[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by Flashpoint

The 9/11 commission reported no connection between Iraq and Al Queada. Anyone versed in the political situation of the middle east knew that Saddam was opposed to Al Quaeda because he was a strongman running a secular state. The last thing he wanted was Islamists taking hold – see his multiple wars with Iran. A secular state has been handed to Islamic fundamentalists, and is now a training ground for terrorists. This was created by a Bush administration that was great at waging war, but had no idea how to turn tactical success into political progress.

Fine that most people at the time wouldn’t know about that. The issue is that some of them (roughly 25%) still believe there was a connection to this day displays a lack of vision on their part. Apparently these are the people who will continue to support Bush regardless of what he does.

The Iraq thing has been beaten to death, but I tend to agree with Cow that there is no such thing as a secular state in muslim world.

The US thought that Iraq constituted a threat (for various reasons, topic again beaten to death). Would it be wiser to just ignore it?

Originally Posted by Flashpoint

My biggest issue is how the Bush administration has totally failed to support the troops. There are insufficient numbers with inadequate equipment. Did you know that 90% of troop casualties in Iraq are caused by IED’s? And that there is a APC called a Grizzly that Blackwater uses that is essentially IED “proof” (the bottom is shaped like a boat deflecting the blast) – but the US government won’t pay for production in sufficient numbers. http://www.blackwaterusa.com/armored/

Even if we look at the war on Terror – why is the US pouring resources into Iraq instead of Afghanistan? The entire world supported the ousting of the Taliban – but instead of killing Osama bin Laden, Bush let him escape because he changed focus to Iraq. Afghanistan is now supporting terrorism again through the massive heroin trade thanks to insufficient forces holding the country.

I dont know. I agree that more resources should have been allocated to Afghanistan. Also I tend to think that Pakistan should be dealt with too.

Originally Posted by Flashpoint

When I say that the current administration is too cowardly to change course, I am speaking of Iraq. That lost war will be the legacy of the Bush presidency. But, it is only the biggest elephant in the room. His unwillingness to change how his government operates is this primary problem. He has rampant cronyism led to the Hurricane Katrina debacle. It is one thing to have political appointees – every government in history has done that. It is quite another to constantly appoint incompetent people. “Browny” is only one example. What about the legal staff all being from some third rate televangelist religious school – Regent University? The death of Habius Corpus is no accident – it stems from inadequate legal council.

Politicians appoint incompent people all the time - you will get no argument from me here.

Originally Posted by Flashpoint

Tax cuts are great if you are making over 75K a year and believe in trickledown economics. Sadly, most people in the US don’t, so they didn’t get the tax break, and trickledown economics has been proven as a falsehood.

Tax cuts are great because more money stay in the pocket of an individual who earned it, and less money for the state. Its a moral choice. I dont care if it results in more investment/consumer spending/whatever or not.

Originally Posted by Flashpoint

As for health care in the US – well it lags sadly behind the entire industrialized world. Simply because it is cheaper and more efficient to have universal health care that prevents disease than having “for profit” care that causes people to avoid using it until they wind up in emergency.

Honestly, I think this is the 1st time I have seen words "cheaper and more efficient" together in a sentence with "universal health care."

If socialized public health care is so efficient, why not socialize food production, energy production, manufacturing, etc....everything? I think it its been tried before and the only outcome is that - it is not efficient.

Originally Posted by Flashpoint

It isn’t like Americans are lazy. 99% of them would have coverage if they could. The social safety net provided by tax exists to catch the weakest members of society. The US wouldn’t even need to raise taxes to provide universal health care.

I dont know what you mean by the second sentence? If they dont get private health care, it means other things are of higher priority to them. Lets say entertainment and what not. In such case, too bad I say.

However, I would agree that current system in the US doesnt help to create a truly efficient private health care. More should be done in this area to cut the privileges of certain groups that are able to hold prices artificaly high (compared to prices that would result on truly deregulated health market).

Originally Posted by Flashpoint

Just get out of Iraq (which will be happening pretty quickly anyway). Did you know the US chooses to spend a larger percentage of it’s GDP on the military than any other country in the world? Not simply more money, but a greater percentage of it’s total income than anywhere else – no one even comes close. Reduce it by a single percentage point, and you cover every man, woman, and child in the United States for life.

I dont have the numbers handy, but doesnt North Korea tops this list?