PDA

View Full Version : How long with Iraq now last?



djangojazz
01-19-2008, 11:09 PM
I heard somewhere that said that the war in Iraq is not even priority one for voters and the economy with it's lackluster performance is now people's top priority. McCain even stated that he did not think most people cared about the war and how long it would last and in conservative eyes that must be the case because he seems to be rebounding in popularity lately. So will the war end anytime soon or do you think it will continue long into the next president in office? I think it's pretty much going to slowly wind down in a DNC member is president and the DNC hold's control of Congress still. Then again that could go very slowly. I do know besides Paul the GOP candidates think this war is viable in nearly everything I have heard on them appealing to the conservative base. I just think if you think about the number of wars the US has been in since the military buildup of WWII the number of them that have had any positive results for US freedoms is none.

I can appreciate the fact that conservatives want to protect the homeland as they call it, but I can't appreciate the fact that the people that attacked us are not in question. But yet the war is now fought for reasons disguised as peace but if the only hostility is coming against us, the army is disbanded and their is no unified force against us that would say a lot for what the rest of the world thinks of us. What is even more telling is the attitude that we can just shrug off everyone indefinitely and at some later time all will be won but we have no idea what it takes to win and we refuse to change. And an even bigger issue in the future would be, will we just do this again against another nation and will conservatives from this day forward just let any war happen and justify any aggression as correct and any thoughts to why as weakness? It's interesting to me judging that people that were considered conservative 50 years ago would now be more liberal and that people that were liberal 50 years ago now just don't exist except in very small representation.

The only reason it really scares me is now I see energy and defense having record years with profits, the economy as a whole is suffering. I'm really scared for the future and I'm decently educated, I can't imagine how hard it is going to be if this war continues to go on another 5 years or more of how much debt we will have and how hard it will be to ever change to a system not based on oil. We have changed so many policies in favor of non renewable system and had our mass populace think it will last forever and we can see the economy is not telling that as a true story. It's very telling the US stopped most of it's own production of oil many years back and Bush is now openly going to the Mid East and asking them to lower prices. That doesn't happen when oil is plentiful and going to last well into the future. I guess since most of my writing has a tendency to go to rants on politics I offer this in an election year. Don't look to next year with this election, look to the next 10 or 20 years and how one issue also affects other issues. Personally I think we should build a new infrastructure based on emerging technologies. It will create jobs and it will boost the economy if people are fighting for change not war.

outsider
01-20-2008, 12:07 AM
War and economy go hand in hand.

We are in a huge deficit because we fund the war. There are of course other reasons but they pale in comparison.

If one wants to repair the economy one must cut outlandish spending. Sadly DC is more inclined to cut spending on Americans and to increase spending on people around the world.
If one wants to repair the economy than we should expect the government to stop turning our tax dollars into subsidies for uncompetitive companies, we should stop sending our tax dollars to bail out the stupid and inept.
If you tax me less I will have more money to use if I wish to buy something and tha banks thus have access to that money to invest in things which again helps the economy.

cursed74
01-20-2008, 09:18 PM
tax cuts don't work
you should give more of your paycheck to them
-rep

outsider
01-20-2008, 09:27 PM
Tax cuts provide a temporary fix and make the problem worse as our national debt loses even more ground to repay what we as a nation owe. You can't increase spending and decrease taxes without a severe hit on the economy.

I realize that looks contradictory so I will sate it better.
Tax cuts without a decrease in spending are very bad.
Tax cuts accompanied by a decrease in spending are very good.

cursed74
01-20-2008, 10:36 PM
agreed

now we just have to find somebody in DC that will actually decrease spending

HaloGuardian
01-20-2008, 11:56 PM
We are still in Iraq? Damn. I really thought the Democrats were going to get us out like the promised 2 years ago. [/sarcasm]

fibula
01-21-2008, 12:43 AM
Iraq lol

djangojazz
01-21-2008, 02:10 AM
We are still in Iraq? Damn. I really thought the Democrats were going to get us out like the promised 2 years ago. [/sarcasm]

Democrats elected since November 2006, took office January 2007, Today is January 20th 2008. That is One year by my math. Amount of times DNC tried to vote since control of legislature to set timelines to get out, twice, amount of times Bush vetoed since in office, four times. All vetoes since the DNC took control, twice against troops withdrawals in Iraq, once against stem cell research, once against SCHIP. Just saying........

djangojazz
01-21-2008, 02:36 AM
War and economy go hand in hand.

