U.S. ends search for WMD

[Texsox]

Which goes to the big philosophical difference between US and many other world governments.  We want our government to provide as little as possible to the people.  We want to be able to make our own choices for as many things as we can.  We don't want to be told what school to attend, what doctor to see, what organizations we will fund etc.  Bureaucracy has exploded in the 20th century after the New Deal of the 30's/40's, and now we have an almost entire population who has no idea what it means to exsist without government assistance of one sort or another.  Its a direct correlation of why we went from needing no income tax in the 18th and 19th century, to having a huge debt today. 

 

Many countries have a history of entitlement so that is how their government and societies are set up.  They pay high taxes, and they expect to be handed everything.  The US historically wasn't founded like that.  One founding father envisioned the US as independant utopian farmers, with an extremely limited government.  That is why the government leaves much of charity work up to the private sector.  And by and large the private sector responds as US private citizens give more to charities and causes than the rest of the world combined.

 

Blog that

[kapkomet]

Which goes to the big philosophical difference between US and many other world governments.  We want our government to provide as little as possible to the people.  We want to be able to make our own choices for as many things as we can.  We don't want to be told what school to attend, what doctor to see, what organizations we will fund etc.  Bureaucracy has exploded in the 20th century after the New Deal of the 30's/40's, and now we have an almost entire population who has no idea what it means to exsist without government assistance of one sort or another.  Its a direct correlation of why we went from needing no income tax in the 18th and 19th century, to having a huge debt today. 

 

Many countries have a history of entitlement so that is how their government and societies are set up.  They pay high taxes, and they expect to be handed everything.  The US historically wasn't founded like that.  One founding father envisioned the US as independant utopian farmers, with an extremely limited government.  That is why the government leaves much of charity work up to the private sector.  And by and large the private sector responds as US private citizens give more to charities and causes than the rest of the world combined.

 

Now quit being so logical. Where's my social security check?

[mreye]

Which goes to the big philosophical difference between US and many other world governments.  We want our government to provide as little as possible to the people.  We want to be able to make our own choices for as many things as we can.  We don't want to be told what school to attend, what doctor to see, what organizations we will fund etc.  Bureaucracy has exploded in the 20th century after the New Deal of the 30's/40's, and now we have an almost entire population who has no idea what it means to exsist without government assistance of one sort or another.  Its a direct correlation of why we went from needing no income tax in the 18th and 19th century, to having a huge debt today. 

 

Many countries have a history of entitlement so that is how their government and societies are set up.  They pay high taxes, and they expect to be handed everything.  The US historically wasn't founded like that.  One founding father envisioned the US as independant utopian farmers, with an extremely limited government.  That is why the government leaves much of charity work up to the private sector.  And by and large the private sector responds as US private citizens give more to charities and causes than the rest of the world combined.

 

Thanks, Mike. I was humming "God Bless America" throughout that.

 

[KipWellsFan]

Yep.

 

BTW, I found this on that link:

 

I certainly never doubted the generosity of the American people.

[Rex Kickass]

Oh come on.  Hell if wasn't for the location of the state of Alaska, you'd be speaking Russian now.

 

Yes, because that's exactly how Finland fell in 1962... oh wait.

[Rex Kickass]

The "holdup" was the UN and the people around Bush 41. The UN only wanted to get Saddam out of Kuwait. The Bushies thought it would be political suicide to stand up to the UN and "go it alone." He decided to stick with the UN. The future told it was the incorrect decision, and IMO, helped him lose the election in '92.

 

Have you read anything that Cheney or George HW Bush said about the war in 91 or 92? Even Dick Cheney himself said in a speech in 1992 that going to take over the Iraqi regime would make us occupiers and put us in a position that was not in the national interest. He described a scenario that is very similar to what we're in now.

 

If you wanna wear your tin foil hats, you could make the argument that the US allowed an Iraqi invasion of Kuwait to send Japan into economic crisis. The bulk of the oil produced in Kuwait goes to Asia. At the time, the US was receiving nearly no oil from Kuwait. Since Japan is a state so dependent on importing natural resources, the US would be able to wage a war - basically on Japan's dime which would drain the Japanese economy and allow the United States economy to soar - because they would reap nearly all the benefits of a small scale war with almost none of the costs.

