Re: OT - So Michael...

Joe wrote:
Michael Johnson <cds@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:U8KdneHmqIcNDDvanZ2dnUVZ_h6hnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxx:

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.

Bing-freakin-go. Nail hit on the head. Give the man a Cuban cigar. OK, maybe a Montecristo instead.

I think leaving Iraq with a democracy was always the intent.

If this is true, then Dubya is probably the biggest moron I've ever seen, especially considering the next several sentences.

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.

But Dubya just couldn't resist twirling his six-shooters and went blazing in anyway.

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.

More evidence that the Bush administration had absolutely no plan to deal with the aftermath. They were completely and utterly pompous and naive.

We could have done a much better job than we did after the invasion.

Understatement of the century, with the possible exception of the government's response to Katrina. "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job" ranks right up there with "Mission Accomplished". This is stuff from Saturday Night Live skits, not real life.

We didn't but that doesn't mean we can't make the proper corrections
and move Iraq into a better condition.

In order to save face, the only choice is to try and clean up the mess we made. If, however, we can admit our mistake in going in, the other choice is to simply leave it to the dogs and cut our losses.

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.

Most of the common people, sure. But the whole place is so politically out of control that any real stability can't occur for years to come. The point that Dubya still doesn't get is that a military solution will simply not work. Stability has to come from within first.

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.

First, kudos to your nephew. But I wonder if the "surge" is nothing more than Mom & Dad keeping the kids in line before they go to bed. Trouble is, the kids will never go to bed, so Mom & Dad have to stay up the whole night every night.

I can only go by what he has told me and while he was there things improved in their area a great deal. He said there was also more collaboration with the local Sunni militias and many times they would be right along side the Marines fighting the foreign insurgents. He also said the police force improved a lot while he was there.

Another thing that has changed is that we are no longer forcing them to take the path to governing like we do here or in other western societies. We are letting them figure out what works best for them and they are actually getting things done. It may not be what we think is best but it works for them. The Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds seem to have found a way to get along and, IMO, that is all that matters in the end.

We've put ourselves in a no-win position by simply being there. Now that we're there, we can't leave or the place will blow sky-high. You know what though? Freakin' let it.

I don't think all is lost there. I kind of see their situation as two school kids fighting to a draw. They have beat each other senseless and have nothing to show for it and they now see that these Islamic extremists coming from outside Iraq are doing nothing but harm. Time will tell if the success of the surge can last but saying we are leaving and to hell with Iraq is the absolute worst thing we could do, IMO.

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.

God is ingrained in our government to the point where His name is on our currency and in our Pledge of Allegiance. Of course those things came later on, but they are there for a reason. Unfortunately, some people take it way too far.

You know the old saying.... When in Rome...

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.

Bush is largely to blame for this trend. He has fractured the Republicans beyond belief, and he is forcing Big Government and Big Brother down our throats as much as he can. It's nothing short of repulsive.

All levels and sides of the government are to blame for it. I look at the budget in this area just going to schools and it disgusts me. Especially considering the condition of the students they put into society year after year. Until spending is controlled at all government levels we will continue to become more socialist. I just hope the ignorant masses get a clue before the trend is irreversible.

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.

I'd never believe the feds - they're part of the problem.

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.)

Isn't this communism at its best?

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.

My brother and his wife made a documentary about homeless people that basically agreed with this. They befriended a group of homeless people that lived in the woods and they hung out with them for a couple years, documenting their lives. Of course they didn't give up their home, they just visited an awful lot and got to know them pretty well. By and large, the homeless are no different from anyone else.

Everyone has the right to be homeless if they chose to be. My father made friends with many homeless people throughout his life. I can tell you without hesitation that many of them are happier with their lives than a lot of very wealthy people I have known.

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.

Part of the problem here is that we have to freaking label everything. Republicans, Libertarians, Democrats, etc. IMO, parties have outlived their usefulness and should be eradicated.

Unfortunately most people have to be part of a herd to feel comfortable and secure.

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.

Now that is a scary thought. ;)

The GOP I envision isn't heavily into social issues. It would be into low taxes, less spending, securing our borders, national security and getting government out of our lives whenever and wherever possible. It wouldn't tied up in gay marriage, abortion, flag burning etc. Those are issues best left to the individual states.

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.

Without a doubt. Just look at how many Republicans have bailed under Bush.

I don't know whether they have bailed or just gone dormant.

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 can't tell you how sick and tired I am of the partisan bull*** that this country wallows in every damn day. It's way past the point of doing any good whatsoever. People are nothing more than lemmings that "follow the party". It shapes their beliefs, and consequently their lives. Nobody can think for themselves anymore because they have to fall in line with some prescribed concept or they'll be ostracized for being a troublemaker. It's all bull***.

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.

So true. It all starts with the assholes that are trying to ruin your life at the local level. And almost every one of them has an agenda.

Until the average voter gives more than a *** about politics and the politicians they vote for nothing will change.

Also true, but here's what's going on: So the average guy comes home after busting his ass for his idiot boss who couldn't manage his way out of a paper bag, then paying $50 in gas that'll last him 5 days for his commute. He checks the diminishing balance of his checkbook, worrying because his insurance premiums went up and his coverage went down, and his wife was laid off because her company just outsourced her job, and his kid needs $6000 worth of braces that he has no clue how he's going to pay for. After thinking about that for a few minutes, he just doesn't give a *** about trying to figure out which of the two guys running for office is the lesser of two evils.

Here's the problem, that average guy is close to having no tax burden outside of FICA and Medicare on the federal level. What do we do next for him? Give him a welfare check every week? I think EVERY person needs to pay some amount of income tax. Not to punish them but to keep them engaged in the political process. I mean, hell, if you aren't paying any taxes then why give a *** about who gets elected? We are creating a whole class of people that don't contribute to their governmental upkeep and we are now trying to shove the entire middle class into that category. Isn't the very definition of middle class mean they can afford to pay a reasonable amount of income tax? The real problem for the middle class is they are taxed to hell and back by goverment in ways they can't comprehend. Everything from federal income tax, social security taxes, state income tax, sales tax, real estate tax, real estate transfer fees, personal property tax, excise taxes, excessive traffic fines, taxes included in every utility bill and the list goes on and on. It is amazing there is anything left for buying food. This is why the middle class is being crunched financially, IMO. They definitely aren't getting their money's worth from government on all levels.

The only time they
will give a *** is when the government makes a surprise run into
their wallets and leaves them with nothing.

Newsflash: It's happening right now. Bush's tax cuts didn't do *** for the guy I talked about above.

Getting a tax cut is better than not getting one. Whether you cut taxes or not it won't effect spending one little bit. In fact, they will spend every tax cut you didn't receive and then some. You might as well take the tax cut and be happy you get to spend it instead of a politician ear marking it for a worthless project in his district.

Unfortunately most
Americans won't take the effort to really educate themselves before
entering the voting booth.

Also unfortunately, most politicians will lie and cheat in order to get elected. And once they're elected, they'll work only for themselves and leave their constituency to rot in the gutter.

It happens all the time. Any decent politician leaves public service early because they can't stand the sleaze and slime they have to work with in Congress.
.