Iraq and MONEY!
- Thread starter ByteMe
- Start date
Humus said:
But to the vast majority of people there are. Thusly it is more realistic to believe (especially skilled labor) would be able to find another job.
please define social development.
If you really are refering to costly welfare states I would take the right leaning leaderships position. Welfare Statism isn't progression its digression.
Humus said:
You are partially correct. I hate a number of things. I hate terrorists. I hate the fact that many people in this world are starving. I also hate that many people in this world are oppressed. I hate governments that oppress their people.I hate religions that teach the people to kill the infidels. I hate that people get hurt. I hate that accidents happen.
There are many things I hate and if you don't like them then I guess I can be one of the things that you hate.
rac·ism P Pronunciation Key (rszm)
n.
The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
I don't believe my hate of current Islam (as practiced in most countries) fits in the definition.
Liberals dont only see victims... Im tired of the generalizations like these that elad noweher in a thread or conversation. Theres nothing wrong in helping someone get back on their feet. The era of keeping people dependant who are healthy and capable of working when work is available is largely over and done with.
I dont think it ever waqs that much an issue to begin with. Its mostly missperception fomr the breakdown of the family and integration of women into the workplace.
I dont think it ever waqs that much an issue to begin with. Its mostly missperception fomr the breakdown of the family and integration of women into the workplace.
pax said:
I agree that there should be some assistance for people in need. The reason for this assistance is NOT because they deserve it... it is because others are compassionate and are willing to help. That is the difference.
And then I would also argue that the private sector (people) are better able to manage this compassionate help than the government.
The reason public system came into place was the severe lack of charity from the private sector. Its not feasbile for the thousdans of issues to be dealt with by private charity. Telemarketers asking for donations call me 3-4 tiems a day sometimes... id rather gov take care of the immesne and complex issues.
Unless you mean public funding of private non profit charities. And even then Id only agree if enough scutiny was in place to avoid the kind of CCF and other religious charities scandals of the past decade...
Unless you mean public funding of private non profit charities. And even then Id only agree if enough scutiny was in place to avoid the kind of CCF and other religious charities scandals of the past decade...
Natoma Wrote:
Yes it created the low income tax bracket. However you would find many people who would argue that government collection increased not because of the tax cuts, but because of the disproportionately high military budget that revved the economy in the mid to late 80s.
Yup, certainly that was a factor. Historically wartime economies do well, at least for awhile.
Natoma:
The thing about the Cold War is that we didn't win because of all of the spending directly. We won because we forced the USSR into bankruptcy when they tried to keep up. We were able to create massive deficits. They weren't. I don't know if that was the intent of the policy and more of a "Woohoo!" realization afterward.
Thats the conservative argument you're touting. Bonafide 100% Republican ladies and gentleman. I think its complicated personally, there were many factors that took out the Soviet Union.
Natoma Wrote:
In the same way that Clinton raised taxes in the 90s and the economy boomed? That was a supply side argument that was used by nearly every republican and it didn't come to fruition.
Base rate neglect. The supply side argument would have been. "the Economy didn't rise as fast or as far as it could have, precisely b/c of the tax hike' Either way, a long statistical history is whats needed to judge these affairs, its easy to pick say the Reagan or Kennedy boom as evidence for tax cuts stimulating the economy. Ditto for Clinton and Roosevelt for the reverse effect. Lengthy historical analysis does show good correlation though.
Natoma Wrote: Actually Greenspan was rather vague wrt his comments on the tax cuts.
Alan Greenspan wrote:
Should current economic weakness spread beyond what now appears likely, having a tax cut in place may, in fact, do noticeable good.
Thats correct, though he did defend the tax cut to Congress. If there was another 9/11 attack, its true it may be pointless.
Natoma Wrote:
Considering the climate in early 2001, that was merely a statement of fact that tax cuts could help because the economy was still really good and we were paying down the deficit. What I interpreted is that tax cuts can help under certain conditions, but only if they don't cause long term structural deficits. If they are temporary and short term, they can do a lot of good.
You keep implying they cause long term structural deficits, which is precisely the argument that I find flawed. Understand too, having some debt is a good thing. In many ways its like an investment, and it has sensitive correlation to the value of our currency. Whats not good, is when the interest rates on the debt start exceeding certain thresholds.
Yes it created the low income tax bracket. However you would find many people who would argue that government collection increased not because of the tax cuts, but because of the disproportionately high military budget that revved the economy in the mid to late 80s.
Yup, certainly that was a factor. Historically wartime economies do well, at least for awhile.
Natoma:
The thing about the Cold War is that we didn't win because of all of the spending directly. We won because we forced the USSR into bankruptcy when they tried to keep up. We were able to create massive deficits. They weren't. I don't know if that was the intent of the policy and more of a "Woohoo!" realization afterward.