[Rex Kickass]

How is a quasi-communist state by definition "expansionist?" Exactly what have the Chinese done to make you think they would go after Canada?

[KipWellsFan]

How is a quasi-communist state by definition "expansionist?" Exactly what have the Chinese done to make you think they would go after Canada?

 

They never would, they just want us in Canada to feel like we are nothing without them. :finger

[Rex Kickass]

That's badmouthing right there. You're calling me a zombie.

 

Yes, this has lots to do with Indonesia - That's part of foreign policy. Helping out in a time of need anywhere in the world. We give more federal dollars and private dollars than anyone! It's a biproduct of our type of government that you despise so much.

 

Well, if you wanna get technical and go with the toteboard. Japan's government's donation exceeded the US by about 35%, Australia's by about 275%. The US is donating a lot of dollars, but when you take into account the proportionality of those dollars - the US government doesn't even come close to giving more than anyone else.

 

It's like saying that the guy that makes a million dollars and gives away 1000 dollars is far more generous than the guy that makes 25K and gives away 200.

 

And if you want to argue about foreign policy, you can also make the argument that Bush's policy towards Tsunami relief has been counterproductive as a foreign policy because - although the heart was in the right place, and the money was too - the administration looked bad - like they were trying to compete with the UN, for example. Now you'll say that the US will look bad no matter what they do - but appearances do matter in foreign policy, and I would argue that Clinton, Bush 41, Reagan, Carter and Nixon all were more successful at being held in higher esteem from the rest of the world.

 

Woah, did I just compliment three Republican presidencies?

[Rex Kickass]

Notice I mentioned private dollars in my origianl post.

 

That's just great except there are other countries that give a higher percentage of GDP in private donations as well. Two of them are in Scandinavia, I believe. Switzerland I think is another.

 

But toteboards don't matter, intent and actions do. And I fault no one for doing good works. People oughta do more of them.

[Rex Kickass]

Which goes to the big philosophical difference between US and many other world governments.  We want our government to provide as little as possible to the people.  We want to be able to make our own choices for as many things as we can.  We don't want to be told what school to attend, what doctor to see, what organizations we will fund etc.  Bureaucracy has exploded in the 20th century after the New Deal of the 30's/40's, and now we have an almost entire population who has no idea what it means to exsist without government assistance of one sort or another.  Its a direct correlation of why we went from needing no income tax in the 18th and 19th century, to having a huge debt today. 

 

Many countries have a history of entitlement so that is how their government and societies are set up.  They pay high taxes, and they expect to be handed everything.  The US historically wasn't founded like that.  One founding father envisioned the US as independant utopian farmers, with an extremely limited government.  That is why the government leaves much of charity work up to the private sector.  And by and large the private sector responds as US private citizens give more to charities and causes than the rest of the world combined.

 

That would be great, if it wasn't wrong. Yes, its true that government protections weren't as great in the 1800s as they are now. Of course, now, children can't work 14 hour days anymore, those damn unions got us things like minimum wage, and government oversight on businesses helped that stupid middle class to grow out of control.

 

The New Deal created a basic social safety net to help ensure that the economic disaster of the great depression would not cause nearly as much suffering as it originally did. So programs like Social Security were created as an insurance policy against being completely destitute when your bank fails and you're left penniless. Or when the company you worked for stole from the piggy bank and left your pension penniless. It was never made to get you rich, it was made to keep a roof over your head. Then in the 1960s, the heartless bastards in the federal government created Medicare to insure that the weakest among us would have access to basic health care needs, and started Head Start to ensure that every child would have the opportunity to succeed in school and life.

 

I'm not defending a needlessly complicated bureaucracy - but major government programs - like New Deal and Great Society stuff - come out of that same will to do well as a society for our society. As a result, most Americans have a different vision of government now. They see one that has a duty to give us the freedom we deserve along with giving the weakest among us a helping hand to be able to survive in a free society.

 

Sadly, not enough people understand that today.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Exactly.  The French discovered that pissing off Americans can have a financial effect.  French? Hmmmm.  Do I detect a common thread here?

 

 

The French would be speaking German twice over if not for us and they repay us with that s*** attitude of theirs.

