Madmax, I must admit ,that though you are a conservative, you are not one of my least favorite posters. I've liked some of your comments on the constitution and I believe it was free speech. I do however, have a gripe against so called Christians who don't give a damn about the poor. ( I'm not saying you are one). Sorry, but I do feel that the good feeling one gets when giving charity can cloud one to the fact that it is not very effective when compared to the massive aid given through government programs. Rather than an ad hominem attack on me, why don't you give me an example in US history or some other country where a volunteer approach to poverty has really made a major impact on poverty in a society as a whole.
<b>glynch</b>: "The needy don't give a damn whether they get the aid from the government or "out of the goodness" of your heart. They just need it. Many resent having to pretend they are interested in a particular church to get a handout." <b>giddyup</b>: That about summarizes the problem-- expecting a handout with no heads up or down. Why don't they try not pretending-- since they are in a fix and perhaps some changes in their lives would be in order. They can cling to the arrogance of the fool if they like. Certainly government programs won't challenge them.
Excellent post Surfguy! Haven has made some solid points too. I would add one qualifier to your take, however, haven. Logic is only one of the three components of rhetoric. Ethos and pathos are the others. Perceived morality and emotion are big parts of this issue, and a big part of the problem, which is, I suspect, your real point. Is China capable of handling NK? Of course! Should the US go marching into the Middle East and NK to "mop things up"? Does the word "Vietnam" mean anything to you? The fighting conditions are very different, of course, but that's not the point. 09/11/01 is a clear sign that guerrilla warfare is adaptable. This should be a last resort alternative.
"Iran, Iraq accuse Bush of war mongering" http://www.cbc.ca/cgi-bin/templates/view.cgi?/news/2002/01/30/statereax020130
My Thoughts/Concerns: Iraq - Completely justified in removing Hussein. Probably the next target on our list. http://www.msnbc.com/modules/secretempire/iraq.asp Iran - Tougher than Iraq and we will have to have some good beef on them to attack them and not get a lot of grief from other Muslim countries. Also, could cause some grief with OPEC. Not good. They were actually starting to warm up to the West, Bush's comments do not help us here. I read Iran could have Nukes within the next 5 yrs. http://www.msnbc.com/modules/secretempire/iran.asp North Korea - they seem the scariest to me. They were getting all buddy buddy with S. Korea in the last Olympics but now things are going back downhill from what I read. They have a growing missle program that may be able to hit the US very soon. There Taepo-Dong II missle can hit Pearl Harbor. They have a budding Nuclear weapon's program. If we do anything over there we might be messing with China. Just like in the Korean War. http://www.msnbc.com/modules/secretempire/NorthKorea.asp More on the "Axis of Evil" http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/01/30/gen.axis.of.evil/index.html
The NK regime isn't overly friendly with China. The Chinese befriended them for years largely because they didn't want the Soviet Union to expand its influence in East Asia, as the SU was promising them nuclear technology. Right now, NK ultimately does as China says, except in respect to issue of fundamental sovereignty.
Surfguy (and everyone else): I apologize for my tone in that post; it wasn't necessary. If I had a time machine, I would go back and tell myself to just leave the first paragraph out... But the simple facts stand: Iraq needs a new government, and we're the only ones that can accomplish that. It is only a matter of time before Saddam gets the bomb, and when that happens the entire world is in serious trouble. His regime is also a major terrorism sponsor, and has a large CBW stockpile as well - a really, really bad mix. He's gotta go. Iran either needs to change, or become a target. As someone noted earlier, a regime change might be in the offing there anyway; the power struggle between Khatami and Khamenei and the mullahs must end favorably for Khatami if anything is going to change there. over 2/3 of their population is under 30, and they are tired of living under the mullahs... Khamenei and the mullahs are the ones who are sponsoring terrorism, so I'd suggest we take covert action in order to effect their overthrow. That way we could not only eliminate the #1 sponsor of terrorism in the world, but we could right a wrong that we made 50 years ago, and help a democracy to replace the feudalistic theocracy they not have. Everyone would thank us for it, not least of which the Iranians themselves. N. Korea is certainly a rogue state in every sense of the word. As I said, the CIA thinks that they have at least 2 or 3 nukes already (you are wrong that they have no nukes, haven), and their Taepo Dong class missiles can hit Alaska and Hawaii. They have stopped testing missiles, but they continue to develop longer-ranged missiles (they just aren't firing them right now), and to stockpile more of those that they have already tested. They will have missiles with the range capability to hit CONUS within perhaps 5 to 10 years (it is not a long, long way away, haven). Something needs to be done before then. That said, however, I don't think that we should act against them militarily at this point - that would be a huge mistake IMHO. For the time being, we should just continue to pay their extortion money, although we should cease the reactor construction that is underway... Militarily, I only favor going into Iraq, and then only because it is the only way to force change. In Iran, I'd support the existent democratic movement, and foment the overthrow of the mullahs. N. Korea, well keep paying them off for the time being, and wait for them to crumble internally (they can't keep up this level of isolation forever). But quite frankly, I am not concerned about what the rest of the world will think when we go after Saddam and his Baathists. They will rail against us for acting unilaterally at first, but they will promptly shut the hell up as soon as they realize that Iraq will have a democracy, their gas prices are plummeting, and they don't have to worry about a madman on the loose with anthrax, nukes, and a huge army anymore.
