[olby]Olbermann to Bush/Cheney, "Resign", others agree

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

Flame of Liberty, did you purchase Sean Hannity's talking points on ebay recently or something?

You will be shocked, but I had to google him to find out who this guy is since I dont have Fox on my cable.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

State corporativism means anything to you? Yup, thats a sign of love for free markets, are you serious? But good to know that you associate creation of wealth with free markets, very good.

I associated it with a support of private enterprise (because it is), not a love of free markets. But thanks.

I'm glad you are happy where you live, but we both know it isn't the Utopian Anarcho-Capitalist society which you are preaching about.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

I associated it with a support of private enterprise (because it is), not a love of free markets. But thanks.

You can (and it is happening everywhere) support private enterprises by pouring subsidies into them. How is that free market? It is not.

You can (and it is happening everywhere) support (home) private enterprises by protecting them with import quotas on foreign imports. How is that free market? It is not.

"Support" of private enterprises does not equal to support of free markets

[Flashpoint]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

Are you talking about Iraq? Going to Iraq was a bad thing, not going to Iraq would have been a worse thing. What other policies are you talking about?

See Ken’s post.

Yeah, by spending 30k on his energy bill and persuading others to ride bikes. He’s a hypocrite that only fights to gain popularity.

Good on him.

If they want healthcare, they better pay for it themselves. Hilary Clinton is not a Santa Claus that pulls billions of dollars out of a chimney. All she can do is transfer the money from those who actually perform some kind of economic activity to those who sit on their butts all day and all they do is complain. Am I going to support that? Not a chance.

Are you able to see what is going on? Not a chance either.

Tax cuts. The more the merrier.

I sincerely hope you are dreaming, if not, the US will join Canada, the EU and the rest of misguided western world that makes it possible for socialism and populism to flourish.

Not going to Iraq would have been worse? How?

I saw Ken's post. I found the quesiton clear. Ken didn't explain why he found it unclear. Can you?

I wish we could all be “hypocrites” like Gore and start groundswell movements of environmentalism. Lord knows the American mainstream would embrace the message of a hemp wearing guy living in a sod house raising goats. It’s called living a “carbon neutral” lifestyle. Everyone leaves a footprint for their energy needs. The question is how you do it.

Also - Could you please cite where you got the 30K figure from? I can’t seem to find that number anywhere.

I would also point out that it is his place of business as well as his home, and he pays a substantial proportion of his monthly bill to get power from “green” sources like wind and solar to try and balance the amount of carbon used.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/gorehome.asp

I see him doing exactly what he is advocating.

(more later)

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Flashpoint

I saw Ken's post. If found the quesiton clear. Ken didn't explain why he found it unclear. Can you?

What I was getting at is that the question was vague as to Iraq's involvement. There are many levels of what some could consider involvement:

- Was the Taliban acting under direct orders from Hussein?
- Did Hussein and Bin Laden have a summit meeting to discuss the plans?
- Did Hussein provide funding, weapons, intelligence, or training to the Taliban?
- Did the Iraqi gov't turn a blind eye to Taliban activity?
- Are some of the Iraqi people sympathetic to their cause?

Now I will be the first to admit that I don't know the intricacies of Midde East politics. But to me the question was vague as to what involvement we believe that Iraq had in the 9/11 attacks. And I see people treating it like we are answering with one of the top 2 items on my list, whereas I might have answered "yes" is so far as Iraq's involvement in 9/11 might be comparable to Canada's involvement in the US invasion of Grenada in the early 80's.

Do I think that someone in the Iraqi gov't at some point happen to do something to help out somebody in the Taliban that ended up being of assistance to them carrying out the 9/11 attacks? Yes.

The question has a great deal of grey area, and asks for a black or white answer.

[Flashpoint]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

Are you talking about Iraq? Going to Iraq was a bad thing, not going to Iraq would have been a worse thing. What other policies are you talking about?

See Ken’s post.

Yeah, by spending 30k on his energy bill and persuading others to ride bikes. He’s a hypocrite that only fights to gain popularity.

Good on him.

If they want healthcare, they better pay for it themselves. Hilary Clinton is not a Santa Claus that pulls billions of dollars out of a chimney. All she can do is transfer the money from those who actually perform some kind of economic activity to those who sit on their butts all day and all they do is complain. Am I going to support that? Not a chance.

