[OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.

[Alpha Kodiak]

Ok, let me see if I can follow the logic thus far:

1) I didn't really get a tax cut, even though I have significantly more money in my pocket.

2) The tax cut I didn't get is bankrupting my childrens' future. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif

3) I would have gotten a bigger tax cut than the one I didn't really get if it had been a payroll tax cut, and it wouldn't bankrupt my childrens' future. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif

4) The Mad Hatter is giving a tea party and I'm late, I'm late....

Mind you, I have nothing against a payroll tax cut. My head is just spinning amidst all of the contradictory statements.

[Erax]

Just to get this thread away from US taxes for a bit :

In another thread, Baron Munchausen posted a link to Orson Scott Card's website (www.ornery.org (http://www.ornery.org)). Compulsive reader that I am, I started going through most of his essays, until I hit the following passage :

"I was a Mormon missionary once. In Brazil, in the great city of Sao Paulo and some of the smaller cities in the surrounding countryside. I got a lot of hate Messages, too -- shouted from passing cars and buses, or muttered as I was shoved by passersby.

Funny thing was, they didn't hate me because I was a Mormon missionary.

They hated me because I was an American.

They called me "CIA." (Apparently they thought America would send its spies two by two through suburban neighborhoods wearing white shirts and ties.)

Isn't it ironic that in foreign countries, Mormon missionaries often have to bear personally the hatred that American foreign policy has provoked, while in the United States, the same Mormon missionaries get the identical hatred from Americans whose religious sensibilities are offended."

I live in the exact region OSC mentions, and American Mormon missionaries are a common sight around here. There is a time difference, though - he was probably here in the 70s. At the time, Brazil was under military rule and there were many who believed that regime had been 'set up' with American help. The feelings he describes still exist, although perhaps not as intense; I don't think the missionaries today are harassed as much as he was back then.

So what am I trying to say ? I'm not sure myself. Maybe I'm just trying to explain why everyone down here (and probably throughout Latin America) is against the war in Iraq.

[ September 18, 2003, 15:43: Message edited by: Erax ]

[Baron Munchausen]

Originally posted by Atrocities:
Oh here we go again, lets blame Bush for all of the woes in the universe. If not for Clitonomics and the fact that he opened the flood gates for the chines so they could swamp our markets and under cut our industries with their products, our economy would not have tanked. 1998 was the beginning of the end for the Semi Conductor industry and many many other companies. (Oh ya, don't forget about NAFTA too and all the jobs that took away from us and sent south. Did you know that under article 11 of the NAFTA Treaty if a state passes a law that says a product can not be sold in the US, the company that makes it in a foriegn country can sue. And under the terms of NAFTA, they always win. Just ask California about that. They were sued by a Canadian company who makes poisonious gas cleaner addatives that the state had banded for being harmful to the environment.)

Clinton sold us down the drain to the chines for election money. This bad economy is mostly his doing, and to blame it on Bush is absurd. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif Ok you can blame a little of it on him. But not all of it.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Oh here we go again, let's blame the other wing of the Corporate Party for the behavior of ALL OF THEM. NAFTA was negotiated by the Reagan-Bush dynasty, and Clinton was trying to prove he was a 'New Democrat' who was friendly to business by supporting ratification. Same thing with the opening for Chinese goods into our markets. Republicans wanted it, Clinton went along to prove he was a 'moderate' and not an anti-business 'liberal' Democrat who does evil things like protect the general public. It's not the 'Democrats' or the 'Republicans', it's the POLITICIANS who are betraying us all.

[ September 18, 2003, 18:18: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

[rextorres]

AK here's another explanation

The top 20% pay mostly income tax to the govt. The rest of us pay mostly payroll tax. (It sounds from your description that your with the rest of us.)

The tax cut that passed only dealt with income tax.

An analogy would go like this:

a. a room with 100 people

b. 20 people pay $1000 to the govt in mostly income tax.

c. 80 people pay $1000 to govt mostly in payroll tax.

d After the income tax cut the top 20 now pays $900 to the govt. mostly in income tax. The other 80 (people like you AK) now pay $990 to the govt. mostly in payroll tax. Sure those 80 got a tax cut BUT . . .

The reason it seems like the top 20 pay so much more is that some people only look at income tax and ignore payroll tax.

To answer your questions ALL those tax cuts will probably bankrupt the govt. Since there was going to be a tax cut then it should have been spread more. And yes you would have gotten a bigger share of the tax cut under a different plan.

[ September 18, 2003, 18:21: Message edited by: rextorres ]

[Narrew]

<I ran across this a while back>

This is a VERY simple way to understand the tax laws.

Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand.
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner.
The bill for all ten comes to $100.
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something
like this.

The first four men -- the poorest -- would pay nothing;
The fifth would pay $1:
the sixth would pay $3;
the seventh $7;
the eighth $12;
The ninth $18.
The tenth man -- the richest -- would pay $59.

That's what they decided to do.

The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement -- until one day, the owner decided to give them a break.

"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to educe the cost of your daily meal by $20."

So now dinner for the ten only cost $80. The group still wanted to pay
their bill the way we pay our taxes.

So the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free.

But what about the other six -- the paying customers?

How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?"

The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they
subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being *paid* to eat their meal.

So the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each
man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of his earlier $59.

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth. "But he got $7!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar,
too. It's unfair that he got seven times more than me!"

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get
anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night he didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him.

But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something
important.

They were $52 short!

And that, journalists and college professors, is how the tax system works.

[ September 18, 2003, 19:22: Message edited by: Narrew ]

[teal]

Cute story, but I don't even know where to begin pointing out inacuracies in the analogy.

First off, the story only deals with a progressive income tax. Sales tax, excise taxes (e.g. gasoline taxes), property taxes, payroll taxes, etc. are all completely ignored and yet extremely important to the tax system. Telling only part of the story is not a good way to understand the tax system.

So I feel that when discussing taxes we should discuss the total effect of all taxes on an indivual. Presumably Narrew disagrees, discussing as he does only the progressive income tax in his story. I see no reason why one should not include the effect of these other taxes, considering that they are just as much a part of the tax system as the income taxes. Please Narrew, make a case for why we should only be focusing on income tax here.

Another important question is how should we measure a fair amount of taxes to be paid (putting aside the important question of how much taxes should be paid to a later date, only anarchists believe that NO taxes whatsoever should be paid to the state). There are two basic approaches here, an absolute measure, promoted by Rush Limbaugh and others, which decides to measure the absolute amount of dollars that someone gives to the tax system and a relative measure which measures the percentage of a persons income which they pay in taxes.

Say we have two people, one who makes $200 a year and one who makes $20,000 a year. Now the $200 a year person pays $20 in taxes while the $20,000 a year person pays $2,000 a year in taxes. Now Rush Limbaugh comes along and screams, "holy cow, this is totally unfair, let me show you a graph, the richest person is paying 90.9% of the total taxes!!!! My god that is so wrong, rich people are over taxed and should definately be paying less in taxes." This is very very wrong analysis. Both person A and person B were paying 10% of their income in taxes, which is a perfectly reasonable starting point and quite fair. But if you listened to Rush you would never hear about this. That is why whenever you hear someone talking about abo****e tax numbers in terms of whoever pays absolute amounts (like Rush's little pie graph earlier) little bells should be going off in your head saying, "distortion alert, distortion alert, someone is probably trying to trick me, I should be extra careful here." Talking about absolute numbers in tax terms is almost never a fair thing to do and anyone who willfully does it after being shown quite clearly that this is a bad thing to do is either an ignoramus and very bad at math, or else deliberately deceptive. In Rush's case I know where I am putting my money, but you can decide for yourself.

[Narrew]

That Last post was something I came across a while back when I heard the same old crying "the rich always gets the breaks".

Teal...When I read "progressive tax" all I can see is punitive or punishment, why should someone that earns more be made to pay incrementally MORE, in my ideal world, everyone above a specific amount (ie to not make the lowest earners carry the brunt, because of all the "other taxes" out there) would pay 10%. You see in my universe, math is simple, the sum of 10% of $500k is MORE than the sum of 10% of $50k. Of course all deductions would need to be eliminated. As far as the national sales tax, there would be many items not taxed, such as raw/non-processed foods but if you want to go out to a restaurant, then your going to pay a tax, no one makes you go out and eat. When a person with low income goes out to buy a car, they do not shop at the Hummer dealership. I think we need to get rid of all these nuisance taxes, I think as it is now all those local and state taxes you bring up (which I agree hurts the lower class) only makes it hard for anyone to get above the tide and make a positive income.

As I said before, I am not naive enough to think things will change, but I have a hard time not thinking a TOTAL tax change would not be for the better, but to get all the local/county/state/nation to make the changes would be near impossible.

When people complain about tax breaks bankrupting our future, why do they not think instead the bloated and inefficient programs will bankrupt our nation. I do not want to live in a socialist country (nothing personal my friends that live in such countries), but these programs are there, will always be there, but by god I want the money to go to the people that need it, not gobbled up because of an inefficient bureaucracy that could care less where the money is going. Our politicians when they leave office get paid a yearly salary and insurance benefits, you tell me what incentive do they have to make SS and Medicare viable, they will never use the service so they only have to pay lip service to the voting public.

As far as living in Washington, yep I thought California was a heavy tax state, but hell they tax the snot out of you here. Nice weather though. I had a house that wasn't fancy, I paid $145k for, but paid $200 per month for property tax, OMG is that sick or what? No wonder retirees have to sell their homes because they cant afford the sales tax.

Atrocities--Sorry you feel the way you do about Republicans, I can see where your feelings come from since that is all we hear from liberals and their attacks on people that only want the freedom to better themselves and not punished for success. I will say that the Democrats do not want their constituents to become educated and better themselves, because if they do, the will realize that all the rhetoric they have spewed is just that. So instead they ask "vote for us and we will get goodies for you from the government (which comes off the backs of them evil rich people)". But they never really come through, ohh they get government pork sent their way, but it doesn't really help the POOR, it just keeps the poor there, and I think the past 30-40 years prove it. And if anyone does better them selves, well they are evil and should be punished.

I will finish on this note, I am by no means rich (in American terms), the most I have ever made is around $45k (lots of over time), I got laid off after 9-11 and am going through retraining and will be finishing my schooling in the spring of next year. I hope to start my own business. But I remember a long time ago in my first real job, I was making $11/hr. and my supervisor overheard a conversation I was having with another co-worker. He asked me how could I be a conservative when I make so little money. I was floored by his question, I told him "What does the amount that I make have to do with fairness? I want to be able to better myself, and the amount that I am making now shouldn't make any difference".

Fairness. I do not think a progressive tax system is fair, it is punitive. Do I think it will change, no, not unless as I said above to Teal every level of taxes get changed so it will not be regressive as he said. I no what the socialists will say, it is only fair that the rich pay more since they have more, and my answer to that is who gives you the right to decide who should be punished more than someone else (yes, I contend that it is punishment). If I remember correctly, the IRS thinks you are rich if you make around $96k, that's a hell of allot of money true, but incrementally increasing their tax rate to make them "pay" more is not fair, why should the be punished because they make more. As long as there is class hatred and class envy, we will never focus on the real issues, which is, how can we be more efficient with the money we are spending now.

ACK, another tomb http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif I am going to stop posting, since I know that most of use believe what we do, and it will be near impossiable to change our minds.

[Fyron]

Teal:
The problem with that is the poor and rich person do not in reality pay the same percent of their own income in taxes. You have them both paying 10% of their income, which is in no way at all like reality. It is the differences in percent taxed that most people complain about, not the overall percentage of tax revenues... (even that evil Rush Limbaugh...)

[ September 18, 2003, 20:28: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[geoschmo]

So what if the lower income person pays a greater percentage of their income in taxes? That is simple economics. The more money you have to begin with, the more you have left over after you pay for all those things which are the neccesities of life, food, shelter, clothing.

If I buy a new shirt for 20 dollars, that is a much greater percentage of my total monthly income then if Bill Gates buys the same shirt? So he should pay more for it and get nothing more out of it then I do? Just because he can? That's not fair.

The payroll tax is not a X amount per person tax guys. It's may not be graduated like income taxes, I am trying to find that out, but the more money you make the more you pay in payroll tax. And gas and other use taxes do constitute a greater percentage of total monthly income for a poor person then for a rich one, but so what? See above. Payroll tax and use taxes don't make things level. The poor person doesn't end up paying the same because of them. The rich person still pays a much greater share of the tax bill. And that's fine. Of course the rich person will pay a smaller percentage of their total income in taxes, but using the tax code as a method of income redistribution to change that is just wrong. Of course that's simply an ethical position I choose to take. Can't really debate it with those of you that feel it should be.

[ September 18, 2003, 20:52: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

[Narrew]

**Please Narrew, make a case for why we should only be focusing on income tax here.**

Because when people say the tax cut that Bush passed supposedly benefited the rich, that tax break was on the INCOME tax side, which was across the board, so DUGH (not aimed at you Teal, it's the people that plays the class envy card), the rich are going to get a break since they pay proportionally more of the income tax bucket.

Its all politics and rhetoric, I just hate the blanket liberal mantra "Tax breaks only help the rich". What you say is true on all the "OTHER" tax's, but can you even imagine anyone attacking them? I don't think any politician on either side would care to tackle that. SS and Medicare taxes are split between you and your employer, now we could make the employer pay 100%, but that may look good, but it is still coming out of all our pockets, the employer will factor that in your wages and pass it along to the consumer (no matter how long that chain will be).