Treeman: First, here's a link that supports some of the things you've been saying. Troubling indeed. http://www.observer.co.uk/islam/story/0,1442,640079,00.html Second: Iraq needs a new government, and we're the only ones that can accomplish that. How? The US has tried to installe many puppet governments, and without fail, they fail. It is only a matter of time before Saddam gets the bomb, and when that happens the entire world is in serious trouble. Sadly, it's only a matter of time before he or someone like him gets it. I think there needs to be a whole new solution to that problem, but simply taking out Hussein isn't the answer. He's as much a symptom of the problem as he is the problem. I'd suggest we take covert action in order to effect their overthrow. That way we could not only eliminate the #1 sponsor of terrorism in the world, but we could right a wrong that we made 50 years ago, and help a democracy to replace the feudalistic theocracy they not have. Everyone would thank us for it, not least of which the Iranians themselves. Covet US interference would give credence to the radicals in Iran who wish to vilify the US, not to mention the other's out there. N. Korea is certainly a rogue state in every sense of the word. As I said, the CIA thinks that they have at least 2 or 3 nukes already … Why would China allow an unstable country on their border to develop nuclear weapons? This doesn't compute. They will rail against us for acting unilaterally at first, but they will promptly shut the hell up as soon as they realize that Iraq will have a democracy, their gas prices are plummeting, and they don't have to worry about a madman on the loose with anthrax, nukes, and a huge army anymore. Iraq won't have a democracy. The country has lived with a brutal dictatorship for something like 40 years. They have no history, no structure, no people who could make a democracy work in the short term. And action like this is more likely to inspire more madmen, not less. The fanatics are fanatics, but the mainstream has a sense of right and wrong. A covert interference (which will undoubtedly be discovered), or an unwarranted (in their eyes) attack will be seen as unjust. If the moderates are alienated, then the world is in real trouble.
Grizzled: Oh, don't get me wrong - if we try and install a puppet govt there, it will certainly fail (and that result would probably be just as bad as leaving the Baathists there - a general regional war would be the end result). I am not talking about installing another puppet govt, I am talking about installing an actual democracy. Iraq is one of the few places in the rehion where that could actually work to our favor. They are about as secular as any Arab state and culture gets, and while they will (justifiably) have some animosity towards us for the past decade, once they get an actual functioning democracy - and once we institute a sort of Marshall Plan to help them rebuild - they will thank us. In ten years they could lead the Arab world in virtually every socioeconomic and political index fathomable. The whole thing only works if democracy is installed, though. Another puppet govt would certainly backfire, you're right about that. You are also right about that. But removing Saddam and the Baathists is a necessary step in the overall equation. It is not the end goal in and of itself. The root problems of the ME situation IMHO stem from the traditional lack of secular democracy. It all boils down to that factor in my mind. Iraq and Iran, while in the short term may be enemies, both hold the long-term promise of fixing that root problem. In Iraq, they already have a secular system, they just have no democratic tradition. In Iran, there is a large segment of the population (the large majority, actually) that wants real democracy. I think that over the long term, if both of these states are able to replace their current rulers then they will develop secular democracies, and that might then spread to the rest of the Arabic and Islamic world. That would go a long way towards mending our damaged relations with the Islamic world. If it works, then that won't matter. The mullahs are already at war with us. Have been for 22 years and counting. We're fools for not realizing that/responding. China supports N. Korea, it does not control N. Korea. The Kims control it. The N. Korean nuclear weapons program is totally indigenous (it is not based on Chinese support - as far as we know). Go poke around at the CIA site (or just do some general net research) if you want to find out about their nuclear weapons program. The info is there. You will find that most experts (including CIA experts) generally agree that the North already has a handfull of nuclear weapons. Now, they're