Are you able to see what is going on? Not a chance either.

Tax cuts. The more the merrier.

I sincerely hope you are dreaming, if not, the US will join Canada, the EU and the rest of misguided western world that makes it possible for socialism and populism to flourish.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 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. 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 am suprised that as a working man you support Bush's faith based initiatives and an imoral war rather than health care.



As for Kerry's bronze star (good for him)- he won it in Vietnam when he saw a VC with a rocket launcher taking aim at his PT boat. He beached the craft right in front of him, jumped off the bow, chaised the guy through long grass and blew his head off before he could fire.


That's the guy I would rather have in charge of the military.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

Forget Ohio and Florida. Americans should be ashamed that it was even that close.

Pelosi won't bother with impeachment. The Democrats are going to sit back and watch the Republicans continue to self-destruct. They could run on a ticket of Paris Hilton and Nicole Richie and still win. They don't even need any policies - "We are not Republican" is enough for a landslide.

Actually, that's where you are dead wrong.

They need policies and plans. They need a direction. I guarantee you I won't vote for any Dem. who trots out the platform of "Vote for me, I'm not Bush!". That's exactly why John Kerry lost.

Additionally, if you are one of those who thinks that all Republicans fall into the same category as the current administration you have no business even posting in this thread.

There are plenty of good Republican politicians and there are plenty of horrible democrats.

[badnarik]

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.

just wondering what you think the tax rate in the u.s. should be? do you think canada should raise taxes too?

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Flashpoint

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. .

Just a drive-by I couldn't resist . . . .

The notion that Iraq was a secular state, by the definition we might apply to that word, is exceedingly overbaked.

I posted this earlier in the year . . . .

Well, secular in our part of the world is certainly a different thing than secular in the Muslim world. You can google any number of Saddam speeches and find they all look like this one, a guy clearly pandering to the religious crowd. Read the whole thing . . . it wasn't an uncommon raving for him during his reign. In fact, most of his speeches look like this one (two pages):

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,877046,00.html

Google "Saddam, speeches, Allah, God" and you'll get pages of the stuff.

Its also very similar to what you see from President Mushareff of Pakistan, another guy that people on our side of the pond see as some kind of secularist.

Also, if you can find a speech from Saddam where he talks in a secular manner about women's rights, freedom of religion, etc, then please post it.

Deeds are different than words of course and it might be said that Saddam's Iraq was certainly more secular when compared to other Muslim countries in the region . . . . but probably no where near what we would term secular.

The last thing he wanted was Islamists taking hold – see his multiple wars with Iran.

I think its pretty clear that secularists and Islamists alike in that part of the world have ideas about the running of their own country that could be completely opposite of their ideas of how to keep their neighbours weak and fractured.

Iraq invaded Iran, not the other way around.

Cowperson

[Flashpoint]

Originally Posted by badnarik

just wondering what you think the tax rate in the u.s. should be? do you think canada should raise taxes too?

As I am not an economist, I couldn't really say an exact figure with any educated precision. I think Canadian taxes are excessive. I think the current US rates are about right, but I would like to see the money distributed more towards social programs and away from National Defense.

I know a lot of arguments against tax reform for social programs rest on "potential for waste and abuse" arguments. Yet somehow the same arguments don't apply to the US military - for example - the F15 Strike Eagle is superior to any combat aircraft anywhere in the world. Yet billions are being spent in the F-22 program as a replacement air superiority aircraft. Is it nice to have stealth technology in a fighter? Sure. Is it important to develop new technologies for defense? Absolutely. But don't tell me there isn't abuse of the system just because the goal is military based.

If the money is going to be wasted, I would rather my tax dollars went to feed a chronic welfare mom's kids, than to line the pockets of a government contractor.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

Just a drive-by I couldn't resist . . . .

The notion that Iraq was a secular state, by the definition we might apply to that word, is exceedingly overbaked.

I posted this earlier in the year . . . .

Well, secular in our part of the world is certainly a different thing than secular in the Muslim world. You can google any number of Saddam speeches and find they all look like this one, a guy clearly pandering to the religious crowd. Read the whole thing . . . it wasn't an uncommon raving for him during his reign. In fact, most of his speeches look like this one (two pages):

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,877046,00.html

Google "Saddam, speeches, Allah, God" and you'll get pages of the stuff.