I agree with you that all them other tax's hurt, but I dont see anything that will change. Will we have another Boston Tea party? I don't know that answer. I still think that progressive tax rates are punishment, but as you say how can we even out things *shrug*.

I just thought about trying to lower property tax's here in Washington state, I don't see it happening.

Whats the answer? heck if I know, I think we are allready to far down the socialist slope to make changes.

[rextorres]

Teal:

Fyron and Narrew obviously have never heard of social security tax because because base on both their Posts they don't even acknowledge that it exists.

Fyron:

Please don't accuse me of "slander" you probably do know what the social security tax is.

But again you provide half truths when you post that the rich pay way more to the govt than the poor. For whatever reason you don't include payroll tax (income tax by another name) as part of the equation and once you include that your assertion that the rich pay more turns out to be false.

[rextorres]

Originally posted by geoschmo:
So what if the lower income person pays a greater percentage of their income in taxes? That is simple economics. The more money you have to begin with, the more you have left over after you pay for all those things which are the neccesities of life, food, shelter, clothing.

If I buy a new shirt for 20 dollars, that is a much greater percentage of my total monthly income then if Bill Gates buys the same shirt? So he should pay more for it and get nothing more out of it then I do? Just because he can? That's not fair.

The payroll tax is not a flat tax guys. It's not as highly graduated as income taxes, but the more money you make the more you pay in payroll tax. And gas and other use taxes do constitute a greater percentage of total monthly income for a poor person then for a rich one, but so what? See above. Payroll tax and use taxes don't make things level. The poor person doesn't end up paying the same because of them. The rich person still pays a much greater share of the tax bill. And that's fine. Of course the rich person will pay a smaller percentage of their total income in taxes, but using the tax code as a method of income redistribution to change that is just wrong. Of course that's simply an ethical position I choose to take. Can't really debate it with those of you that feel it should be.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Actually Geo the payroll tax is for the first 87K. So someone making $1 million dollars would pay payroll tax as if he made 87K. There are so many more people making less than 87k that more of that revenue comes from people making a lot less.

So when you talk about how much revenue comes into the govt all taxes it turns out the top 20% are now paying less - look it up. And please don't show just income tax it's all money that comes out of a paycheck.

[ September 18, 2003, 20:55: Message edited by: rextorres ]

[Fyron]

Whatever. Discussing anything with you has always been a waste of time Rex. Have fun spouting off your garbage rhetoric.

[rextorres]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Whatever. Discussing anything with you has always been a waste of time Rex. Have fun spouting off your garbage rhetoric.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">So then you don't know what social security tax is?

[Narrew]

here is something else that I have thought of, I would look up all the numbers ect.. if I was running for office, hehe but I am not.

I we could wipe the slate clean on ALL taxes and start over. On the federal side, no deductions what so ever. Flat income tax on those above $30k individual $60k married, 10% on all income above those amounts. 10% on Capital Gains period (other than IRA/retirement), National Sales Tax on all manufactured items 2.5% (could have 2 weeks tax free for items under $2k for the start of school and X-mas) AND 5% tax on ALL import's (whether it is raw material or finished products), if it is across the board, perhaps we wouldn't violate trade laws.

I would like to see the revamping of business taxes, and incentives to increase 401-k participation of employees, maybe double the companies tax deduction for benefits that help the employees health/retirement.

Lets look at the prescription bill, employers will drop people off their plans and ask people to go the national plan to save money, but instead of a national plan, what if we gave the drug companies double tax breaks for supplying drugs to low income people. I know for a fact that if anyone needs medications and your low income, your doctor will send in a form to help the poor, or the doctor has enough "samples" to help someone, I know I have received some myself since I only have cobra.

I think there are many options than starting more government programs and taxing more and more.

[Fyron]

Originally posted by rextorres:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Whatever. Discussing anything with you has always been a waste of time Rex. Have fun spouting off your garbage rhetoric.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">So then you don't know what social security tax is?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

[Narrew]

Rex---Dude! I have been talking about SS, havent you read anything I have written? I said no one in their right mind will EVER lower SS tax.

The other thing that I have not brought up, that originally SS was in its own bag of money, but greedy politicians (mostly liberals wanting to SPEND more on goodies) moved it to the general fund, not Bush.

The other thing SS was to SUPLIMENT retirement, and someone making over $87k will not need that supplement, they would be foolish if they did. And though I am not SS age yet, someone that is rich is limited on their SS benefits paid to them either by taxing their income or lowering their pay out. So why the heck should someone KEEP paying into SS when it wont help them out, why not put it into an IRA or what ever and get a return on their money. And don't tell me you want to MAKE them pay more into a program that is inefficient.

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by rextorres:
So when you talk about how much revenue comes into the govt all taxes it turns out the top 20% are now paying less - look it up. And please don't show just income tax it's all money that comes out of a paycheck.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I plan on it. It's a lot of figures to read over and it may take me a while. But I will post what I find.

Before I get into it too much we need to establish something up front. While I agree that it's not fair to ignore the payroll tax when looking at the total tax picture, I don't think it's accurate to add the entire payroll tax in when determining what share of the tax burden each of us shoulders. So we need to discuss this a bit if our debate will have any common ground.

I think we can all agree the ideal situation would be for each persons SSI/Medicare taxes to be used to pay for SSI/Medicare expenses of that person. However, realistically it can't. It's designed to be a social insurance plan where everybody pays in and everybody gets back out. The closest we could get is for each years payroll tax revenues to be used to pay that years SSI/Medicare expenses. It would be nice if there was no surplus or deficit, but that isn't realistic either. It would be ok if any surplus were saved to be used for future years deficits, (In a lock box maybe? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif ) but that doesn't happen either. Instead the surplus is converted bonds which the government uses to fund other programs. This is I believe the area that bothers you and leads you to calling the whole thing a tax.

So, I think if we are going to consider SSI/Medicare payments as taxes, we should break that up and call the portion going to pay SSI/Medicare expenses as "insurance premiums" and the portion that goes towards these other programs as the hidden "payroll tax".

If that seems reasonable to you I can look at the numbers and figure out what portion of the total tax revenue for each year is paid by which income demographic. Actually I will calculate it both ways, just for curiosity.

EDIT: Now mind you I don't think it will matter that much as far as I believe going in that the numbers will show the top 20% of wage earners pay a significant portion of the taxes whichever way I calculate it. But obviously it will change the degree somewhat.

[ September 18, 2003, 21:56: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

[rextorres]

OK - When I looked at this Last, though, I just lumped it all together as percentage of revenues without deducting what actually goes into paying the insurance. With that said I concede that it should probably be taken out of the equation.

Yes if the payroll tax were not spent on non-entitlements then I might have a different opinion on Rush's argument that "the rich pay more".

[teal]

Narrew: If we could wash the slate clean and start the tax system all over again, then I would mostly agree with you. A *total* tax rate of X% flat across the board seems like a fair place to start a discussion, with perhaps a deduction (no tax on the first $X). Sadly, as you aknowledge, we can't start the tax game all over again from scratch (short of a violent revolution, which has its own horrible cost). So we are stuck with the tax system we have now. Given that we are stuck with the current tax system. Advocating a change from the progressive federal income tax seems like a bad idea to me. Since, as you acknowledge, none of the other taxes are going to change, the net effect of such advocacy (even with your admirable intentions) would be to make the total tax system regressive. I am very much interested in the practical side of things. Given that we prefer result X (a mostly flat total tax), what is the best way to accomplish that in the real world? I think that the answer has to be a slightly progressive federal income tax in order to balance out the regressive nature of all the other taxes. Also, I don't trust either party to be fiscally responsible if they hold all the power. Right now the Republicans hold the legislature, the executive, and, arguably, the judiciary as well. And they have shown that their idea of fiscal responsiblity is to *raise* spending and cut revenue. A Democratic legislature and a Democratic president would surely be bad as well in that they too would raise spending (on different things mind you) and would probably raise taxes to pay for it. Historically, a Democratic legislature and a Republican executive has also been quite bad with the compromise being balooning spending on both parties favorite projects. Which leaves us with a Democratic president and a republican legislature. Historically, this has been the most preferable option with something approaching a balanced budget and spending mostly under control. Given that both political parties are up to no good, and if given unchecked power they will abuse that power, the answer is to make sure that no one party ever gains controll. If it seems probable that Republicans will control the legislature, vote for a democratic president, and vice versa in the other case(it's easier to predict the legislature's composition in general given the power of incumbancy change happens slowly there). So rather than throw up our hands in defeat at the evil politicans we should try and use the built in checks and balances in the system to try and maximize the chances that the most reasonable thing will get done and to my mind that means making sure that the various factions have roughly equal political power.

[Narrew]

See Teal, we are not too far apart *family hug* though we both have different opinions, and hey that is the way things are here in the US and that's a good thing.

I want to take up your comment about our Politicians. One of the things I think our Founding Fathers intended was that "serving our country" would be a sacrifice, not a permanent pay check that our elected officials get after 1 term. If they did sacrifice their public (income and what ever) and would not get a lifetime paycheck after they left office, then perhaps they would "work for the common man". Especially if they were told, once you serve in office, you have to live with Medicare health when you retire (ohh I know, how can you make that happen, but it would be nice if they have to take the medicine that we take).

At one time, I thought that term limits would fix it, but I have changed my mind over the years. There are good people from both sides of the isle that DO care about the people (ohh we can disagree how best to serve the people, that's cool), but many career politicians are the bane of our Country's well being.

[teal]

Originally posted by geoschmo:
So what if the lower income person pays a greater percentage of their income in taxes? That is simple economics. The more money you have to begin with, the more you have left over after you pay for all those things which are the neccesities of life, food, shelter, clothing.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">In a perfect world, everyone would pay for government services exactly what they got out of it. So, if I drive my car 100 miles/month on the county roads and someone else drives 1,000 miles/month on those same roads, I should pay 10 times as less in "county road tax" as the other person because I used the road ten times as less. Sadly, I know of no easy way to calculate this benefit and thus to pay a fair tax for my use of government services. Could you imagine the paperwork that would result from such a system: "let's see here, I drove 14 miles yesterday, that's $1.40 in road tax, and the police arrested a burgular who was going to break into my house tommorow so they have billed me $200 and the firedepartment was nice enough to stop that house across town from burning down and setting the whole city ablaze. They have billed me $0.77 which they calculated as the cost of my home times the percentage chance it would have burned down if they had not acted, etc. etc." (and yes, these examples were shown as being deliberatley impossible to calculate in the real world, how do you quantify the benefit that you recieved from the police department?)

So, given that calculating the exact benefit each individual gets from government services is imposible, we should try and arrange things so that whichever simple model we adopt get's closest to whatever that value actually is.

Geo has effectively argued that benefit is proportional to how much one *spends*. I.e. I get more out of government services the more I spend. I shall argue that benefit derived is more closely proportional to how much one *earns*. Or to put it another way: given the choice between a sales tax generating $X and a flat income tax generating $X (in a world with no other taxes, ha!), which one should we choose?

To answer this question, let's look at several government services and try and decide whether the benefit recieved from them scales more closely as a function of spending or of earning.

1) Roads: Here it seems likely that spending would scale more closely to benefit. One would buy more gasoline if they used the roads more, and the more goods one buys the more that they had to be trucked in from elsewhere and thus the more the roads were damaged due to your buying the good.

2) Police and fire protection: Once again it seems that the benefit scales as a function of spending, since the more expensive house you buy, the better the nieghborhood and the more likely it is to be that you will have excellent police and fire coverage.

But what a minute here. How do I put a value on the stability that functioning infrastructure brings to a society? The wealthier person only has a wealthy career because of this stability. Smack a New York City stock broker into downtown Kabul, Afghanistan (which lacks the devloped infrastructure of the west) and ask them to start earning a living and they will soon find themselves doing something other than stock brokering. Put a janitor in the same situation and it is much more likely they will be able to continue janitoring. In this case, we have to say that the stock broker got far more benefit from the government services provided by the U.S.A. because put him in a situation where those government services function poorly and his livelyhood is hurt drastically more than the janitors. In this case I think we have to say that benefit scales as a function of income, not necessarily spending. Much of whatever income you are making is really only possible because the society as a whole is quite stable and that is largely a function of a mostly good government providing roads, courts, police protection, national defense and even quite possibly help for someone who recently lost their job and would other wise have to turn to crime (gasp!, ok maybe not that Last one http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif .

So which of these two viewpoints more closely resembles reality? I have to say that income scales more closely to benefit derived than spending does, although both are imperfect.

Also, we may decide as a society that people should not be taxed on necessities (i.e. food, clothing, shelter). This is because if we tax someone who can not quite provide for all their necessities then we are in effect taking the bread out of thier mouths. We may decide, as a society, that we would rather just tax people on "luxuries" instead. Now the question arises, what is a necessity and what is a luxury? Buying a $2 shirt from Goodwill is surely a necessity, how about a $10 shirt from the Gap, or a $100 shirt from a designer store? Obviously the $100 shirt is a luxury, yet if we have a blanket "no taxing clothing policy" then the person who buys it would be able to escape the luxury tax in part by buying luxurious "necessities". A better way to approach the problem would be to allow each person a set deduction of $X where $X was determined to be the necessity threshold (that amount of money necessary to provide for basic necessities). This would involve far less paperwork and interfering with the market than trying to figure out which kinds of shirts are luxuries and which are necessities.

