, the greatest nation in the history of the
> planet. Just from a point of national pride, we should take care of the
> weakest among us. I am blessed (uh, not in a Biblical sense) to be
living in
> the country and fairly well off. My life is comparatively easy, my
worries
> comparatively few. If the feds wanted to take a few more dollars out of
my
> paycheck and SWORE that it would be used to help the homeless, the
indigent,
> the hungry, and the poor, I'd be all for it.
>
> Throughout history and throughout the future, there have been and always
> will be human beings who cannot make it on their own and need help from
the
> rest of us who can. I see nothing wrong with that.
>
> There will be abuses, of course. But I will pay for those, too, if it
means
> caring for those who need it. (Of course, if I catch you abusing this
> governmental charity, you'll have a different kind of housing and three
> squares a day.)
The big misconception about homeless people is they don't want to be
homeless. Most of them chose to live this way. Some don't but most do.
The problem is how do you find the small fraction the don't? These
people have the right to be homeless, IMO. Forcing them to do something
we want is not what the Constitution and Bill of Rights condone. The
fact is we will ALWAYS have homeless people. Most will be homeless by
choice and some will be forced. The fact is the ones that are forced
have the option to work their way out of it. The mentally ill will
always be hard to identify and help. I wish this weren't the case but
it is and it will not change without trampling the freedom of others to
live a homeless lifestyle. If you want to see a real life example of
what I am talking about watch the movie "Into The Wild". It is a true
story about a college graduate that choses to live a homeless lifestyle.
>>> But then we come to the "social issues," for which conservatives seem
to
>>> BEG for federal involvement. How does that mesh with conservative
>>> political beliefs?
>> It doesn't. In reality you and I are more Libertarian than Republican.
It
>> is too bad that the Libertarians can't field a decent candidate because
>> they have a great platform to run from.
>
> I Googled up an article from back in October in the Wall Street Journal:
> http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB119127620102645595.html
> on why the GOP is losing its members. Pretty much goes along with all
we've
> been saying here.
The GOP has lost its conservative soul. It can get it back but I think
the party will have to hit rock bottom before it happens. It isn't
there yet.
>>> Do I have to continue to believe that the American family is a mom and
>>> dad, 2.3 kids, and a cat and/or dog? No matter what the numbers tell
me?
>>>
>>> And do I have to profess Jesus is my personal savior to be a
Republican,
>>> or can I continue in my agnostic ways?
>> No you don't. I haven't attended church regularly for decades. I just
>> don't like the way religious leaders manipulate their congregations.
This
>> is why I think you and I are really Libertarians at heart.
>>
>>> Who was it that said I haven't left the party, the party's left me?
>> Ron Reagan said that when he left the Democratic party to become a
>> Republican. IMO, Reagan would be disgusted with what the Republican
party
>> has become.
>
> If I may offend even more readers, I blame the Moral Majority. They
weren't
> cutting it back in the 80s, and laid plans to gain political control.
They
> saw an opening in the Republican party and took it, and today control my
> party's platform. Their strategy was brilliant and effective. And may,
even
> now, be backfiring.
The worst thing the Republicans did was take on the fight against
abortion as an affront to God. I am against abortion and it has nothing
to do with what God thinks on the matter. To me it is a human rights
issue. I see a fetus as a human and it therefore has the same rights of
every other human. Just because it is residing in a uterus doesn't give
the owner of that uterus the unilateral right to terminate that human
life. After all it wasn't spirited into her womb. It came about as a
result of the deliberate actions of two people. My feeling is that
abortion should not be used as retroactive birth control. If a woman's
life is in danger when giving birth or she is raped then I can see where
it is an option. The Republicans have fought this battle in the worst
way possible, IMO, and it has hurt them dearly.
> When the radical right (yes, YOU, Fox News) looks at the Democrats, they
> conveniently ignore the millions and target the few, to make the
argument
> that the disgustingly liberal are as representative of the Democrats as
they
> are of the Republicans.
>
> Perhaps it's time that all political moderates leave their parties to
create
> two new ones - we'd have moderate Democrats and moderate Republicans,
> leaving the radical fringe elements to battle it out amongs themselves.
>
> I gather that the Libertarians are these moderate Republicans. I also
gather
> that the old Green Party was most definitely NOT the moderate Democrats,
who
> still need to strike out on their own to gain their own voice.
>
> Perhaps I should lead them into the sunlight.
>
> Let me stand for America. Let me be the prototypical American.
>
> Every four years, I get real excited about politics and faithfully watch
all
> of the debates and argue candidates with everyone who will listen.
>
> I can name both Pennsylvania senators (I think... let me Google that),
and I
> even know who my congressman is, two years after we moved into our new
> locale. I couldn't begin to tell you what the political views are of ANY
of
> these three, but I do remember that I was disgusted with Rick Santorum
and
> happy to vote him out of office. (Now, who was it that took his place?)
>
> When you get to the local government level, I have no idea. My state
senator
> or representative? I couldn't guess. No clue.
>
> Does my community have a mayor? Or a board of supervisors? Uh... sorry.
>
> And whaddaya mean, I have to VOTE for judges?!?
>
> Every four years - and especially THIS year - I go out to vote, and I
see
> the presidential nominees on the ballot. Easy - I tick off my choice.
The
> rest of the ballot... I get a glazed eye and blank brain looking at it.
>
> And that, I believe, is the prototypical American.
>
> Okay, truth is, I vote in every primary and every election. I make it a
> point to do so, since this twice-yearly exercise is really what it's all
> about to be an American. And I know that if I don't vote, I don't have
any
> right to complain, and I LOVE to complain. I do know a little bit about
the
> people who work in my government, but not nearly enough to make a truly
> informed decision.
>
> I resolve, right now, right this instant, to investigate the upcoming
ballot
> in the primary in May (Pennsylvania) and to know all I can know about
the
> candidates for each office.
>
> Because, as Obama would tell you, the government starts from the bottom
up.
> The guy sitting in an office in my municipal building probably has more
> impact on my life that the guy or gal sitting in the Oval Office.
Until the average voter gives more than a **** about politics and the
politicians they vote for nothing will change. The only time they will
give a **** is when the government makes a surprise run into their
wallets and leaves them with nothing. Unfortunately most Americans
won't take the effort to really educate themselves before entering the
voting booth.
|