Thats the conservative argument you're touting. Bonafide 100% Republican ladies and gentleman. I think its complicated personally, there were many factors that took out the Soviet Union.
Natoma Wrote:
In the same way that Clinton raised taxes in the 90s and the economy boomed? That was a supply side argument that was used by nearly every republican and it didn't come to fruition.
Base rate neglect. The supply side argument would have been. "the Economy didn't rise as fast or as far as it could have, precisely b/c of the tax hike' Either way, a long statistical history is whats needed to judge these affairs, its easy to pick say the Reagan or Kennedy boom as evidence for tax cuts stimulating the economy. Ditto for Clinton and Roosevelt for the reverse effect. Lengthy historical analysis does show good correlation though.
Natoma Wrote: Actually Greenspan was rather vague wrt his comments on the tax cuts.
Alan Greenspan wrote:
Should current economic weakness spread beyond what now appears likely, having a tax cut in place may, in fact, do noticeable good.
Thats correct, though he did defend the tax cut to Congress. If there was another 9/11 attack, its true it may be pointless.
Natoma Wrote:
Considering the climate in early 2001, that was merely a statement of fact that tax cuts could help because the economy was still really good and we were paying down the deficit. What I interpreted is that tax cuts can help under certain conditions, but only if they don't cause long term structural deficits. If they are temporary and short term, they can do a lot of good.
You keep implying they cause long term structural deficits, which is precisely the argument that I find flawed. Understand too, having some debt is a good thing. In many ways its like an investment, and it has sensitive correlation to the value of our currency. Whats not good, is when the interest rates on the debt start exceeding certain thresholds.
That doesn't change the fact that most institutions in the world believed Saddam had either weapons or ongoing programs and was obstructing the inspection process in order to protect them.L233 said:
P.S, this is the kind of shit I'm talking about with the movement being 'topsey turvey':
http://www.ndrtv.de/panorama/20031211/irak.html
Peace activists collecting money for terrorists?
(Note: my understanding of the article/program comes from: http://medienkritik.typepad.com/blog/2003/12/germanys_peace_.html)
http://www.ndrtv.de/panorama/20031211/irak.html
Peace activists collecting money for terrorists?
(Note: my understanding of the article/program comes from: http://medienkritik.typepad.com/blog/2003/12/germanys_peace_.html)
Humus said:
Thanks for the input there Humus. Yeah while I might agree that there is likely a difference in philosophies of the left and right in Europe I think that the idea of small government is not particularly popular in Europe. Perhaps it is that the libertarian mentality is more influential in NA then in Europe. I think maybe though that I did not articulate my point as well as I thought I did.(or maybe I did and it is simply that you disagree entirely.) It wouldn't be that a democrat from the US would be exactly the same as European liberals would be rather that they would have a fair bit of commonality particularly on social issues. In a sense though I would agree that what is liberal has changed from what a classical liberal used to be in that they used to be free market preponderates. Postmodern Liberals have given up on the idea of free markets in favor of government intervention and control which is much of what we see going on in Europe even under the current supposed right wing British government for example. Conservatives seem to have also changed and it as if they are now often echoing what classical liberals used to say so it isn't as if they have not changed their stance. Maybe it is me that sees the libertarian aspect of modern conservatism in North America as being more influential then it really is but I don't think so. At any rate I will still impose the idea that Europe is generally more left wing in their policies, I still think that generally speaking that the sliding scale to the left is appropriate.
There is one problem with suggesting that the move to small government is a slippery slope. The problem is that I don't really think it is. It takes a fair amount of effort to keep government from growing beyond insuring security and maintaining infrastructure particularly in a democratic setting. Because canidates will promise to fix certain perceived social problems via government services. For instance a voting public that is aging will look very favorably on the idea of socialized medicine. But after that mechanism is in place it is not likely that the public would ever be in favor of ending state provided "free" healthcare, even though it really isn't "free" at all. If the state promises to look after you and ensures that you will be looked after then it differs responsibility from the individual to the state. So no matter what choices I make in terms of lifestyle the state is ultimately responsible for my well being. After such an extensive government is in place I don't see it likely that voting populace would be in favor of being responsible for their own or individual well being and prefer the security blanket of the welfare state.
In terms of social development… I think you ought to renege this stance. The US has a very liberated populace. A wide range of everything in terms of the types of people and mentalities. If you mean that they are behind in social control mechanisms of the government then sure you are correct but I wouldn't associate that with them necessarily being behind in any way. Because they are different does not mean that they are behind. I would like you to elaborate on just what you mean by "social development", please.
RussSchultz said:
Give me a fucking break, Russ. Those people are about as representative of the "peace movement" or the "anti-war" movement as as a sock is representative of a condom. And you damn well know that, but are deliberately looking for the most wacko nutcases you can possibly find so you can deride the entire left. Again.