One final argument against the sales tax, which, although short, is perhaps the most powerful of all. The world is becomming increasingly globalized and it is now quite easy to buy something from somewhere other than where you live. Typically when you buy something off the internet (for example) you do not pay sales tax. Some people seek to avoid sales taxes by using the internet for big ticket items. Thus a sales tax (even a national one which could be circumvented by ordering from Canada or Mexico) has a bad effect on the free market and will become increasingly more of a logistical hassle to collect and fairly distribute as time goes on.

Teal, who has used up his "arguing on the internet" time quota for the month and must now turn back to "doing productive things" time.

[Wardad]

So, how much of this is true?

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

My Darn Good Resume Accomplishments as President
By George W. Bush, The White House, USA

I attacked and took over two countries.

I spent the U.S. surplus and bankrupted the treasury.

I shattered the record for biggest annual deficit in history

I set an economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in any 12-month period.

I set all-time record for biggest drop in the history of the stock market.

I am the first president in decades to execute a federal prisoner.

I am the first president in US history to enter office with a criminal record.

In my first year in office I set the all-time record for most days on vacation by any president in US history.

After taking the entire month of August off for vacation, I presided over the worst security failure in US history.

I set the record for most campaign fundraising trips by any president in US history.

In my first two years in office over 2 million Americans lost their jobs.

I cut unemployment benefits for more out-of-work Americans than any other president in US history.

I set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12-month period.

I appointed more convicted criminals to administration positions than any president in US history.

I set the record for the fewest press conferences of any president since the advent of TV.

I signed more laws and executive orders amending the Constitution than any other president in US history.

I presided over the biggest energy crises in US history and refused to intervene when corruption was revealed.

I presided over the highest gasoline prices in US history and refused to use the national reserves as past presidents have.

I cut healthcare benefits for war veterans.

I set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously take to the streets to protest me (15 million people), shattering the record for protest against any person in the history of mankind.

I dissolved more international treaties than any president in US history.

I've made my presidency the most secretive and unaccountable of any in US history.

Members of my cabinet are the richest of any administration in US history. (The 'poorest' multimillionaire, Condoleeeza Rice, has a Chevron oil tanker named after her.)

I am the first president in US history to have all 50 states of the Union simultaneously go bankrupt.

I presided over the biggest corporate stock market fraud in any market in any country in the history of the world.

I am the first president in US history to order a US attack and military occupation of a sovereign nation, and I did so against the will of the United Nations and the world community.

I have created the largest government department bureaucracy in the history of the United States.

I set the all-time record for biggest annual budget spending increases, more that any other president in US history.

I am the first president in US history to have the United Nations remove the US from the Human Rights Commission.

I am the first president in US history to have the United Nations remove the US from the Elections Monitoring Board.

I removed more checks and balances, and have the least amount of Congressional oversight that any presidential administration in US history.

I rendered the entire United Nations irrelevant.

I withdrew from the International Criminal Court.

I refused to allow inspectors access to US prisoners of war and by default no longer abide by the Geneva Conventions.

I am the first president in US history to refuse United Nations election inspectors access during the 2002 US elections.

I am the all-time US (and world) record holder for most corporate campaign donations.

The biggest lifetime contributor to my campaign, who is also one of my best friends, presided over one of the largest corporate bankruptcy frauds in world history (Kenneth Lay, former CEO of Enron Corporation).

I spent more money on polls and focus Groups than any president in US history.

I am the first president to run and hide when the US came under attack (and then lied, saying the enemy had the code to Air Force 1)

I am the first US president to establish a secret shadow government.

I took the world's sympathy for the US after 911, and in less than a year made the US the most resented country in the world (possibly the biggest diplomatic failure in US and world history).

I am the first US president in history to have a majority of the people of Europe (71%) view my presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and stability.

I am the first US president in history to have the people of South Korea more threatened by the US than by their immediate neighbor, North Korea.

I changed US policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded government contracts.

I set the all-time record for number of administration appointees who violated US law by not selling their huge investments in corporations bidding for gov't contracts.

I have removed more freedoms and civil liberties for Americans that any other president in US history.

In a little over two years I have created the most divided country in decades, possibly the most divided that the US has been since the civil war.

I entered office with the strongest economy in US history and in less that two years turned every single economic Category heading straight down, record unemployment being the most recent achievement.

RECORDS AND REFERENCES:

I have at least one conviction for drunk driving in Maine (Texas drug conviction has been erased and is not available).

I was AWOL from the National Guard and deserted the military during a time of war.

I refuse to take a drug test or even answer any questions about drug use.

All records of my tenure as governor of Texas have been spirited away to my father's library, sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view.

All records of any SEC investigations into my insider trading or bankrupt companies are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view.

All minutes of meetings of any public corporation for which I served on the board are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view.

Any records of minutes from meeting I (or my VP) attended regarding public energy policy are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public review.

DO YOU WANT FOUR MORE YEARS OF BUSH! THINK ABOUT IT. SEND THIS EMAIL TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

[Loser]

Aaaw, why u got 2 h8?

[edit: done making serious Posts in this thread]

[ September 22, 2003, 18:53: Message edited by: Loser ]

[tesco samoa]

WarDad should that mass email list a few sources to bring a little creditability to it ??? Cause right now it looks like one of those pass it on emails that passes right to the delete bucket.

P.S. anyone see Letterman Last night. That bush speach was funny... "The left hand ( raises the right one ) knows what the right hand ( raises the left hand ) is doing."

[Atrocities]

Originally posted by Wardad:
So, how much of this is true?

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

My Darn Good Resume Accomplishments as President
By George W. Bush, The White House, USA

I attacked and took over two countries.

Because the heithens attacked us and killed nearly 5,000 people over the Last ten years.

I spent the U.S. surplus and bankrupted the treasury.
To fight terrorism and to save lives.

I shattered the record for biggest annual deficit in history
Because records need to be broken

I set an economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in any 12-month period.
I take responsiblity for the economy even though it started to tank in 98 and 9-11 did not help matters.

I set all-time record for biggest drop in the history of the stock market.
Following the buy anything record setting 90's that saw dumbasses buying stock in internet companies with no long term finacial plans who all eventually went under.

I am the first president in decades to execute a federal prisoner.
And the bastard deserved to die for what he did.

I am the first president in US history to enter office with a criminal record.
At least I will not be leaving office as a lying fellon, impeached by congress who cheated on my wife and then pardoned nearly 40 criminals.

In my first year in office I set the all-time record for most days on vacation by any president in US history.
And I am damn proud of it.

After taking the entire month of August off for vacation, I presided over the worst security failure in US history.
Just think of how bad it would have been if Gore had been in office. We'd all be under a chinese dictatorship by now.

I set the record for most campaign fundraising trips by any president in US history.
Except for Bill Clinton who's entire compaign was bought and paid for by the Chinese.

In my first two years in office over 2 million Americans lost their jobs.
And if I had not been elected that number would have been 8 million americans who had Last their jobs.

I cut unemployment benefits for more out-of-work Americans than any other president in US history.
Or so it was reported by the Liberal Press yet never proven.

I set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12-month period.
The economy goes round and round.

I appointed more convicted criminals to administration positions than any president in US history.
At least I did not pardon more criminals in us history than Bill Clinton.

I set the record for the fewest press conferences of any president since the advent of TV.
I have better things to do, like run a country and fight terrorism. Let the Democrats worry about sound bits and tv stardom.

I signed more laws and executive orders amending the Constitution than any other president in US history.
Yes, I re-affirmed the constitutional rights of americans and help to prevent the liberal dark side from taking or protecting americans from their rights and freedoms. Score one for the good guys.

I presided over the biggest energy crises in US history and refused to intervene when corruption was revealed.
Yes and these companies were all run by democratic supporters who made a living off of scamming the American people. It is up to the justice system to prosecute these criminals, not the office of the President.

I presided over the highest gasoline prices in US history and refused to use the national reserves as past presidents have.
Price will rise as a resource is depleted and the democratic members of the Senate and Congress prevents the research or exploration of new alternative fueles and fuel sources.

I cut healthcare benefits for war veterans.
Oops, sorry this came off of bill clintons resume.

I set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously take to the streets to protest me (15 million people), shattering the record for protest against any person in the history of mankind.
And Fance surrendered to them. For that I am sorry.

I dissolved more international treaties than any president in US history.
They were old and out dated and needed to be trashed.

I've made my presidency the most secretive and unaccountable of any in US history.
That is to say that I do not let the press run my presidency as the previous president did.

Members of my cabinet are the richest of any administration in US history. (The 'poorest' multimillionaire, Condoleeeza Rice, has a Chevron oil tanker named after her.)
Hot damn, I need to get these fools into a poker game.

I am the first president in US history to have all 50 states of the Union simultaneously go bankrupt.
We joke, the only states that have not gone bankrupt are the ones run by republicans.

I presided over the biggest corporate stock market fraud in any market in any country in the history of the world.
That is to say we discovered these jokers during my presidency and did something about them unlike my predessor who make millions off of them.

I am the first president in US history to order a US attack and military occupation of a sovereign nation, and I did so against the will of the United Nations and the world community.
I did this because they lacked the courage, dedication, and fortitude to stand up to a terroristic oppressive mass murderer phycopath.

I have created the largest government department bureaucracy in the history of the United States.
By combining several governmental departments into one organization rather than 20.

I set the all-time record for biggest annual budget spending increases, more that any other president in US history.
War and freedom cost money.

I am the first president in US history to have the United Nations remove the US from the Human Rights Commission.
Hot damn, and to think these are the same people who turned a blind eye to the million being killed in Yugoslovic wars. Turned a blind eye to the millions killed by Saddam over the years, and turned a blind eye to the horrors committed by the Taliban in Afganastan. The UN's idea of HRC is to run away and hide at the first sign of human atrocities and let the genicide go unchecked or challenged.[b]

I am the first president in US history to have the United Nations remove the US from the Elections Monitoring Board.
[b]Woop de dooo

I removed more checks and balances, and have the least amount of Congressional oversight that any presidential administration in US history.
And thank god Al Gore isn't in office, we'd all be speaking chinese by now.

I rendered the entire United Nations irrelevant.
Well not me really, they did that to themselves a long long time ago.

I withdrew from the International Criminal Court.
The court was currupt.

I refused to allow inspectors access to US prisoners of war and by default no longer abide by the Geneva Conventions.
By inspectors I mean traitors to those who lost their lives on 9-11. Traitors who care more about the way a terrorist is being treated than they ever did for the people these freaks of nature terrorised both in their own country as well as around the world.

I am the first president in US history to refuse United Nations election inspectors access during the 2002 US elections.
I mean what for, they can't count either.

I am the all-time US (and world) record holder for most corporate campaign donations.
Do I get a medal for this? At least I did not take any money from the Chines with the intention of selling our country to them like my predessor did.

The biggest lifetime contributor to my campaign, who is also one of my best friends, presided over one of the largest corporate bankruptcy frauds in world history (Kenneth Lay, former CEO of Enron Corporation).
Well that just goes to show you, no matter how well you know someone, they can still surprise you.

I spent more money on polls and focus Groups than any president in US history.
Ooops, wait, that was one of Bills again.

I am the first president to run and hide when the US came under attack (and then lied, saying the enemy had the code to Air Force 1)
Well if you are so misinformed as to consider what I did as hiding, then what Bill Clinton did to escape going to war was out right disertion.

I am the first US president to establish a secret shadow government.
Oh wait, another one of bills accomplishments. I was the one who exposed them.

I took the world's sympathy for the US after 911, and in less than a year made the US the most resented country in the world (possibly the biggest diplomatic failure in US and world history).
If you would believe those who know nothing about anything but claim to know everyting about nothing.

I am the first US president in history to have a majority of the people of Europe (71%) view my presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and stability.
The French, you just gotta love em.

I am the first US president in history to have the people of South Korea more threatened by the US than by their immediate neighbor, North Korea.
Blood is always thicker than water. Wait for the North to start its crap up again, and then see who the south fears most.

I changed US policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded government contracts.
Live and let live I say. If their debt to society is paid then so be it. I did this so Bill Clinton can run for congress.

I set the all-time record for number of administration appointees who violated US law by not selling their huge investments in corporations bidding for gov't contracts.
Well the second all time record that is, the first was held by the appointees of Bill Clinton during his administration.

I have removed more freedoms and civil liberties for Americans that any other president in US history.
Oops, that should read I have resored more freedoms and civil liberties for Americans than any other president in US history. Damn democrats must have gotten a hold my resume again.

In a little over two years I have created the most divided country in decades, possibly the most divided that the US has been since the civil war.
I like light beer but many Americans prefer non light beer.

I entered office with the strongest economy in US history and in less that two years turned every single economic Category heading straight down, record unemployment being the most recent achievement.
Well to be perfectly honest, Clintonomics was in full swing driving us right into bankrupty since early 98, and if I had not been elected, our economy would have been obliterated a year after Gore took office.

RECORDS AND REFERENCES:

I have at least one conviction for drunk driving in Maine (Texas drug conviction has been erased and is not available).
Hot damn, boys will be boys. At least I am not a fellon like my predessor.

I was AWOL from the National Guard and deserted the military during a time of war.
The paper work was misplaced, but once it was found, all was forgiven.

I refuse to take a drug test or even answer any questions about drug use.
It was non of their damn buisness any how.

All records of my tenure as governor of Texas have been spirited away to my father's library, sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view.
What? I read them yestarday!

All records of any SEC investigations into my insider trading or bankrupt companies are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view.
As are many many other poeples records. And for the record, I am opposed to this.

All minutes of meetings of any public corporation for which I served on the board are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view.
As are many company record for many companies around the nation.