Its also very similar to what you see from President Mushareff of Pakistan, another guy that people on our side of the pond see as some kind of secularist.

Also, if you can find a speech from Saddam where he talks in a secular manner about women's rights, freedom of religion, etc, then please post it.

Deeds are different than words of course and it might be said that Saddam's Iraq was certainly more secular when compared to other Muslim countries in the region . . . . but probably no where near what we would term secular.

The last thing he wanted was Islamists taking hold – see his multiple wars with Iran.

I think its pretty clear that secularists and Islamists alike in that part of the world have ideas about the running of their own country that could be completely opposite of their ideas of how to keep their neighbours weak and fractured.

Iraq invaded Iran, not the other way around.

Cowperson

Might want to take a look at his actual policies, as opposed to speeches. Even a dictator gives speeches that pander to his audience base, which, despite his secular ambitions, was still distinctly Islamic. And as much as possible, he tried to work in references to pre-Islamic Mesopotamian figures, such as Nebuchadnezzar, creating a sense of Iraqi national identity that he hoped would eventually be stronger than religious allegiences. No doubt he turned increasingly to Islamic rhetoric in the years following the first gulf war as a way of trying to keep his power base.
Early in his reign, he abolished many of the Sharia courts, and his constitution did provide significant rights and freedoms to women, including an aggressive literacy campaign for all youths. Maternity, custody, and workplace rights for women were all well beyond any Islamic neighbours. At the same time, the Ba'ath did dismantle several women's rights groups in the country. Typical of the Ba'ath party, it's always been more about maintaining power and removing possible objectors, rather than about any particular ideology. Which is why he was so against al qaeda: as a popularist islamic movement, they were a legitimate threat to Hussein's power, and probably forced him to resort more frequently to fundamentalist dogma (post gulf-war) in his speeches and policies as a way of mitigating that threat.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Here is an interesting article on why the US will still be No 1 for a while.

I'm more concerned that the US will bankrupt herself over the Iraq war, the Afghan war and the extreme post-9/11 security infrastructure. If it wasn't for Japan and China propping up the US economy they (and we) would be in deep trouble and I, for one, don't feel great about China having the US (increasingly) by the short and curlies.

Flashpoint the F-15 is superior to any combat aircraft in the world? Do you and FOL share a crack pipe?

[Flashpoint]

Originally Posted by Fozzie_DeBear

Flashpoint the F-15 is superior to any combat aircraft in the world? Do you and FOL share a crack pipe?

LOL, no, but I do have a brother in law (ex military pilot, current test pilot) and a love of fighter aircraft. I'd be interested to hear which ones you think are better!

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by Fozzie_DeBear

Do you and FOL share a crack pipe?

LOL says someone with a fozzie in his avatar...

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Originally Posted by Flashpoint

LOL, no, but I do have a brother in law (ex military pilot, current test pilot) and a love of fighter aircraft. I'd be interested to hear which ones you think are better!

Well, asssuming you mean in an air-superiority role, the F-15 is hard to beat (Over a 100 kills and no losses in combat).

but without thrust vectoring (like the Su-30/35 and the F-22) don't you think the current F-15 is at a disadvantage?

Sure the F-15 is no slouch, but most of its kills are by the Israelis a llloooong time ago....how would it stack up against more modern competition? I would suggest that it would still be competitive but not dominant...

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

LOL says someone with a fozzie in his avatar...

...yer point being?

Anyways, saying that things would have been worse if the US didn't go into Iraq is crack-talk IMO...

1-The US still hadn't finished the job in Afghanistan and arguably has let the Taliban back into the game

2-Saddam was contained by sanctions and was NOT going to allow Al-Queda radicals a base of operations in Iraq...

3-The US is now severely hamstrung (the Army is becoming exhausted) limiting its strategic options if Iran, North Korea or Taiwan become a problem

4-And IF invading Iraq WAS necessary the US could have set a two-week deadline for Saddam (which he would have broken) that would have allowed other nations to join in the war without as much political turmoil.

Invading Iraq was a bad idea compounded by piss-poor execution...

[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 ready, but doesnt North Korea tops this list?

[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?