We are in a huge deficit because we fund the war. There are of course other reasons but they pale in comparison.

If one wants to repair the economy one must cut outlandish spending. Sadly DC is more inclined to cut spending on Americans and to increase spending on people around the world.
If one wants to repair the economy than we should expect the government to stop turning our tax dollars into subsidies for uncompetitive companies, we should stop sending our tax dollars to bail out the stupid and inept.
If you tax me less I will have more money to use if I wish to buy something and tha banks thus have access to that money to invest in things which again helps the economy.

One of the biggest things I agree with on Paul is the idea of doing away with taxes. Mostly all of what you are taxed on is just wasted on systems that are funneled elsewhere because they aren't controlled to you. The great danger their is that the government, or those in office who pretend to be government as a whole, could invest in what they will such as friend's companies. If the company makes money but as a whole is publicly traded and loses money, no biggie they make money off your taxes. If they make money, their portfolio rises, what's to say they could not get greedy? Enron looked great on paper as it was actually taking a header in reality and a lot of the people that made the most money got nearly no faults for what they did.

I believe economically in a more conservative principle. We should have less government, get more of our money back, and hardly have taxes. But...... when you see the size of debt and the lack of quality decisions that the federal government has made under Reagan, Bush Sr., and Bush Jr. towards that same principle. I would say that Clinton under a GOP Congress was more fiscally conservative than anything. I seriously doubt I would want to fund a single war or plan through them with the conservative leadership I have thus far seen in the executive office.

I would not in any way though be against a government that goes hogwild on mandating corporations as they are now. I see not a single person that has ever presented evidence other than theories of why huge corporations should have more freedoms then people and that in turn under the invisible hand of capitalism will foster growth. Hey I love the Capitalistic principle of the best person for the job and demand fosters growth and competition. I also know that a lot of rules have been made by rich people to get a corporation to take the accountability off of them and put it on an invisible entity that one day might just go belly up and they can not lose a dime. If anything I think we should do away with traditional corporations as they exist now for the benefit of the people.

outsider
01-21-2008, 02:36 AM
Wars cost money. Congress is in charge of deciding funding amounts and allotments.

This is the important part. How many times did the DNC refuse to fund the war? The President can't veto that.

Without funding for the war in Iraq troops will come home and the war will end.

djangojazz
01-21-2008, 02:56 AM
Wars cost money. Congress is in charge of deciding funding amounts and allotments.

This is the important part. How many times did the DNC refuse to fund the war? The President can't veto that.

Without funding for the war in Iraq troops will come home and the war will end.

Very true, and the recent give in by the DNC really pissed me off. But weren't the GOP in a similar situation if memory serves with Kosovo under Clinton? And that fucking thing didn't even last a month or more and the GOP claimed it was "excessive spending" for the war. They lost a lot of votes for going against the president. I'm not saying the DNC are without blame, I just don't agree with others that all someone has to do is just stop money. That has never happened in history.

I do agree though that they could do more. One thing which is just my crazy idea is that they force legislation to account that the money actually goes to the troops and not to Halliburton or in some other way get's lost again. It does cost money to come home too. And should any small force be kept their for peacekeeping? Frankly I think everyone should go home at this point and I'm with whoever is for the fastest method. I don't want another dime of mine to go to Iraq. And yes I may vote for someone other than Hillary if I think that they would get out faster. It's just tough to vote for Paul if he's on the GOP platform. Very tough.

outsider
01-21-2008, 03:02 AM
If the DNC refuses to defund the war because they are afraid of losing votes then they were worthless to begin with.

The only two candidates that you could actually count on to bring troops home would be Paul and Kucinich. If the only thing you have against Ron Paul is that he is running as GOP than I'd hope you investigated his platform more and paid attention to how the GOP at large is not being his best friend. I think you'd find yourself agreeing with him on most things.