Any records of minutes from meeting I (or my VP) attended regarding public energy policy are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public review.
As are most records of this nature.

DO YOU WANT FOUR MORE YEARS OF BUSH! THINK ABOUT IT. SEND THIS EMAIL TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX[
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You have got to love the dimmly informed and utterly clueless fools that blindly follow the democratic tune. Talk about role reversals, mistruths, and utter made up crap.

Clinton drove me away from the Democratic party, and dumb asses like the moron who made this email keep me away.

(My opinion is mine alone.)

[Erax]

OK people, forgive me if I sound a bit harsh, but as an inhabitant of 'the rest of the world', I would like to state my opinion. While I speak for no one other than myself, I believe there are many people out here - a whole lot many people - who would agree with me (I also got a little carried away towards the end, but that is honestly the way I feel).

The US had - and has - the power to make or break the UN, and this time, they chose to break it. While some people claim that this is the first step in a worldwide power grab, I feel that the problem is, in fact, the opposite.

America doesn't want to take the UN's place. You don't want to take on the role of world leader or even the lesser role of world mediator. As soon as all governments which threaten you have been removed or intimidated into submission, you will retreat back into your isolationism. And that is what makes me mad.

You see, in their day, the ideals stated in the Declaration of Independence were as revolutionary as the Communist Manifesto. Your Founding Fathers believed their ideals applied to all people, everywhere. But from the late 80s onward you did not try to push the world towards democracy and away from oppression and corruption. Sure, you participated in flare-ups in several trouble spots around the world, but they weren't part of a concerted effort.

This is nothing less than tragic. After the fall of the Communisr Bloc, you had the power to create a world according to your own ideals (and believe me when I say that most of us out here think you do have that power) but did not act on it. That is why we do not trust you now. Those of us who hated you during the Cold War still hate you today, but they are a tiny minority. The rest of us - the ones who cheered along with you when the Berlin Wall came down - have been feeling cheated for quite some time now.

The good news is, you still have a way out. Your government says it wants to create a democracy in Iraq, which may serve as an example for the rest of the Middle East. That is exactly the kind of project we've been waiting to see all along. We wish you the best of luck with it, because it is not only your national safety which is at stake there, but also your credibility.

If, in your arrogance, you consider us - and our trust in you - irrelevant, if you believe you can achieve safety for yourselves solely through force and intimidation, you will face increasing opposition every step of the way. Your power, without wisdom, will fall of its own weight.

If, on the other hand, you have the courage to live up to your ideals and make an honest attempt to spread them to the rest of the world, we will stand behind you and help you sweep away everything that threatens you - terrorism, drugs, international crime - because they are also a threat to us. America, seize this opportunity now while you still have it, and take the place you deserve in History.

[primitive]

The speach (http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/09/23/sprj.irq.bush.transcript/), Read it !!!

GWB in the UN Sept. 23rd 2003
The regime of Saddam Hussein cultivated ties to terror while it built weapons of mass destruction. It used those weapons in acts of mass murder and refused to account for them when confronted by the world. The Security Council was right to be alarmed.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Maybe it is time to come up with some proof soon ?
Flinging unsupported accusations only works so many times.

[Wardad]

Originally posted by Erax:
If, on the other hand, you have the courage to live up to your ideals and make an honest attempt to spread them to the rest of the world, we will stand behind you and help you sweep away everything that threatens you - terrorism, drugs, international crime - because they are also a threat to us. America, seize this opportunity now while you still have it, and take the place you deserve in History.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You over estimate our abilities and our dedication.

Our trade deficits is huge. Our goverment and personnal debt load is huge. Our industrial base has been immitated, undercut, and exported. The "brain" positions and the service economy is also following.
We have many people who do not give hoot about American Ideals. Many immigrants came here for the almighty buck. Many natives do not understand how worse life can be elsewhere.
The only thing our mixed population can seem to agree on is taht "we all want a litte more".

I know career military men in the National Guard reserves. They complain about the lack of good clean men (er, persons) that can pass the drug tests. Many Guard positions go unfilled because of this. Many young men (er, persons)are discharge because of drugs and because they failed to complete counseling requirements.

Can we sell Justice and hold charades like the O.J. Simpson trial and Rodney King trial?

Can we sell democracy and flaunt election fraud?
The Bush election was not our first case of fraud.
How about LBJ, and Tammay Hall, etc...?

We are in no position to kick the worlds butt.
We are certainly in no position to grab the moral high ground.
We certainly are not evangilists of democracy and human rights.

We can not help the world alone.
Maybe France can lead you. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

[Mathias_Ice]

Originally posted by Atrocities:
You have got to love the dimmly informed and utterly clueless fools that blindly follow the democratic tune. Talk about role reversals, mistruths, and utter made up crap.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Amen, brother! Thanks for taking the time and effort to rebute that load of crap.

[Erax]

Wardad, you must take on this role because you are ahead of the rest of us. You could have reworked the UN to act as your front, giving you legitimacy while you supplied its backbone, but your current government has removed that option. So now there is no one else to do the job.

And believe me, someone has to do it, otherwise the power of drug, terrorism, corruption and organized crime networks will continue to grow unchecked until they become our de facto world government.

Someone has to rally the world around the moral high ground, and it can't be France or any of the other former colonial powers because they have a poor track record with the rest of the world. If America won't do it, someone will, but I have no idea who that someone might be.

All I know is that it won't be France. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[Loser]

Originally posted by primitive:
The speach (http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/09/23/sprj.irq.bush.transcript/), Read it !!!

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">GWB in the UN Sept. 23rd 2003
The regime of Saddam Hussein cultivated ties to terror while it built weapons of mass destruction. It used those weapons in acts of mass murder and refused to account for them when confronted by the world. The Security Council was right to be alarmed.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Maybe it is time to come up with some proof soon ?
Flinging unsupported accusations only works so many times.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well he did...

[primitive]

Originally posted by Loser:
Well he did...<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Did he ?
The news over here must be heavily censored, cause I have missed any proof.
Please humour an old geezer and provide me with a link (other than his own statements)

[Atrocities]

Originally posted by Mathias_Ice:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Atrocities:
You have got to love the dimmly informed and utterly clueless fools that blindly follow the democratic tune. Talk about role reversals, mistruths, and utter made up crap.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Amen, brother! Thanks for taking the time and effort to rebute that load of crap.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I should have worded it kinder as it might have offended some people and for that I do sincerely apologize.

There is very little truth in that email, mostly mis-stated half truths and rumors created by hate mongers and trouble makers. The same people who do the same thing to every president. These people may or may not be politically affilated, but their line of crap is always the same.

Someone had to take the high ground in the fight against world terrorism. That will draw a lot of flack from those who both support terrorism, and those who want to make noise so they get their 15 minutes of fame.

Most Americans, and people around the world choose to be a silent majoratie that support what Bush and Blair have done. The new organizations want to sell papers and air time so they hype the anti-terrorism efforts and fuel the fires. We call them Anarchists. In the end most people are glad to see the Taliban and Sadaam gone.

Our Economy was heading down hill fast in late months of 97. In October 97 the Stock Market had a baby crash and from that point on, everything was head'n south. Bush walked into a bad economy made 10x worse by the events of 9-11. No president could have forseen this and no person should hold the president responsible for this.

Bush extended unemployment benifits for americans. It was Clinton who cut them because back when he did it made sense. The econmy was doing great and unemployed people often were back to work in a month.

I do worry about the national debt, but I confedance that smart people are doing what they feel they must in order to get the job done.

Time will tell the tale of all of this and trust me in a 100 years none of it will matter for all of us who are alive now will most like be dead then. So what does it matter?

[ September 25, 2003, 01:43: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

[deccan]

Originally posted by Atrocities:
Most Americans, and people around the world choose to be a silent majoratie that support what Bush and Clair have done.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I bet you meant Bush and Blair here. For some reason, when I saw "Clair", I first thought of Claire Short and did a double-take. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

[Loser]

Originally posted by primitive:
It is this: “ .. built weapons of mass destruction.... and refused to account for them when confronted by the world” that needs proof. Proof of WMDs (and ties to 9.11) please.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">He had WMDs, that much is clear. That's all it said, really. Implications being what they are, you could call it baiting an untruth, but as long as that past-tense is in there...

As for Bush I taking out Saddam, it wasn't possible. We did not have a strong enough presence in the region to go it alone, and no one else was going to stick it out past Kuwait. Two years later would have worked, but U.S. was a different place by then.

[primitive]

I can do this all day http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
“and refused to account for them (WMDs) when confronted by the world” is not just baiting an untruth. Until proved, it’s nothing but slander. If it’s not proved, than it’s a blatant lie.

[deccan]

Originally posted by primitive:

“and refused to account for them (WMDs) when confronted by the world” is not just baiting an untruth. Until proved, it’s nothing but slander. If it’s not proved, than it’s a blatant lie.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">1) We don't disagree that Hussein had at least at one point WMDs.

2) What would you say "accounting for them" might mean? I'd say that on balance he did refuse to properly account for them, since UN inspectors HAVE pointed out big holes in his accounts of what happened to known stocks of bio-chemical weapons (or materials to make such weapons) and Hussein DID push out the inspectors when they started looking too hard after Gulf War 1.

[Erax]

OK, after reading the UN speech I must say that my opinion of GWB has just become more favorable. At worst, he recognizes that he cannot ignore the UN and world opinion indefinitely. At best, he truly intends to support all the humanitarian projects he mentioned.

I am especially interested in this part : America is working with friends and allies on a new Security Council resolution, which will expand the U.N.'s role in Iraq. As in the aftermath of other conflicts, the United Nations should assist in developing a constitution, training civil servants, and conducting free and fair elections. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Let's hope it happens that way. I for one am looking forward to it.

[primitive]

Originally posted by deccan:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by primitive:

“and refused to account for them (WMDs) when confronted by the world” is not just baiting an untruth. Until proved, it’s nothing but slander. If it’s not proved, than it’s a blatant lie.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">1) We don't disagree that Hussein had at least at one point WMDs.

2) What would you say "accounting for them" might mean? I'd say that on balance he did refuse to properly account for them, since UN inspectors HAVE pointed out big holes in his accounts of what happened to known stocks of bio-chemical weapons (or materials to make such weapons) and Hussein DID push out the inspectors when they started looking too hard after Gulf War 1.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">1.
We agree on that, and I agree that Saddam was a Big Bad MF who deserved everything he got. But I do believe that the cost of this war is way larger than the benefits. And I am not talking about money; I am talking about the cost of gutting the UN, the cost of creating a new cold war (between Islam and the west this time), and the cost of increased terrorism (by hitting the wrong target).

2.
There is a big difference between “can not” and “will not” account for something. If it was “will not”, documents or witnesses should have been available to the inspectors by now (or soon). As the situation stands right now, it would appear that it was more a case of “can not”. Bomb any country half back to the Stone Age and see how much records that survive.

And yes, he did throw the UN inspectors out, but he also caved and let them back in when the US threatened to use force (which I approved off). Problem is: GWB chose to attack even after Saddam caved and agreed to the US demands, thereby ruining “threat of using force” as a diplomatic tool.

[Erax]

Primitive, I too think this war was a bad idea, but I don't entirely agree with your points.

Yes, Bush gutted the UN, but now it seems that he wants to repair the damage. Let's give him time to see if he means it.

The 'new cold war' is not GWB's creation, it is a result of at least 100 years of erroneous foreign policy by the former colonial powers. Right now we are going through a crisis in that war, but the war was already there.

Regarding the 'wrong target', although I agree with you I think the USA may have hit the right target while aiming at the wrong one. Time will tell.

I believe that it is far more important now to see what kind of government emerges in Iraq rather than debate the legitimacy of the war. We can't change what happened, but we can try to influence what is happening now.

[deccan]

Originally posted by primitive:
Did he ?
The news over here must be heavily censored, cause I have missed any proof.
Please humour an old geezer and provide me with a link (other than his own statements)<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Try this:

http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=186940

Saddam Hussein HAS used poison gas against Kurds.

[primitive]

Deccan,
That was not the part of the quotation I was referring too. Nobody in his right mind would deny those crimes. Problem is they happened before Gulf war 1 and any UN sanctions against Iraq, and is therefore irrelevant as an excuse for GWB for Gulf war 2. However, they would have made an excellent excuse for Bush sr. to have done the job properly the first time.

My problem with the quotation is that it implies that Iraq built new WMDs and supported terror against the USA between GW1 and GW2 (Although I conceede that it is written in vague language and don’t include any actual dates)

It is this: “ .. built weapons of mass destruction.... and refused to account for them when confronted by the world” that needs proof. Proof of WMDs (and ties to 9.11) please.

[Atrocities]

Originally posted by deccan:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Atrocities:
Most Americans, and people around the world choose to be a silent majoratie that support what Bush and Clair have done.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I bet you meant Bush and Blair here. For some reason, when I saw "Clair", I first thought of Claire Short and did a double-take. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ooops, typo - my bad - fixed

[deccan]

* Shrug *

On balance, I'd say that I supported the war based on the evidence available at that time. I'd say that Iraq's renewed acceptance of the UN's weapons inspectors at the threat isn't sufficient for me because it was a case too little, too late.

Remember that I'm in the Solomon Islands. Here, we had an amnesty period within which the militants were supposed to hand in their weapons in exchange for not being persecuted. However, in order to avoid conflict, the government kept renewing the amnesty over and over again, and made the entire Townsville Peace Agreement which created the amnesty into a laughing stock.

