Posted: 1/5/2005 3:52:38 PM EDT
|
I believe we have a plan in Iraq and that the plan is working fairly well. I don't believe its the plan stated by the administration but I don't have a big problem with these objectives. I just wish politicians were more honest. 1. Administration ties to the Saudi Royal Family are well known. Both the Saudi Royal Family and the Bushs are most afraid of an uprising in Saudi Arabia. Without a strong US presence in the area, Osama might just get enough of the faithful to rise up against the Saudi Royal Family. Now if that happens, US troops and aircraft are minutes away. While at the same time the Saudi Royal family closes our bases to appease the militants in Saudi Arabia. Its a win for our oil interests and the Saudi Royal Family. 2. We are trying to establish a representative democracy in the regions so others can see how well it works? This is total BS. If you want a democracy in the region, pressure the Saudis or Kuwaitis to establish democracy. Why on earth would you pick Iraq, which has such a diverse population? The establishment of a democracy is difficult enough without trying to blend Kurds, Sunnis and Shia. This is the biggest lie told by the Administration. Iraq is one of the last places in the region you want to try to build an exemplary democracy. This is the fake reason given to wrap the enterprise in the flag and make it palatable to Americans who value democracy even where its not wanted. 3. Look at the other benefits, besides protecting the Saudi Royal Family, that come from having a puppet government in Iraq with 150k us troops in bases in country: a. Quick strike at Iran's nuclear facilities. b. Syria between us and Israel. c. Osama has no safe haven in the region outside hiding in the mountains. d. Oil, Oil, Oil - Iraq is filthy with it. 4. Who's really dying? Our casualties are low, the Iraqis are dying by the hundreds every week. We are spending far more money than lives but after all, the administration is BORROWING the money and cutting taxes so noone feels the pinch while they are in office. The tab comes due later. I am a Goldwater conservative. None of this neo-con stuff for me. If you want to fight a war, pay for it. Don't cut taxes to make everyone feel good about the economy while mortgaging our childrens future by borrowing billions, soon to be trillions. Eisenhauer, Goldwater and the founders of conservative Republicanism would spin in their graves at what has happened to fiscal reponsibility in the Republican party. |
Eisenhower was far from a conservative; his programs were referred to as the "Dime Store" new deal by many Republicans of the day. HS Truman attempt to get him to run for president in the Democratic party following his retirement from the army. Also Goldwater wasn't really a fiscal conservative, he was a social conservative. The fiscal conservatives are more likely to be found in country "club republicans." of the NE. And as fiscal conservative, you also have to be quite versed in the effects of tax policy. When you lower taxes, beside making people feel better (which in itself helps consumer confidence and the economy) you stimulate growth. |
Which programs of Ike's are you referring to? Barry Goldwater wasn't a fiscal conservative? I think you need to look again at his voting record. Yes, takes cuts give people that 'feel good' feeling. But when you need to borrow the money to finance tax cuts, the price usually follows with higher interest rates that lead right back into recession. LBJ tried the 'guns and butter' approach and it had a lot to do with the high inflation, stagflation etc. of the years that followed. |
|
Its been about 15 years since my classes in college, but even looking on the history of US presidents "His moderate Republican policies helped him secure many victories in Congress, where Democrats held the majority during six of the eight years that Eisenhower was in the White House. Eisenhower helped strengthen established programs, such as Social Security, and launch important new ones, such as the Interstate Highway System in 1956, which became the single largest public works program in U.S. history." Goldwater was a fiscal convervative in the sense, he voted against the great society, but he was more than willing to spend on defense. Tax cuts don't causes deficiets, spending does. When Reagan cut taxes, income to the govenment doubled, however spending went up even more. |
The interstate highway system was also called 'The Defense Highway System' at the time it was built. That should tell you something. I don't know what 'strengthening social security' means. They were always after him to include federal workers, but he resisted. What did he actually do to strengthen SS. Including Federal workers would have been significant but he wouldn't support it. Regans tax cuts resulted in the recession of the early 90's. Remember 'its the economy, stupid'. Regan's 'trickle down' economics also called 'voodoo' economics got Clinton elected. Nothing else. |