probably too crude to mount on top of an IRBM/ICBM - more likely the type you'd have to carry in a large truck - but they're there. And the program is advancing... This just goes back to my main point: we are the only ones who can give them a new form of govt. They are not going to do it on their own. The desire for democracy is there, but the means are lacking... I'm always thinking long term, BTW. As far as other madmen go, you could not be more wrong. Madmen like Saddam respect one thing, and one thing alone: force. If anything, this will discourage others like him. If they know that the US will actually depose and kill them, then they will not likely take any aggressive action in the first place. No doubt about that. And as far as the "moderates" go - who the hell is "moderate"? Nations act in their own interests. When a movfef we make is in their long term interests, they will support it. Nations are not "Liberal", "Conservative", or "Moderate". Only individuals have the luxury of defining themselves in those terms. Nations act in their best interests. Replacing Saddam and the Baathists in Iraq and the mullahs in Iran is in everyone's - everyone's - best interest. In the long term, everyone will realize that.
According to a pretty interesting and thought-provoking article in the January 2002 issue of Atlantic Monthly, the U.S.'s true intention in provoking North Korea is to keep things hostile between N. Korea and S. Korea. Though NK has apparently been willing to consider arms reduction in exchange for aid, and the possibility of unification with S. Korea, we don't want that to happen for one simple reason: If the two Koreas did unite, we would have no plausible reason to keep U.S. troops stationed over there. The pretense now is that we're protecting SK from NK. If we had to withdraw troops, we couldn't establish our presence in the Far East and keep an eye on China and Japan. Pretty interesting food for thought, if true.
Treeman, I'm amazed in your belief that the CIA is this transparent organization where all you have to do is go to their web site to find out what's really going on. Is there a tab marked "covert operations" on their web site? Having "rogue states" around to trot out should be good for the midterm elections, and even the 2004 elections if the tax breaks to the rich "stimulus" package doesn't help the economy. Now that Afghanistan is over we don't need Iran. We also know that Iran is reforming form within, so as Treeman says, it might be easy to claim a victory. Iraq has been a useful "Wag the Dog" option enjoyed by both the previous Bush and Clinton administrations. I think I have the explanation for the sudden obsession with North Korea. You can use it to justify Star Wars, one of the greatest corporate welfare scams of all time. There has been a near desperate search for a cold war substitute to justify increased defense profits and as a club to beat the Democrats with since Dems have traditionally not been as eager to break the bank to keep increasing defense spending. To be fair, the Democrats traditionally get their support from poor and moderate income voters who benefit more from non-defense spending. The Republicans, at least before the Southern backlash to the Civil Rights movement, and the move of born again Christians into politics, traditionally got their support from those groups most likely to benefit economically from increased military spending. China, in Tibet and Russia in Chechnya etc. sponsor terror. Too big for a quick knockout, so we pretend it doesn't exist. The Bush doctrine: "We are against any state that engages in terrorism or shelters terrorists unless we do a lot of trading with them, they are too strong for a quick knockout leading to electoral gain at home, or they are useful currently for some other reason." On a positive side, Cuba wasn't mentioned. I guess we must be about to normalize relations with them or something. Maybe we don't like to see the Spaniards, other Europeans and Canada monopolizing the tourist trade there. Maybe Neil or one of the other Bush's is about to do a deal. Oh well, should have taken the prevailing wisdom from the investment advisors and loaded up on defense stocks when the Supreme Court gave Bush the election. Is it too late to get in the action?
"Mr. Speaker, Vice President Cheney, members of Congress,distinguished guests, fellow citizens, as we gather tonight, our nation is at war, our economy is in recession and the civilized world faces unprecedented dangers." - Bush Jr., 1/2002 Man! He's done a lot in his first year as pResident huh? Only three more to go!
How is Bush responsible for any of these bad "trends?" Oh yeah, he has "declared" war on the terrorists. Seven more to go, too!