But I would also say that, even based on the pre-war evidence, GWB's claims that Iraq represented a grave and imminent threat to the U.S. were hyperbole. If the rationale for the war were mostly based on that, then I'd agree that the war was unjustified.

My own pre-war reasons for supporting the war was never based on the imminent threat that Iraq supposedly posed to the U.S. As a Malaysian, I saw the war as justified on humanitarian principles, based on overthrowing a despotic regime, universally hated by its people. I saw a chance to establish a democracy in the Middle East and prove that Islam IS compatible with democracy. And I saw a chance for sending a strong, clear warning to any and all rogue regimes in the world that at least one country would be prepared to militarily intervene against evil-doing, particular to North Korea (which IS a concern, given where my country is). It helps that all these things are GOOD in the long-term for the U.S.'s own interests.

Why would I believe that the U.S. would be prepared to do these things? I admit that I certainly have no right to ask the U.S. and its people to take on this responsibility, but if they do want to do this, then certainly I support them.

Overall, however, I am disappointed with the post-war developments. Despite its pre-war claims to the contrary, it is now painfully obvious that the U.S. never did give much thought or make much effort to determine what sort of post-war government Iraq should have. The huge disparity between the pre-war effort made to properly plan the war and the pre-war effort to plan for the future of Iraq is shameful. The abrupt change of the U.S. administrator, the Last-minute frantic efforts to hire experts who understand the local culture (when such people ought to have been properly identified and contacted well in advance), the inability to deliver proper public services to the Iraqis etc. are nearly enough for me to regret my pre-war support for the effort.

Things may yet turn out right in the end, and I certainly hope that they do, but unless they do, it seems that Iraq will turn into another example in a long list of such examples of the U.S.'s tendency to think in terms of short-term benefits and ignore the big picture.

[Wydraz]

Two Towers (http://www.geocities.com/dr_unome/)

Vaguely related to this topic, I know, but I just had to tell you guys about this. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

[Ran-Taro]

Originally posted by Erax:
[QB]I am especially interested in this part : </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">America is working with friends and allies on a new Security Council resolution, which will expand the U.N.'s role in Iraq. As in the aftermath of other conflicts, the United Nations should assist in developing a constitution, training civil servants, and conducting free and fair elections. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">QB]</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Translation: We made a big mess, now we don't know how, and can't be bothered to clean it up. How about you do it for us, and how about everybody else helps pay for it?

[Ran-Taro]

Originally posted by Atrocities:

Because the heithens attacked us and killed nearly 5,000 people over the Last ten years.

Just think of how bad it would have been if Gore had been in office. We'd all be under a chinese dictatorship by now.<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana"> There is very little truth in that email, mostly mis-stated half truths and rumors created by hate mongers and trouble makers. The same people who do the same thing to every president. These people may or may not be politically affilated, but their line of crap is always the same.<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Is it just me, or do these statements not go together?

And when did Iraq attack the USA in the Last ten years? Not at all. Yet America has attacked Iraq. The fact the some other 'heithens' (not a very nice word)have attacked the US, does not give America the right to strike out at any other percieved enemy, simply because they may share similar religious beliefs.

(edited to make less inflammitory after I read my post again)

[ September 30, 2003, 02:50: Message edited by: Ran-Taro ]

[Unknown_Enemy]

The shame ! The shame to do an on topic post !
Please forgive me I sware I won't do it again...

THE STRATFOR WEEKLY
29 September 2003

by Dr. George Friedman

The Unpredictability of War and Force Structure

Summary

In the United States' open-ended war against al Qaeda and militant Islam, two factors are driving up requirements for the size of the U.S. military. One is the unpredictability surrounding the number of theaters in which this war will be waged in the next two years, and the second is the type of warfare in which the United States is compelled to engage, which can swallow up huge numbers of troops in defensive operations. However, for several reasons, U.S. defense personnel policies have not yet adjusted to this reality.

Analysis

Prior to the beginning of the Iraq campaign, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was asked how long the war would Last. His response was both wise and true: He said that he didn't know, because the enemy got to vote. Much of the discussion about the length, cost and requirements of U.S. military operations in Iraq should be answered the same way -- there is no answer because the other side gets to vote. The Iraqi command decided to abandon conventional warfare and shift to guerrilla warfare. It is as unreasonable to ask how long this will Last and how much it will cost as it would have been to ask Abraham Lincoln in 1862 when the Civil War would end and how much it would cost. It is an unanswerable question.

War is extremely predictable, with 20-20 indsight. It is easy to say now that the Soviets would defeat the Germans in World War II. All of us know now that the North Vietnamese had the advantage in Vietnam. We all know now that the Normandy invasion would work. That's the easy part of military analysis; predicting the future is the hard part. It is possible to glimpse the outlines of the general forces that are engaged and to measure their relative strength, but the finer the granularity sought, the harder prediction is. The only certainty to be found is that all wars end eventually, and that the war you are fighting is only occasionally the war you expected to fight.

No one, therefore, knows the course of the U.S.-militant Islamist war. The CIA has produced no secret papers nor uncovered any hidden plans in the caves of Afghanistan that reveal the truth. War is about the difference between plans and events: Nothing goes according to plan, partly because of unexpected failures among the planners and partly because the enemy gets a vote. Carl von Clausewitz, the father of modern military theory, had a word for that: friction. The friction of war creates an ever-widening gap between plans and reality.

That means that the first and most important principle of military planning is to plan for the worst. No general was ever condemned for winning a war with too many troops. Many generals -- and political leaders -- are reviled for not using enough troops. Sometimes the manpower is simply not available; demographics limit the number of troops available. But the lowest ring of the military inferno must be reserved for leaders who take a nation to war, having access to massive force but choosing to mobilize the least numbers they think they can get by with, rather than leaving a healthy -- even unreasonable -- margin to make up for the friction of war. Calibrating force to expected requirements is almost always going to lead to disaster, because as we all know, everything comes in late and over-budget.

Washington is engaged with the question of what constitutes sufficient force structure. As one might imagine, the debate cuts to the heart of everything the United States is doing; the availability of force will determine the success or failure of its war. And here, it appears to us, the administration has chosen a radical course -- one of maintaining a narrow margin of error on force structure, based on plans that do not necessarily take into account that al Qaeda gets to vote.

Last week, while speaking at the National Defense University, Rumsfeld repeated his conviction that the United States had deployed sufficient force in Iraq and that with additional deployments it would be able to contain the situation there. Last week, U.S. officials announced the mobilization of additional reserve and National Guard units for 18 months of duty.

The reality is this: The United States went to war on Sept. 11, 2001, and since that date, it has not increased the aggregate size of its armed forces in any strategically significant way. It has raised the effectively available force by reaching into its reserve and National Guard units. That short-term solution has served well for the first two years of the war. However, deployment requirements tend to increase over the course of a war, so the needs in the first year were relatively light and increased progressively as additional theaters of operation were added.

The problem with this structure of forces is simple. People can choose to leave the military and its reserve and National Guard components -- and they will. Following extensive deployments, or anticipating such deployments, many will leave the active force as their terms expire or leave the reserve components when they can. In order to replace these forces, the pipeline should be full of recruits. This is not World War II. The requirements for all specialties, including combat arms, will not be filled by basic training and a quick advanced course. Even in the simplest specialties, it will take nearly a year to develop the required expertise -- not just to be deployed, but to be deployed and effective. For more complex specialties, the timeline lengthens.

U.S. leaders appear to be giving some attention to maintaining the force at its current size, although we think the expectations on retention in all components are optimistic. But even if they are dead on, the loss of personnel will be most devastating among field-grade officers and senior noncommissioned officers -- who form the backbone of the military. These are men and women in their 30s and 40s who have families and mortgages -- none of which might survive the stress of a manpower plan designed in a way that imposes maximum unpredictability and disruption on mature lives. The net result is that the military might keep its current size but become thin-waisted: lots of young people, lots of gray hair, not nearly enough in between.

The problem, however, is that keeping the force stable is not enough by a long shot. The United States is involved in two significant conflicts, in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is also operating in smaller deployments throughout and on the periphery of the Islamic world. Added to this are immediate and potential requirements for homeland security, should al Qaeda strike again, as the U.S. government consistently predicts is likely. When these requirements are added up and compared to the kind of force planning and expectations that were being discussed prior to Sept. 11, it is obvious that the U.S. force is at its limit, even
assuming that the complexities of reserve units weren't added to the mix.

The strategic problem is that there is absolutely no reason to believe that the demands on the current force represent the maximum. The force level is decided by the administration; the force requirement is decided by a committee composed of senior Pentagon officials, Congress and al Qaeda. And on this committee, al Qaeda has the decisive vote.

Al Qaeda's strategy is to expand the conflict as broadly as possible. It wants to disperse U.S. forces, but it also wants U.S. forces to intrude as deeply into the Islamic world as possible in order to trigger an uprising not only against the United States, but also against governments allied with the United States. There is a simple-minded answer to this, which is to refuse to intervene. The flaw in that answer is that it would serve al Qaeda's purpose just as well, by proving that the United States is weak and vulnerable. Intervention carries the same cost as non-intervention, but with the upside that it might produce victories.

Therefore, the United States cannot easily decline combat when it is offered. Al Qaeda intends to offer as much combat as possible. From the Philippines to Morocco, from central Asia to Central Africa, the scope -- if not the tempo -- of operations remains in al Qaeda's hands. Should Indonesia blow sky high or Egypt destabilize, both of which are obviously among al Qaeda's hopes, U.S. forces will be required to respond.

There is another aspect to this. In Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States is engaged in guerrilla wars. The force required to combat a guerrilla army is not determined by the size of the guerrilla forces, but rather by defensive requirements. A very small guerrilla force can menace a large number of targets, even if it cannot hit them all. Those targets must be protected for military or political reasons. Pacification cannot take place when the population is exposed to guerrilla forces at the will of the guerrillas. A narrow defensive posture, as has been adopted in Afghanistan, cedes pacification. In Iraq, where ceding pacification is not a political option, the size of the force is determined not by the enemy's force, but by the target set that must be protected.

Two factors, therefore, are driving up requirements for the size of the U.S. armed forces. First, no one can define the number of theaters in which the United States will be deployed over the next two years. Second, the type of warfare in which the United States is compelled to engage after the initial assault is carried out is a force hog: It can swallow up huge numbers of troops in duties that are both necessary and parasitic -- such as patrolling 15 bridges, none of which might ever be attacked during the war, but all of which must be defended.

Rumsfeld's reassurances that there are enough forces in Iraq miss the key question: Are there enough troops available and in the pipeline to deal with unexpected events in two years? Iraq might be under control by then, or it might not. Rumsfeld doesn't know that, Iraqi National Congress leader Ahmed Chalabi doesn't, Osama bin Laden doesn't. No one knows whether that is true. Nor does anyone know whether the United States will be engaged in three or four other theaters of operations by that time. It is certainly al Qaeda's intention to make that happen, and so far al Qaeda's record in drawing the United States into difficult situations should not be discounted.

The problem is that on the one hand, the Defense Department is in the process of running off critically needed troops with unpredictable and spasmodic call-ups. Second, the number of men and women in the training pipeline has not taken a quantum leap forward in the course of the war. The United States is engaged in a global war, but its personnel policies have not adjusted to that reality. This is the first major war in American history that has not included a large expansion of the armed forces.

There are a number of reasons for this. At the beginning of the war, the administration envisioned it as a primarily covert war involving special forces and some air power. Officials did not see this war as a division-level conflict. They were wrong. They did not count on their enemy's ability to resort to effective guerrilla warfare. They did not expect the old manpower hog to raise its ugly head. In general, Rumsfeld believed that technology could substitute for manpower, and that large conventional formations were not necessary. He was right in every case but one: large-scale guerrilla warfare. Or more precisely, the one thing the United States didn't want to be involved in is the one thing the enemy dealt up. When you think about it, that makes sense.

The assumption on which this war began was that there was ample U.S. force structure for the requirements. At this point, that is true only if one assumes there are no further surprises pending. Since this war has been all about surprises, any force structure built on that assumption is completely irresponsible.

We suspect that Rumsfeld and his people are aware of this issue. The problem is that the Bush administration is in an election year, and increasing the force by 50 percent or doubling it is not something officials want to do now. It cannot be done by conscription. Not only are the mechanisms for large-scale conscriptions missing, but a conscript army is the Last thing needed: The U.S. military requires a level of technical proficiency and commitment that draftees don't bring to bear.

To keep the force at its current size, Congress must allocate a large amount of money for personnel retention. A father of three with a mortgage payment based on his civilian income cannot live on military pay. Military pay must not be permitted to rise; it must be forced to soar. This is not only to retain the current force size but to increase it. In addition to bringing in raw recruits and training them, this also means, as in World War II, bringing back trained personnel who have left the service and -- something the military will gag over -- bringing in trained professionals from outside, directly into the chain of command and not just as civilian employees.

Thinking out of the box is something Washington always talks about but usually does by putting a box of corn flakes on top of their heads. That's all right in peacetime -- but this is war, and war is a matter of life and death. In the end, this is the problem: While American men and women fight and die on foreign land, the Pentagon's personnel officers are acting like this is peacetime. The fault lies with a series of unexpected events and Rumsfeld's tendency to behave as if nothing comes as a surprise.

The defense secretary needs to understand that in war, being surprised is not a failure -- it is the natural commission. The measure of a good command is not that one anticipates everything, but that one quickly adjusts and responds to the unexpected. No one expected this type of guerrilla war in Iraq, although perhaps in retrospect, everyone should have. But it is here, and next year will bring even more surprises. The Army speaks of "A Force of One." We prefer "The Force Ready for the Unexpected." The current U.S. force is not.