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by octothorp

Might want to take a look at his actual policies, as opposed to speeches. Even a dictator gives speeches that pander to his audience base, which, despite his secular ambitions, was still distinctly Islamic. And as much as possible, he tried to work in references to pre-Islamic Mesopotamian figures, such as Nebuchadnezzar, creating a sense of Iraqi national identity that he hoped would eventually be stronger than religious allegiences. No doubt he turned increasingly to Islamic rhetoric in the years following the first gulf war as a way of trying to keep his power base.
Early in his reign, he abolished many of the Sharia courts, and his constitution did provide significant rights and freedoms to women, including an aggressive literacy campaign for all youths. Maternity, custody, and workplace rights for women were all well beyond any Islamic neighbours. At the same time, the Ba'ath did dismantle several women's rights groups in the country. Typical of the Ba'ath party, it's always been more about maintaining power and removing possible objectors, rather than about any particular ideology. Which is why he was so against al qaeda: as a popularist islamic movement, they were a legitimate threat to Hussein's power, and probably forced him to resort more frequently to fundamentalist dogma (post gulf-war) in his speeches and policies as a way of mitigating that threat.

Frankly, your entire post sounds like you're agreeing with me, particularly this part:

No doubt he turned increasingly to Islamic rhetoric in the years following the first gulf war as a way of trying to keep his power base.

Like I said, there was no such thing as a secular Iraq in the sense that we might describe secularism in the west.

Within one month of Saddam's fall, you had hundreds of thousands of e's marching through Baghdad slapping themselves on their backs with chains.

It was always there. Which is interesting.

From Fozzie: I'm more concerned that the US will bankrupt herself over the Iraq war, the Afghan war and the extreme post-9/11 security infrastructure.


The USA hasn't applied nearly the resources, on a GDP basis, that it applied to any prior, significant conflict . . . . . 9% of GDP in Vietnam versus a little over 1% to Iraq as an example.

In fact, the Iraq conflict has been called the most "affordable" of all wars America has ever been involved in, which is why its been fairly unnoticeable in the domestic economy and why GW Bush has been given a rather improbable five year string, far longer to wrap things up than one might have thought tolerable in a democracy. War tends to be unpopular, as it should be.

Overall, USA debt to GDP ratio isn't particularly out of line at all relative to many of its peers.

http://www.answers.com/topic/list-of...by-public-debt

It all sounds like big dollars, but relative to what America could actually afford or in comparison to prior conflicts, its actually fairly restrained.

In turn, that has some critics of the administration saying that America hasn't really tried to "win" these conflicts because it hasn't applied nearly the resources that it could or it has in the past . . . . perhaps forgetting that it's not America that will decide what ultimately comes of Iraq, but Iraqis and what they make of their internal political process, good or bad, and Afghani's.

If this were Eisenhower's era, the USA defence budget would be three times the size it is today.

The big problems yet to be accounted for in the USA economy are future government pensions, the astronomical costs of long-term health care for wounded veterans, Medicare and Social Security.

America has been written off at various times before, most recently in the very late 1980's/early 1990's . . . . . and then it hit the accelerator.

Interestingly, if I'm not mistaken, American stock markets do better under Democrats than Republicans.

Meanwhile, I'm off to the dentist.

Cowperson

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

From Fozzie: I'm more concerned that the US will bankrupt herself over the Iraq war, the Afghan war and the extreme post-9/11 security infrastructure.


The USA hasn't applied nearly the resources, on a GDP basis, that it applied to any prior, significant conflict . . . . . 9% of GDP in Vietnam versus a little over 1% to Iraq as an example.

Check out this podcast about the BRETTON WOODS agreement, the Vietnam war changed the way that the US 'creates' money...

Originally Posted by Cowperson

In fact, the Iraq conflict has been called the most "affordable" of all wars America has ever been involved in, which is why its been fairly unnoticeable in the domestic economy and why GW Bush has been given a rather improbable five year string, far longer to wrap things up than one might have thought tolerable in a democracy. War tends to be unpopular, as it should be.

True, this war has not cause the average american (military families excluded) to make many sacrifices.


The big problems yet to be accounted for in the USA economy are future government pensions, the astronomical costs of long-term health care for wounded veterans, Medicare and Social Security.

How about sub-prime mortgages?