I believe some tribes of "native americans" supported their elderly without a central government collecting taxes for a welfare system. I could definitly be wrong here. I believe charity begins at home. I'm in debt right now and the lower taxes has greatly helped me. I'm not rich, but it has helped me. It has also helped a lot of my coworkers who also don't make a lot. I don't believe in handouts for the ABLE BODIED either. Have people collecting welfare do something productive if its cleaning parks, building houses for the homeless, doing paperwork for unemployment agencies, working to give out food to the needy. I don't think the US government should be overly involved in welfare outside of making some funds available. I think States could handle it much better as unemployment/low paying jobs have different reasons in different areas. As far as welfare for the elderly, injured, etc, I don't have a problem supporting them.
I was a proud Iranian-American... But on Wednesday I was called a friggen terrorist "Your HOME (USA BORN) country is going to be blown up stupid terrorist" a comment from on of the ignorant seniors in my Algebra 1 class
Azadre, Racists suck balls. A senior in Algebra I!!!!!! Ha Ha!!! That sucks. I consider myself lucky that Catholics in America aren't associated with the IRA. Peace be with you and your family.
treeman: I agree with a lot of your points, believe it or not, but this is a VERYdelicate situation, and I have some reservation about the approach to dealing with it. They are relatively secular, but they have no history of democracy. Their fundamental concepts of governance are very different than those of the western world. How would we teach them democracy? Nations, to a significant degree, have to find their own way, right? Trying to impose a structure on them would likely get a negative response, and more importantly wouldn't capture their hearts and emotions. They need to buy into, and be committed to the new form of government, because as you know, there are many forces that work against democracy, especially in that part of the world. How could all this be … (searching for the words)… made to come to pass? Given that, why on earth is Bush labelling them as part of the "Axis of Evil"? Their current leader is a moderate. This can't be helpful. In order to achieve what you're suggesting, we need to build bridges, not fences, right? I'm not suggesting that we need to make deals with the terrorist, but we need to build bridges with the people. Inflammatory sweeping generalisations like calling their nation an "axis of evil" can't be helpful. Many of the "good" people are still quite religious. How are they going to interpret such a statement? China has a great deal of influence in the region, both overt and covert. Why would they allow NK to have the bomb? Would the US allow an unstable dictatorship in Central America to develop the bomb? The US would be in there faster than you can say Manuel Noriega. Why would China not do the same? I would say that nations don't always act in their own interests, although at the time they act they probably believe they are. Their perspective is a function of their world view. If the governing body is conservative it will view its interests one way, and if its moderate it will view them another. If there aren't any moderates with any chance to achieve power in the ME, or if there is no chance of them emerging, we're all in a lot of trouble. What the radicals believe is in their long term interests doesn't include sharing a mutual respect with the west.
Grizzled: We don't "teach" them democracy, we throw it in their lap and see what they do with it. We are going to replace Iraq's current government. I think we've already established that another puppet govt will backfire, so other than a democracy, what do you propose? The UN would have to be fully involved in this process, and I think that the outcome would be a functioning democracy. I cannot think of a better possible outcome. If it does not work, then it doesn't work, and we've wasted an effort (although Saddam and the Baathists will still be gone - and the threats they represent). But if it does work? Actual peace in the Persian Gulf... That would be priceless. Sometimes you have to take risks to get the reward. "Moderate"? You must be under the mistaken impression that Khatami is Iran's leader. "Supreme Leader" (Ayatollah) Khamenei and the mullahs run things there. The President is just window dressing. It is anything but "moderate" leadership. We will build bridges with the Iranian people by making Khatami (or whoever they decide on) the actual leader of that country. We will build bridges by freeing them from the oppressive rule of the mullahs. The operative word in my post was control. The Chinese do not control North Korea. They can not stop the Koreans from developing either missile or WMD technology. It is not China's decision. Literally. Now you see the problem. King Abdullah in Jordan is a true moderate, and a real ally. Mubarak (Egypt) is moderate enough (and threatened enough) to cooperate. The Kuwaitis have no choice, but they're inclined to cooperate anyway. The UAE and Bahrain are also cooperating. The Omani Sultanate is fully cooperating. On the other hand, a Saudi-Iran-Iraq-Syria-other minor players bloc is slowly forming. These are all potential enemies, and it would appear that they realize this and are strengthening military-economic ties in order to counter us. I am not worried, though. They will lose. And big.