[dogscoff]

Saw a TV documentary a few nights ago about the current situation in Baghdad. ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/3097864.stm ) It was pretty well balanced, interviewing both Iraqis and americans, ppl on the streets, soldiers and politicians (including de Mello, a few days before his death.) I won't go into details of the atrocities documented because someone will label it inflammatory, but suffice to say some of the footage was utterly horrific.

You all know where I stand on the war, so I'll try not to go over ground already covered, but I'll say this:

Soldiers do not make good policemen. I can see why the Iraqis are protesting against the US, despite their role in the fall of Saddam. From what I saw there are probably Iraqis out there now who were opposed to Saddam 12 months ago, but now find themselves wishing he'd come back.

I felt sorry for some of the US soldiers out there, who were doing their best to make peace with the locals, but many others came across as ignorant, brutal and arrogant. The office-bound military types had absolutely no clue (or at least were in complete denial) as to what was happening at street level. They flat out refused to even acknowledge the problems their own troops were showing the BBC's reporters.

However I feel most sorry for the random Iraqis getting beaten up and shot just because they happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Yes I know these things and worse happened under Saddam as well, but these are supposed to be the good guys, aren't they? Surely the current situation was avoidable. Surely the power vacuum and the resultant lawlessness could have been predicted and planned for. It seems as though no planning at all has gone into the peace action, despite the overwhelming effectiveness and forethought of the war action.

The conspiracy theorist in me believes that Bush wants as much chaos and destruction in Iraq as possible, so that Halliburton and the rest can reap all those oil dollars in cleanup costs, but I accept that this kind of motive is only circumstantially provable. Nonetheless, even if it's all down to negligence rather than malice then it's just as bad for the people suffering there.

Just my 0.02 local currency. I really wish I could point you all to an mpeg of the documentary, I promise you it would add a lot of weight to what I've said. Did anyone see it?

[tesco samoa]

Who's Sordid Now?
By PAUL KRUGMAN

It's official: the administration that once scorned nation-building now says that it's engaged in a modern Version of the Marshall Plan. But Iraq isn't postwar Europe, and George W. Bush definitely isn't Harry Truman. Indeed, while Truman led this country in what Churchill called the "most unsordid act in history," the stories about Iraqi reconstruction keep getting more sordid. And the sordidness isn't, as some would have you believe, a minor blemish on an otherwise noble enterprise.

Cronyism is an important factor in our Iraqi debacle. It's not just that reconstruction is much more expensive than it should be. The really important thing is that cronyism is warping policy: by treating contracts as prizes to be handed to their friends, administration officials are delaying Iraq's recovery, with potentially catastrophic consequences.

It's rarely mentioned nowadays, but at the time of the Marshall Plan, Americans were very concerned about profiteering in the name of patriotism. To get Congressional approval, Truman had to provide assurances that the plan would not become a boondoggle. Funds were administered by an agency independent of the White House, and Marshall promised that priorities would be determined by Europeans, not Americans.

Fortunately, Truman's assurances were credible. Although he is now honored for his postwar leadership, Truman initially rose to prominence as a fierce crusader against war profiteering, which he considered treason.

Iraq's reconstruction, by contrast, remains firmly under White House control. And this is an administration of, by and for crony capitalists; to match this White House's blithe lack of concern about conflicts of interest, you have to go back to the Harding administration. That giant, no-bid contract given to Halliburton, the company that made Dick Cheney rich, was just what you'd expect.

And even as the situation in Iraq slides downhill, and the Iraqi Governing Council demands more autonomy and control, American officials continue to block local initiatives, and are still trying to keep the big contracts in the hands of you-know-who.

For example, in July two enterprising Middle Eastern firms started offering cellphone service in Baghdad, setting up jury-rigged systems compatible with those of neighboring countries. Since the collapse of Baghdad's phone system has been a major source of postwar problems, coalition authorities should have been pleased.

But no: the authorities promptly shut down the services. Cell service, they said, could be offered only by the winners in a bidding process - one whose rules, revealed on July 31, seemed carefully designed to shut out any non-American companies. (In the face of strenuous protests the rules were revised, but still seem to favor the usual suspects.) Oddly, the announcement of the winners, originally scheduled for Sept. 5, keeps being delayed. Meanwhile, only Paul Bremer and his people have cellphones - and, thanks to the baffling decision to give that contract to MCI, even those phones don't work very well. (Aside from the fact that its management perpetrated history's biggest accounting fraud, MCI has no experience in building cell networks.)

Then there's electricity. One reason Iraq still faces blackouts is that local experts and institutions were excluded from the repair business. Instead, the exclusive contract was given to Bechtel, whose Republican ties are almost as strong as Halliburton's. And if a recent story in The Washington Post is accurate, Bechtel continues to ignore pleas by Iraqi engineers for essential spare parts.

Meanwhile, several companies with close personal ties to top administration officials have begun brazenly offering their services as facilitators for companies seeking Iraqi business. The former law firm of Douglas Feith, the Pentagon under secretary who oversees Iraq reconstruction, has hung out its shingle. So has another company headed by Joe Allbaugh, who ran the Bush-Cheney campaign in 2000 and ran FEMA until a few months ago. And a third entrant is run by Ahmad Chalabi's nephew.

There's a moral here: optimists who expect the administration to get its Iraq policy on track are kidding themselves. Think about it: the cost of the occupation is exploding, and military experts warn that our army is dangerously overcommitted. Yet officials are still allowing Iraqi reconstruction to languish, and the disaffection of the Iraqi public to grow, while they steer choice contracts to their friends. What makes you think they will ever change their ways?

[General Woundwort]

Op-Ed Shoving Match (http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_luskin/truthsquad200309300920.asp)
from Donald Luskin, National Review Online

Paul Krugman took a hiatus from his New York Times column in order to jump to the paper's best-seller list with his book, The Great Unraveling. He's been all over the tube with his story that the Bush administration represents (as he says in his book) a "revolutionary power" like the "totalitarian regimes of the 1930s," one that wants to create an America "possibly — in which elections are only a formality."

About the only TV show where he hasn't peddled this paranoid shtick is Saturday Night Live. He even showed up on Buchanan & Press, although Pat Buchanan hounded him into stammering helplessness (with a little coaching from yours truly). It got to the point where all Krugman could say was, "Well, all right. Let’s — you know, I thought we were going to have a discussion here." That's media code for "Hey, you said I'd get to promote my book!"

Today, after a two-week absence, Krugman's column is back on the op-ed page of the Times (the one Tesco posted below - G.W.). It's his usual verbal carpet-bombing of innuendo, distortion, and assertion presented as fact — delivered with supreme self-assurance and just enough truth here and there to make it devastatingly effective. Bush lied. Bush is corrupt. Halliburton. Quagmire. Bush lied ... you get it.

Same old stuff. But today there's something different, too. Something quite wonderful.

It seems that while Krugman was busy promoting himself and his paranoid anti-Bush vision, David Brooks — the Times's new conservative op-ed columnist who started just three weeks ago — got mad as hell and decided he wasn't going to take it any more.

Right next to Krugman's latest screed is a column by Brooks that is nothing less than a literary cruise missile aimed straight at Krugman's heart. Of course he doesn't mention Krugman by name. The Times would never let him. But he doesn't have to (it's even classier that way). But the intent is unmistakable. And it's deadly.

Brooks's column is called "The Presidency Wars." In it he noted that the "culture wars" of the 1980s and 1990s have given way to bitter, hateful combat over the very legitimacy of the president. Brooks wrote,

The culture wars produced some intellectually serious books because there were principles involved. The presidency wars produce mostly terrible ones because the hatreds have left the animating ideas far behind and now romp about on their own ... now the best-sellers lists are dotted with screeds against the president and his supporters. A cascade of Clinton-bashing books hit the lists in the 1990's, and now in the Bush years we've got "Shrub," "Stupid White Men" and "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them."<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">And — it goes (literally) without saying — The Great Unraveling. "Terrible." Brooks has Krugman's MO down cold:

The quintessential new warrior scans the Web for confirmation of the president's villainy. He avoids facts that might complicate his hatred. He doesn't weigh the sins of his friends against the sins of his enemies. But about the president he will believe anything. He believes Ted Kennedy when he says the Iraq war was a fraud cooked up in Texas to benefit the Republicans politically. It feels so delicious to believe it, and even if somewhere in his mind he knows it doesn't quite square with the evidence, it's important to believe it because the other side is vicious, so he must be too ...

The warriors have one other feature: ignorance. They have as much firsthand knowledge of their enemies as members of the K.K.K. had of the N.A.A.C.P. In fact, most people in the Last two administrations were well-intentioned patriots doing the best they could. The core threat to democracy is not in the White House, it's the haters themselves.<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I have to admit that, until now, I have been very disappointed with Brooks. I worried whether he would have the guts to make a difference at the liberal Times (see "Is Brooks Partisan Enough?" August 14, 2003). His first couple columns were, well, terrible. The inaugural one asserted that the Bush administration pretends in public to be infallible, but nevertheless adapts to criticism — sounds innocuous enough, but it came off as a variation on the "Bush lied" theme. Several days later a Krugman column sideswiped Brooks by using his own logic to turn his mild criticism into a scorcher. Krugman wrote,

... I disagree with those who think the administration can claim infallibility even while practicing policy flexibility: on major issues, such as taxes or Iraq, any sensible policy would too obviously be an implicit admission that previous policies had failed.<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">And thus the op-ed shoving match was started. And now Brooks is shoving back hard. It's something I doubt the typically non-confrontational Brooks would have done in the normal course of sharing a page with Krugman. But when Krugman stepped off the op-ed page for a while, and recreated himself as a media celebrity with a paranoid neo-Nazi conspiracy theory that got him onto the best-seller lists (next to the likes of Al Franken), he made himself fair game.

At the moment of his greatest triumph, Krugman has made himself vulnerable by daring to venture outside the aura of prestige provided by the "newspaper of record." Outside that aura, his crazy and hateful ideas don't seem quite so authoritative as they do on the op-ed pages. In fact they're rather silly and embarrassing — to both Krugman and the Times.

Now that Krugman has stepped outside, maybe Brooks's column today is symbolic in some sense that the Times is reluctant to let Krugman back in.

— Donald Luskin is chief investment officer of Trend Macrolytics LLC, an independent economics and investment-research firm. He welcomes your comments at don@trendmacro.com.

[tesco samoa]

good one! I enjoyed reading that one!

Question. Is the article wrong on questioning the rebuilding phase of Iraq ?

I think not.

P.S. 2 more days to Virginia. Cannot wait.

[rextorres]

Well there is no getting around the fact that the budget has $550B deficit and growing and there is no denying that Bush's OWN forecasts call for a deficit even when the economy turns around.

I am still unclear how a $550B deficit is a good thing - and no it has nothing to do with the war in Iraq (which is the latest falacy presented by Bush and his supporters) there was a $400B deficit before the money requested by the administration for the war.

Conservatives can attack Krugman all they want to discredit him, but he's right on one point in his book: either Bush is ignorant and doesn't care what will happen after he is President or there is some hidden agenda going on to bankrupt the country so that social programs need to be eliminated. I still haven't figured out which is worse.

[ September 30, 2003, 21:52: Message edited by: rextorres ]

[General Woundwort]

Conspiracy or no conspiracy, social programs are bankrupting the country. Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, not the Defense Department, are what will wreck the budget. Just wait till all these boomers start retiring. Then who's going to be earning the massive amounts of money required to pay off this Ponzi scheme?

The only comfort I have is in watching all these "Don't trust anyone over 30!" types growing old, and making utter fools of themselves trying to cover it over and deny it. Or is it a co-incidence that Viagra just got invented in the Last 5 years? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

[tesco samoa]

hey i am over 30 http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[rextorres]

Originally posted by General Woundwort:
Conspiracy or no conspiracy, social programs are bankrupting the country. Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, not the Defense Department, are what will wreck the budget. Just wait till all these boomers start retiring. Then who's going to be earning the massive amounts of money required to pay off this Ponzi scheme?

The only comfort I have is in watching all these "Don't trust anyone over 30!" types growing old, and making utter fools of themselves trying to cover it over and deny it. Or is it a co-incidence that Viagra just got invented in the Last 5 years? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">It's mystery to me why people forget that the money being collected for these social programs via the payroll tax is being spent on non social security items. When I listen to rush, sean, and bill I always wonder why they conveniently forget this. Do you think it's because they make millions of dollars? Makes you wonder.

Anyway no one likes to remember but there is a huge surplus in the money collected via the payroll tax and if it were not spent to fund things like a tax cut then there would be plenty of money for the baby boomers. That was what the "lock box" was all about.

The fact of the matter is the two biggest line items that are breaking the back of the budget are the $400B or so spent on defense and the interest on the debt which is around $350B. There is lots more money coming in to pay for social security - via the social security tax - and what's left gets spent instead of being set aside for the future.

That's why Bush's budget either HAS to be a cynical ploy to get votes now or a conspiracy to end social security.

[ October 01, 2003, 04:15: Message edited by: rextorres ]

[General Woundwort]

The size of the surplus now (which may or may not be bookkeeping legendermain) is not the issue. Future obligations are. And with the rise in retirements, inflation, and the continuing reduction of the "workforce-to-benefit recipient" ratio, that's what could bring the whole structure down.

http://money.cnn.com/2003/05/29/news/economy/social_security_pain/

[rextorres]

Well YOUR source speaks to my point. I don't disagree with anything in the article. If you run around a $500B deficit over 75 years you'll have something like a $44T debt. Obviously that's a bad thing.