 

I forget who said this but it's so telling. Charles DeGaulle in 1959 I think it was said he wanted all American troops out of France when they pulled out of NATO's military wing. Our Secretary of State at the time ( I can't place the name ) said "Shall we remove the dead ones that are buried there first?"

 

f*** France.

[Rex Kickass]

I believe that would be Dulles.

 

At the same time, the French were one of the first to come to our side in the Cuban Missile Crisis at the U.N.

 

The French-American relationship is a complicated one and isn't as simple as DeGaulle asking for the end of American occupation in France... despite owing his political livelihood to the American presence in the 1940s.

 

Part of the Marshall Plan's design was to ensure that France did not go any other direction but Center Right in the late 1940s. Prior to 1948, the Communist party was the largest political party in France.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Because America as is right now is a regressive country.

 

 

Define regressive. If it's regressive to live in a society where people are not coddled by government from birth to death & not a place where the government practices wholesale social engineering on it's entire society then I'm all for being regressive.

 

"Progressivism" is nothing more than a euphamisim for handing over control of your life to government. It frowns on individual freedom because "progressives" think they can run your life better than you can run it yourself. It's all fine and dandy as long as you conform. If "progressives" ever got any serious control then American Society would turn into one similar to the pussy whipped, piss ant bunch of cheesedicks that you saw in the movie "Demolition Man". "A bunch of 47 year old virgins sitting around in their underwear singing "I'm an Oscar Meyer Wiener"

 

f*** that.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

One factor that seemingly isn't included in our foreign aid dollars are the billions in defense we spend to keep piss ants from killing each other. We call it peacekeeping, but I'll bet it is in our military spending numbers, not charged to foreign aid. I could be wrong, a quick google search didn't give me a clean link to be certain.

 

No one on this planet has or is spending the dollars or, more importantly, the lives, to keep bullies at bay and dictators from genocide. 

 

 

Wow tex, that was a very "NUKE-like" post. I'm impressed!

[Texsox]

Wow tex,  that was a very "NUKE-like" post.  I'm impressed!

 

Dollars are replaceable, lives are not. Let's count the body bags associated with foreign aid and see who is the greatest contributor. That's the sacrifice that really matters and when that isn't appreciated, I get pissed fast. I am far more impressed when some third world country contributes 1,000 men for peacekeeping force, than some country that sends a check and a thank you. Hell, half the time they forget the thank you.

[Rex Kickass]

Yes, because the "progressives" that controlled government culture during the New Deal era and World War II turned us all into soft, pussies.

 

Progressives believe that governments have a responsibility to its citizens. Apparently the wingnuts that run the country have forgotten that to the point where the House Republican congress wanted to remove ethics rules in the House that prohibit Congressmen from holding posts of leadership while being indicted for felonies. The wingnuts that run this country's government seem more concerned with protecting their own power than anyone else.

 

We now have proof, by our own hands, that the basis for this war in Iraq was false. Now, who's going to get fired? Nobody.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Sure the US has helped us in the past and such but today is a new day.  It's time to move on and be more progressive.  And progressive isn't having a defense budget of over a trillion dollars.

 

 

Yeah, so I guess by your logic government taking money away from the military and using it on social programs is gonna stop fanatics from knocking down buildings. You're living in a fantasyland my friend. The world is a nasty place and it's men with guns that stand between you and them.

 

"People sleep peacibly in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to commit violent acts on their behalf."

 

George Orwell

[Rex Kickass]

Dollars are replaceable, lives are not. Let's count the body bags associated with foreign aid and see who is the greatest contributor. That's the sacrifice that really matters and when that isn't appreciated, I get pissed fast. I am far more impressed when some third world country contributes 1,000 men for peacekeeping force, than some country that sends a check and a thank you. Hell, half the time they forget the thank you.

I hate to bring this discussion back to reality, but if you look at the peacekeeping forces under the blue helmet, you'll find that it is mostly third world nations that are contributing to humanitarian causes with their own flesh and blood.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Yes, because the "progressives" that controlled government culture during the New Deal era and World War II turned us all into soft, pussies.

