Re: OT - So Michael...

dwight wrote:
"Michael Johnson" <cds@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:lrWdnZmNDf_6jDvanZ2dnUVZ_ommnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
dwight wrote:
"Michael Johnson" <cds@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:zOKdndScRdL3djjanZ2dnUVZ_uSgnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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.

Establishing 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 establishing 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 masses. 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.
.