[ October 01, 2003, 09:48: Message edited by: rextorres ]

[General Woundwort]

Look again at what they are saying in that article about the future projections of income vs. obligations. The state of the SocSec budget now is almost irrelevant. The budget deficit now is mostly not related to SocSec. The problem is, what is going to happen when masses of new recipients place a larger and larger burden on a proportionally smaller and smaller support base?

http://ideas.repec.org/a/red/issued/v2y1999i3p575-675.html

[General Woundwort]

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
hey i am over 30 http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Check my sig - so am I. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif My comment was on the boomer/hippie battlecry of the 60's.

Personal anecdote - back in April I was riding the DC Metro back from a meeting downtown. It was after one of the Last protests against the Iraq war, and some of the attendees were also riding back to VA. There were about six in my car, in a group - all "well seasoned in years", and were wearing their old 60's protest buttons and as much of their old clothing that still fit. They looked rather ridiculous. After they got off, I could contain myself no longer, and asked the guy sitting next to me -

"So, I wonder what their motto is now - don't trust anyone under 50?"

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[tesco samoa]

"Hope I die after I get Old.
People try to ...."

Heres another antidote for you.

A few years ago i was working with a gentleman who in his late 20 discovered communisium. This is a well paid engineer. We used to get in debates all day about the ideologies of the differenet systems. (I used to really piss him off by saying the nazi's were the biggest socialists around ) But anyways. We also had 3 people working with us who were from the old USSR one was russian, the other two Ukraine ( all 3 of them served in the navy on the subs). Well one day this guy walked up to the russian and told him how good he had it while in russia. The language and level of voice even scared me. I thought he was going to rip our friends head off. He kept real quiet after that. I just remember one of the Ukraine guys saying "Ideologist. Your a capitialist with no capital. So you become a text book communist."
Those thoughts I think I will remember for a long time.

As for me I do not hate your republicians nor your democrats. I just do not like your 2 party system. As I do not like our 3 party system in Canada( well it is really liberals and then the other 2 (the second one depends on what province your in))

[General Woundwort]

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
As for me I do not hate your republicians nor your democrats. I just do not like your 2 party system. As I do not like our 3 party system in Canada( well it is really liberals and then the other 2 (the second one depends on what province your in))<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">OK, so let's review the options... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

One-party systems... not.

Two-party systems... you don't like it, and quite frankly I'm not too thrilled with the choices either.

Three-party systems... I don't have any experience with this, but you don't like it much so I'll take your word for it.

Multi-party systems... they do nothing but bicker and build coalitions that Last about as long as my gym socks.

Doesn't leave many options, does it? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by General Woundwort:
Doesn't leave many options, does it? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I am sick of partisan political bickering and gridlock. Give me a dictatorship! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[Wydraz]

Originally posted by General Woundwort:
OK, so let's review the options... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

One-party systems... not.

Two-party systems... you don't like it, and quite frankly I'm not too thrilled with the choices either.

Three-party systems... I don't have any experience with this, but you don't like it much so I'll take your word for it.

Multi-party systems... they do nothing but bicker and build coalitions that Last about as long as my gym socks.

Doesn't leave many options, does it? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">You left one out: ZERO PARTY SYSTEMS!

If everyone in office were not a member of a party, they wouldn't have to toe the party line. They'd instead have to do what they thought was right. Imagine that.

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by Wydraz:
You left one out: ZERO PARTY SYSTEMS!

If everyone in office were not a member of a party, they wouldn't have to toe the party line. They'd instead have to do what they thought was right. Imagine that.<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Pollyanna. Wishful thinking.

Instead of being beholden to a large political party that by it's sheer size must have a somewhat broad spectrum of political points of view, your representative would answer to a small group of people that have the resources neccesary to get their attention.

The absence of any political parties could, probably would, result in even more grevious abuses then our current two-party system. The parties help to moderate the political landscape and reduce the effect of small highly motivated special interest Groups that just happen to have access to large amounts of resources. Of course it doesn't eliminate this problem entirely, but it really is better then it would be without them.

[Alneyan]

Silly remark, even if you have, say, fifteen parties (like in France), you will still have only two parties able to win the elections. So it leads to nothing different, except potential surprises in the first round of the polls. (Like Last year, when the extreme right-wing made it to the second round)

Usually, you have the leader of the left-wing parties against the leader of the right-wing parties, the smaller parties following one of the two sides. It doesn't change much, does it? And when you have 16 candidates for Presidency, representing 15 parties, what is the point? Only two of them stand a chance of winning, and many voters choose their candidate not because they believe he would make a good president, but for other reasons and almost randomly.

[General Woundwort]

Originally posted by Alneyan:
...many voters choose their candidate not because they believe he would make a good president, but for other reasons and almost randomly.<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">You think this doesn't happen even in a pure two-party system? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[Alneyan]

Originally posted by General Woundwort:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Originally posted by Alneyan:
...many voters choose their candidate not because they believe he would make a good president, but for other reasons and almost randomly.<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">You think this doesn't happen even in a pure two-party system? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Oh. Sure it does happen, my point should have been: having eight times more would-be presidents doesn't mean the choince will be more acurate (and better). Or rather, having more parties doesn't necessarily mean having better politicians. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[Loser]

Just in case someone wasn't clear on this, the U.S. doesn't have a two party system because there are any rules disallowing other parties. I suspect everyone here knows that, but I just wanted to mention that U.S. election frequently feature candidates from many parties, it's just the Democrats and the Republicans who usually win.

There are a large number of politically active Libertarians in Colorado. Some time recently we had a Libertarian Sheriff in Telluride, which is kind of funny if you know what Telluride is known for.

That said, most of the time a third party just pulls votes away form one of the big two, at least in the big elections. We do get some interesting governors now and then, however. And there are a few independents in Congress.

[Wydraz]

Originally posted by geoschmo:
Pollyanna. Wishful thinking.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I'll take that as a compliment. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif I'm not into politics - it makes me sick. The way things are going these days, just thinking about it gives me the dry heaves. Politicians and lawyers should all be sent to the moon. I give the world as we know it another ten years. Things will have to change, big time, or we're all screwed. Have a nice day! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[ October 01, 2003, 17:39: Message edited by: Wydraz ]

[rextorres]

The problem with our system is that it's winner takes all instead of proportional for the house of representatives.

Also we could have had some sort of runoff with the two top vote getters. Arguably Clinton nor Bush would have won their respective first elections because the spoiler candidates would have dropped out in the second rounds.

Finally there's the two top choices model which might work as well.

Unfortunately the Dems and Reps have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

[Wardad]

Originally posted by General Woundwort:
...The only comfort I have is in watching all these "Don't trust anyone over 30!" types growing old, and making utter fools of themselves trying to cover it over and deny it. Or is it a co-incidence that Viagra just got invented in the Last 5 years? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Coincidence....

From http://pubs.acs.org/hotartcl/mdd/98/novdec/viagra.html

"On its way to becoming Viagra, UK-92,480 changed from a drug for hypertension to a drug for angina, and then changed again when a 10-day toleration study in Wales turned up an unusual side effect."

[primitive]

North Korea & Nukes (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/east/10/01/nkorea.nukes/index.html)

A North Korean minister said the war with Iraq convinced the government to further strengthen its military defense -- implying it may have nuclear arms in its arsenal.

As predicted, other rouge nations use the lessons from the Iraq war to boost their own WMD programs. It is no longer enough that your enemies believe you to have WMD’s, You both actually have to have them, and have the abilities to deliver them.

Congratulation to GWB for an intelligent foreign policy http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif
You have made the world a more dangerous place for us all.

[deccan]

Originally posted by primitive:

Congratulation to GWB for an intelligent foreign policy http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif
You have made the world a more dangerous place for us all.<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Huh? I would say that the most effective way to deter development and possession of WMDs would be to smack down hard on those who do own them.

[primitive]

Originally posted by deccan:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Originally posted by primitive:

Congratulation to GWB for an intelligent foreign policy http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif
You have made the world a more dangerous place for us all.<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Huh? I would say that the most effective way to deter development and possession of WMDs would be to smack down hard on those who do own them.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Right you are my friend. But the only lesson learned from Iraq, is that you risk getting smacked down if you don’t own any. Iraq didn’t have anything (significant), and I do not think the CIA was so incompetent they didn’t know that.

[General Woundwort]

Originally posted by primitive:
Right you are my friend. But the only lesson learned from Iraq, is that you risk getting smacked down if you don’t own any. Iraq didn’t have anything (significant), and I do not think the CIA was so incompetent they didn’t know that.<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Several points. One, we know Saddam had chemical weapons, at some point, because he's used them in the past (on the Kurds and the Iranians). Two, garnering information in a closed and totalitarian society like Baathist Iraq is not easy, especially when the CIA has so few people in its organization who know the language and culture. Three, Saddam refused, categorically and throughout the entire multi-year inspection process, to come totally clean about what the exact status of his WMD stockpiles and programs were. Four, in this day and age, if you wait for "definite proof", you're probably already going to be attacked with a WMD. And I can't think that anyone would seriously suggest that we should have given a proven genocidal thug like Saddam the benefit of the doubt...

[ October 02, 2003, 11:13: Message edited by: General Woundwort ]

[primitive]

GW:
Make all the excuses you want. What you or I believe or think is not important for the security of the world. What the governments of North Korea, Iran, Sudan +++ believe is important. What they learned is that security from the US comes only with having a big F.. You All weapon.

The Iraq war was an impressive display of military might, but we already knew from GW1, Yugoslavia and Afghanistan what the US forces was capable of. As a display of political power, so far the war (and the peace) has been a disaster, as it only have shown that the US is willing to face an opponent who can't retaliate. North Korea now knows that it will only need the capability to kill something like 10-15 000 American soldiers in a war to make it politically impossible for the US to invade. Somehow I believe the world would have been better of if they didn’t know that.

[General Woundwort]

Originally posted by primitive:
GW:
Make all the excuses you want. What you or I believe or think is not important for the security of the world. What the governments of North Korea, Iran, Sudan +++ believe is important. What they learned is that security from the US comes only with having a big F.. You All weapon.<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">The logic here escapes me. So, because unstable and hostile regimes might worry that other nations will take steps to reduce and neutralize the threat they pose to the world, they might therefore develop WMD's - and so we shouldn't provoke them? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif

These are people and governments who cannot be reasoned with or placated. They can only be contained - or neutralized. Yes, its a dirty and dangerous business, but that's the kind of world we live in - and it was so before the US started to do something about it. Burying your head in the sand about what kind of people we're dealing with will only get you kicked in your prominently displayed rear end.

[primitive]

GW:
Did I say something about not provoking them http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif

I know very well these are people and governments who cannot be reasoned with or placated. The point is; by attacking a relatively weak “no WMD” nation like IRAQ, US has (In the eyes of these guys) showed weakness, not strength. And the current squabble over manpower and cost for securing Iraq makes it easy for them to figure out the US tolerance level for casualties and money for any potential new conflicts.

High level diplomacy is like high stake poker; US has left themselves playing with an open hand (and without holding all the Aces).

[General Woundwort]

As I understand the way their minds work, it was the half-measures and quick retreats of the 90's that were signs of weakness in their eyes. The present situation in Iraq is entirely different.

Anyways, I've way surpassed my quota on the "politics" thread, and Fyron wants me to convert the supernova pics into SEIV format. Back to lurk mode...

[deccan]

Originally posted by primitive:
GW:
The Iraq war was an impressive display of military might, but we already knew from GW1, Yugoslavia and Afghanistan what the US forces was capable of. As a display of political power, so far the war (and the peace) has been a disaster, as it only have shown that the US is willing to face an opponent who can't retaliate. North Korea now knows that it will only need the capability to kill something like 10-15 000 American soldiers in a war to make it politically impossible for the US to invade. Somehow I believe the world would have been better of if they didn’t know that.<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Your argument is specious, I must say.

Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan was necessary to make any rational person believe that someone would "only need the capability to kill something like 10-15 000 American soldiers in a war to make it politically impossible for the US to invade", at least in circumstances that were not an imminent and clear danger to American lives. Somalia alone was enough, if an example were needed, which I don't believe to be the case.

For that matter, saying that the U.S. tries its best to limit itself to wars that it can win with the least amount of casualties and losses to itself is a statement of the obvious that is true for anyone, even SEIV games.

A better, sounder argument would be the one made against Tony Blair: the U.S. government did know that Iraq did not have WMDs immediately prior to the war, but either closed its eyes to that knowledge or even deliberately "sexed up" arguments that Iraq did have WMDs in order to justify a war that it had already decided, for whatever reasons of its own, that it wanted to have.

But the Hutton inquiry in the U.K. has pretty convincingly shown that the Blair government did strongly and honestly believe that Iraq did have WDMs. If so, the spooks messed up big time and should be heavily swatted for that, but this wouldn't be the first time that they'd messed up and this kind of error is entirely different from your implication that they deliberately went to war even while knowing that Iraq did not have WDMs.

As for the lessons drawn by would-be owners of WDMs, I would argue that they should draw conclusions opposite to what you say. Submit to intrusive inspections and comply fully and unreservedly with U.N. and IAEA directives or you WILL be smacked down regardless of whether or not you actually own WDMs.

[primitive]

Deccan
As said before, what we believe does not matter. What Kim Jong Il and his colleagues believe do matter.