 

Progressives believe that governments have a responsibility to its citizens. Apparently the wingnuts that run the country have forgotten that to the point where the House Republican congress wanted to remove ethics rules in the House that prohibit Congressmen from holding posts of leadership while being indicted for felonies. The wingnuts that run this country's government seem more concerned with protecting their own power than anyone else.

 

We now have proof, by our own hands, that the basis for this war in Iraq was false. Now, who's going to get fired? Nobody.

 

Never mind the fact that the New Deal did nothing to solve the Depression. It was the military buildup leading up to WW2 that finally revived the economy. Not only did it not solve anything economically but it left us with Social Security, a socialist ponzi scam that was destined to fail from day one and the children of today are left with the bill.

 

BTW. Most military commanders are of the opinion that Iraq's WMD was moved to Syria in the months leading up to the invasion.

[Texsox]

BTW.  Most military commanders are of the opinion that Iraq's WMD was moved to Syria in the months leading up to the invasion.

 

When did they form that opinion?

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

When did they form that opinion?

 

 

I don't have exact details but that's what I keep hearing.

[Rex Kickass]

BTW:

 

The ISG didn't just look under rocks. If there was such movement, there would most likely be records of such movement that they did secure after the fall of Baghdad. It was about all they did secure, if memory serves me. The paper trail doesn't match up. What does match up was the original conclusion of the Weapons Inspection team in 1998 when the US pulled them out of Iraq through the UN. That although Saddam Hussein was still in violation of resolutions before the Security Council, he was most likely disarmed of at least 90% of his WMD stockpiles and those left would be poorly stored and virtually unusable because of seven years of invasive inspection regimes.

 

If what you're saying about the WMD is true, the situation makes us look even worse. Because then the worst case scenario happened. Someone else we don't like got a hold of them - and we don't know who has them, what they are or how much of it they have.

 

So, I hope that makes you sleep better at night.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Define regressive.  If it's regressive to live in a society where people are not coddled by government from birth to death & not a place where the government practices wholesale social engineering on it's entire society then I'm all for being regressive. 

 

"Progressivism" is nothing more than a euphamisim for handing over control of your life to government.  It frowns on individual freedom because "progressives" think they can run your life better than you can run it yourself.  It's all fine and dandy as long as you conform.  If "progressives" ever got any serious control then American Society would turn into one similar to the pussy whipped, piss ant bunch of cheesedicks that you saw in the movie "Demolition Man".  "A bunch of 47 year old virgins sitting around in their underwear singing "I'm an Oscar Meyer Wiener"

 

f*** that.

 

While some people might believe that those on the Left wing of the political spectrum pose the bigger threat to the freedom and well-being of the American people, nothing could be further from the truth. Today, the much bigger threat (Read here and here) comes instead from the Right wing or conservative side of the political spectrum, for it is the conservatives who are either indifferent to — or squarely in favor of — military rule, torture, and suspension of habeas corpus and civil liberties for suspected terrorists. And those things constitute a much more ominous threat to our freedom and well-being than anything leftists endorse. (Of course, in fairness to the truth, there are leftists who endorse violations of civil liberties — or simply look the other way — when such violations are committed by leftist officials, two notable examples being Janet Reno and Fidel Castro.)

 

http://www.fff.org/comment/com0501d.asp

 

And Nuke -- with the military industrial complex being in place with massive amounts of corporate welfare and bailouts, how is that "personal responsibility"? Or the current "Its not our fault that the intel was so bad so we didn't make a mistake" line from the Bushistas -- why not take "personal responsibility" and say "We f***ed up!"

 

"And how can the rightist trumpet his devotion to private property and free enterprise while at the same time favoring war, conscription and the outlawing of noninvasive activities and practices that he deems immoral? And how can the rightist favor a free market while seeing nothing amiss in the vast subsidies, distortions and unproductive inefficiencies involved in the military industrial complex?" -- Murray Rothbard

[Texsox]

I don't have exact details but that's what I keep hearing.

I just wonder if that was before the invasion and they didn't say anything or after they couldn't find them, came up with a theory of where the could be.

 

They aren't here

We *know* he had them

Where could they be?

The logical conclusion is Syria

 

VS.

 

They aren't here

I wonder *if* he ever had any

 

If it was before, then that is a very sad case indeed.