But hey, I can play that game too. Look at what irrational nutcases pro-war people are:
http://www.nukewear.com/products.html
http://economist.blog-city.com/read/372450.htm
http://www.voy.com/130505/139.html
But hey, who needs to even mention Rumsfeld's kind words to Saddam Hussein, (and the help with producing WMD's that came with them), or training terrorists in Afghanistan and Nicaragua, or the Bush administration's continued support and of terrorism in Colombia. It's so much easier to simply pick out a couple of nutcases and lump everyone else with them.
can you please provide evidence that Rumsfeld provided information (or for that matter the USA) on how to produce chem/bio weapons? Will you also provide sources that list what types of chem bio weapons. If we provided them precussors please show us which and how they were used to create the final product.
Here's a couple starters:
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/cbw.htm
http://www.rense.com/general29/chenam.htm
http://www.trinicenter.com/kwame/2002/Nov/
It looks like they shipped at least Anthrax, West Nile Virus and Clostridium botulinum to Iraq. The company that sold them maintains that they thought they were being used for "medical purposes" despite the fact that it was well known that the Iraqi regime used these for weapons development. Not to mention selling the helicopters used to gas Halabja. Note that Europe is just as deep in the mud as the U.S. in this one.
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/cbw.htm
http://www.rense.com/general29/chenam.htm
http://www.trinicenter.com/kwame/2002/Nov/
It looks like they shipped at least Anthrax, West Nile Virus and Clostridium botulinum to Iraq. The company that sold them maintains that they thought they were being used for "medical purposes" despite the fact that it was well known that the Iraqi regime used these for weapons development. Not to mention selling the helicopters used to gas Halabja. Note that Europe is just as deep in the mud as the U.S. in this one.
If its so common knowledge could you please show me evidence that any one of these bio weapons were found within these remains of their weapons storage? Can you show me that the strains we sent him were used to produce the strain's he had? I love to know how you could only start with a few samples and create and entire military arsenal of bio weapons in under a few years.
Clashman would you also please provide how this information was common knowledge? We sent the same agents to hundreds of other countries. Your links do not provide any information as to how the US/French government were aware of the fact they were making bio weapons. They simply make ad hoc generalizations providing little evidence for their arguments. They expect you to assume we provided cultures to make weapons and for no other purpose which is patently absurd and relies on some one to follow their assumptions rather than their reason. No more indy media crap Clashman. I want real information from reputable sources.
Please provide intel these bio samples were cultured into weapons. I do not mean after the fact either Clashman. That seems to be the general and deliberate misrepresentation of the links your provided. This argument which had been made over and over again and always refuted relies on the rather dubious assumption we'd only send biological samples for the purpose of making weapons. This is infact bullshit. You are aware of this as well. The author's do not provide a shread of evidence american/french government agents were aware of the biological weaponry until long after it had been created. They lead you to believe they were without evidence.
Also please provide the quantity we provided.
-btw please delete the second source you posted. It simply misrepresents facts without any verification and is full of useless insertions by the auther as well as his personal agenda. I don't know how it ever crossed your mind that is an unbiased source.
And i'm sure we'd be blamed for crop dusters as well. Of course we should have assumed he was going to use these helicopters to drop chem weapons (that you still haven't provided evidence make) in Halabja.Legion said:
Sure, but just because a system is good to me doesn't make it good in general.
There are plenty of social development indexes out there that weights in a number of data of the well being of the nation, such as expected and average length of life, child and infant mortality, school enrollment, literacy, GDP, economic growth, human rights, women's right, demography, democracy, crime rates etc. In pretty much all such indexes the US ends up low for being a developed country.
Sabastian said:
Sure, europe is more left wing in general. One of the reasons probably is history. Both because we have gone through so many wars here, many strong leaders to deal with it, and consequently the government simply got more important here. Also, I guess, because the communistic soviet had quite a bit to say in the east under several decades. The US on the other hand was founded on individualism and freedom.
Sabastian said:
It's not the small government thing, but rather other parts that are typical for extremes on the political scale, such as authoritarianism. While a far left government may get people locked into economic stagnation a far right government may lock people socially into conservative structures, violate human rights, or give the little man no opportunities to climb on the social scale.
RussSchultz said:
Uh, but the problem is that these institutions didn't wage war, kill thousands (military and civilian personnel), and spend hundreds of billions of tax payer dollars.
So IF you're going to wage war on the supposition of WMD then you'd better be 110% sure. If you're not, you'd better keep digging for that crucial piece of evidence.
FYI, I believed Iraq had WMD as well but it's not my call nor responsibility to be right in this regard. If you're going to gamble, you better be prepared to lose/be wrong. In addition I'm still not 100% that WMD won't be found but my faith in finding it decreases day by day.