While the people of North Korea suffers, Kim and his buddies (believe they) can sit safely on their fat asses blackmailing the world with their WMD’s. Hey; we need some new Mercedeses, give it to us and we will contemplate NOT to sell our missiles to ……

On a lighter note: The Onion (from february) (http://www.theonion.com/onion3905/north_korea.html)
Strange how spot on those guys are sometimes.

[primitive]

Kudos to an honest politician: Polands Foreign Minister Wlodzimierz Cimoszewicz.

Full story (http://www.suntimes.com/output/iraq/cst-nws-payback28.html)

The golden quote: Direct access to crude oil is Poland's "final goal" (with the involvement in Iraq)

You got to love a guy who don’t beat around the bush (bad pun intended http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif )

[Unknown_Enemy]

I just wanted to write that when I post an article from Dr. George Friedman, it has nothing to do with Thomas L. Friedman, author of jewels like

"Our War With France"
http://mason-west.com/Research/News/US/frenchenemy.php

Now if you don't mind a long read, enjoy from another author :

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/03/international/europe/03SPIEGEL2.html?pagewanted=2

[tesco samoa]

http://famulus.msnbc.com/FamulusIntl/ap11-16-222242.asp?reg=AFRICA

boy this thread just keeps popping up... well to continue with tradition.... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

[deccan]

For those interested, the 14th November 2003 issue of The Economist includes an excellent survey of America. Some selected gems:

"From the outside, the best indication of American exceptionalism is military power. America spends more on defence than the next dozen countries combined. In the nearest approach to an explicit endorsement of exceptionalism in the public domain, the National Security Strategy of 2002 says America must ensure that its current military dominance - often described as the greatest since Rome's - is not even challenged, let alone surpassed."


"On this view, America is not exceptional because it is powerful; America is powerful because it is exceptional. And because what makes America different also keeps it rich and powerful, an administration that encourages American wealth and power will tend to encourage intrinsic exceptionalism."


"For most members of this administration, who are mainly from the heartland and the American west (Texas especially), Europe seems far away. They have not studied there. They do not follow German novels or French films. Indeed, for many of them, Europe is in some ways unserious. Its armies are a joke. Its people work short hours. They wear sandals and make chocolate."


"In terms of income per head, America is the wealthiest large industrial country. It is also the only western democracy to have practised slavery in the industrial era. It has the highest crime rate and highest rate of imprisonment (though crime, at least, is falling towards European levels). Its society is among the most religious in the world. Perhaps less obviously, Americans are more likely than almosy anyone else to join voluntary associations."


"America has one of the lowest tax rates among rich countries, the least generous public services, the highest military spending, the most lawyers per head, the highest proportion of young people at universities and the most persistent work ethic."


"Pew's pollsters sought to measure this belief by asking people in 44 countries, 'Do you agree or disagree that success is determined by forces outside your control?' In most countries, fewer than half though that success was within their control. In only two did more than 60% consider success a matter of individual effort: Canada and, by the widest margin, the United States."


"In the 2000 election, 63% of those of those who went to church more than once a week voted for George Bush; 61% of those who never went voted for Al Gore. About 70% of those who said abortion should always be available voted for Mr Gore; 74% of those who said it should always be illegal voted for Mr Bush. As Pete du Pont, a former governor of Delaware, pointed out, a map showing the sales and rentals of porn movies bore an eerie resemblance to the map of the 2000 election results."


"To Europeans, religion is the strangest and most disturbing feature of American exceptionalism. They worry that fundamentalists are hijacking the country. They find it extraordinary that three times as many Americans believe in the virgin birth as evolution. They fear that America will go on a 'crusade' (a term briefly used by Mr Bush himself) in the Muslim world or cut aid to poor countries lest it be used for birth control. The persistence of religion as a public force is all the more puzzling because it seems to run counter to historical trends. Like the philosophers of the Enlightenment, many Europeans argue that modernisation is the enemy of religion. As countries get richer, organised religion will decline. Secular Europe seems to fit that pattern. America does not."


"Over 80% of Americans say they believe in God, and 39% describe themselves as born-again Christians. Furthermore, 58% of Americans think that unless you believe in God, you cannot be a moral person."


"Over time, evangelicals have become more willing to engage in politics, too. White evangelical Protestants represent almost a third of registered voters now, up from slightly below a quarter in 1987. Their leaders have tried to unite the various evangelical churches as a political force, establishing the Moral Majority in 1979 and the Christian Coaltion in 1989. Their comments speak for themselves. Franklin Graham (Billy's son) called Islam 'a wicked religion'. The former president of the Southern Baptist Convention called the Prophet Muhammad 'a demon-possessed pedophile'."


"Some of the features that make America different cause problems within the country because they are divisive. True, qualities such as Americans' optimism and their stress on individual responsibility encourage unity. But other features are more partisan, including religiousity, small-government conservatism and perhaps intense patriotism. America is already deeply divided between traditional and secular cultures. The increase of partisanship, the culture of political victory at all costs, Mr Bush's own policies and his enormous appeal to traditional America all risk making matters worse.

Yet the contest of values is a source of strength as well as weakness for America. New opinions are always bubbling up; elite views are always being tested. This is messy but not acquiescent. De Tocqueville argued that the most insidious threat to any democracy was apathy, which conducts people 'by a longer, more secret, but surer path towards servitude.' America's culture wars help to bar that secret path."

[Loser]

Thanks, deccan. How are things in the Solomon Islands?

[Geckomlis]

Deccan,

Along the same theme...

"America is the wealthiest nation on Earth, but its people are mainly poor,
and poor Americans are urged to hate themselves. To quote the American
humorist Kin Hubbard, "It ain't no disgrace to be poor, but it might as well
be." It is in fact a crime for an American to be poor, even though America
is a nation of poor. Every other nation has folk traditions of men who were
poor but extremely wise and virtuous, and therefore more estimable than
anyone with power and gold. No such tales are told by the American poor.
They mock themselves and glorify their betters. The meanest eating or
drinking establishment, owned by a man who is himself poor, is very likely
to have a sign on its wall asking this cruel question: "If you're so smart,
why ain't you rich?" There will also be an American flag no larger than a
child's hand -- glued to a lollipop stick and flying from the cash register.

Americans, like human beings everywhere, believe many things that are
obviously untrue. Their most destructive untruth is that it is very easy for
any American to make money. They will not acknowledge how in fact hard money
is to come by, and, therefore, those who have no money blame and blame and
blame themselves. This inward blame has been a treasure for the rich and
powerful, who have had to do less for their poor, publicly and privately,
than any other ruling class since, say, Napoleonic times.

Many novelties have come from America. The most startling of these, a thing
without precedent, is a mass of undignified poor. They do not love one
another because they do not love themselves."

Howard W. Campbell, Jr. in Kurt Vonnegut's "Slaughterhouse-5"

[Loser]

Ack!

A wonderfull book, to be sure. But simply untrue.

[PvK]

Don't confuse the book, and the words of a character inside the book, unless it's written by someone a lot denser than Kurt Vonnegut!

Sometimes writers use half-truths, or un-truths in various ways, to induce readers to actually question and think about what they are reading.

PvK

[Geckomlis]

Originally posted by PvK:
Don't confuse the book, and the words of a character inside the book, unless it's written by someone a lot denser than Kurt Vonnegut!

Sometimes writers use half-truths, or un-truths in various ways, to induce readers to actually question and think about what they are reading.

PvK <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I could not agree more. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif And that was my point also – some of those quotes from The Economist are caricatures or half-truths. Polls and statistics are not value-neutral. Question what you read and evaluate it critically – always!

*sigh*, now if I could just get my students to practice that habit of mind…


By the way, for anyone that is interested:
The character of Howard W. Campbell, Jr. first appeared in Vonnegut's book “Mother Night”. He is a young American playwright living in Nazi Germany in the late '30s, recruited as a spy. “He becomes the Tokyo Rose of the Third Reich, the voice of a passionate anti-Semite mocking the Allies while reaffirming Aryan supremacy, all the time passing along coded Messages edited into his copy to the American Command.

Fifteen years after the war, he's living in a run-down Greenwich Village apartment, an icon of American White Supremacists, being pursued for different reasons by both Israeli and Soviet agents, and unable to prove his true role in the war because, as he was forewarned, the U.S. government will never acknowledge it.”
http://www.duke.edu/~crh4/vonnegut/mothernight/latimes.html

Gecko

[deccan]

Originally posted by Loser:
Thanks, deccan. How are things in the Solomon Islands? <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">The good: the streets are safe, the economy is picking up due to greater security, crooks and corrupt cops are in jail.

The bad: despite RAMSI's (Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands) claims that they will do something about the big fish, i.e. corrupt policians and senior government officials, no one really high profile has been arrested. A few weeks ago, a scandal at the Ministry of Mines and Energy about civil servants making huge claims from public funds emerged and a Permanent Secretary at the office was suspended, but nothing else, no criminal charges, no politicians handcuffed.

The ugly: after years of neglect, the Australian-reformed government is getting around to properly running the country, including gathering proper statistics, getting the courts and various government agencies working properly, and auditing companies. It's ugly because it means lots and lots of extra work for me. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[Loser]

Bringing back the love!

An amusing read (http://www.nationalreview.com/symposium/predictions200312300000.asp).

[tesco samoa]

i like the fact that libya is good again.

a country that has been proven to support 'terrorists'
been proven to use chemical weapons on other countries.


and the fact that sanctions worked http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[Atrocities]

Associated Link (http://www.astmod.com/mommacat.PNG)

I say we elect her Queen of Libia

[Fyron]

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
and the fact that sanctions worked http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">That would be a first.

[DavidG]

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
i like the fact that libya is good again.

a country that has been proven to support 'terrorists'
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">just out of curiosity why did you put terrorists in quotes? Was it not proven beyond a shadow of a doubt the Libya was behind the bombing of the flight that crashed in Lockerbie?

[tesco samoa]

hmm strange... I did not mean to put it in single quotes

[Loser]

Iraq in LEGOS!!! (http://www.humorisdead.com/news/legoiraq.html)

[President_Elect_Shang]

Originally posted by Loser:
Iraq in LEGOS!!! (http://www.humorisdead.com/news/legoiraq.html) <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Ha-ha-Ha, I love that, where can I buy one for my kids and myself?

[AMF]

Given that this is the designated "politics" thread, and since it's right after the Iowa Caucuses, I am moved to enquire of fellow SEIV-ers: what do you think of Kerry? Edwards? Dean?

[tesco samoa]

I like your democrates as much as I like your republicans...

Truefully I cannot really see any difference...

Personally I think your governement is too big and too complex for one person to be in charge and to take the blame. It is a very unfair and impossible job. And I disagree with the lenght of time it takes to run for office. Should be 6 weeks at the max. None of this I got in office... Ok ... Hmmm... Stuff happening... Oh wait 2 years have gone by... Gotta run for office again... And the lame duck thing is horrible as well...

I am more interested in the cabinets they select or will have after their in power...

Just my two cents from a canuck from the north.

[DavidG]

Originally posted by alarikf:
what do you think of Kerry? Edwards? Dean? <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">"Who?" Probably the same thing you think of Daltan McGinty or Paul Martin. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[Fyron]

I like your democrates as much as I like your republicans...

Truefully I cannot really see any difference... <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Decades ago there was a difference... in recent years the two parties have been, on the national level, converging in the middle on most issues.

[Loser]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana"> I like your democrates as much as I like your republicans...

Truefully I cannot really see any difference... <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Decades ago there was a difference... in recent years the two parties have been, on the national level, converging in the middle on most issues. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">This is inevitable. Both sides have different extremists totally devoted to their cause. Both sides compete for the same middle group, the most powerful, though naturally disorganized, minority in the country.

The Two parties just have to be careful not to go too far into the middle, or little third parties come along and sap their votes away, mostly without accomplishing anything else. You can see that this has happened a couple of times in the past couple of decades. Originally posted by tesco samoa:
Personally I think your governement is too big and too complex for one person to be in charge and to take the blame.<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Well, one person is not in charge, as much as it is presented that way. And thank goodness, too. As much as I do believe Bush to be the Lesser of Two, I would not want him or his people making all the decisions. And just wait for the Supreme Court to get around to some of the nonsense that's been pushed though...

[AMF]

Well, I disagree with myself too often for that...

Originally posted by geoschmo:
The vast majority of people do not fit neatly into little peg holes on all the issues. Most people, even the "extremist" members of each party, are basically mostly moderate on most issues. It's just the one or two hot buttons that everyone cares about strongly, and these hot buttons are different for each individual. So you find a candidate that agrees with you on the issues that you feel so strongly about, those that feel you cannot compromise on, while not being outside your own personal range of tolerance on the majority of issues you are moderate on.

The only way to find a candidate that you agree with 100% of the time is to run for office yourself. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by alarikf:
Well, I disagree with myself too often for that...

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Well, you got my vote then. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[AMF]

OK, we've got two then. Pity the California race is long gone...

Originally posted by geoschmo:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Originally posted by alarikf:
Well, I disagree with myself too often for that...

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Well, you got my vote then. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">

[geoschmo]

The vast majority of people do not fit neatly into little peg holes on all the issues. Most people, even the "extremist" members of each party, are basically mostly moderate on most issues. It's just the one or two hot buttons that everyone cares about strongly, and these hot buttons are different for each individual. So you find a candidate that agrees with you on the issues that you feel so strongly about, those that feel you cannot compromise on, while not being outside your own personal range of tolerance on the majority of issues you are moderate on.

The only way to find a candidate that you agree with 100% of the time is to run for office yourself.