Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Flare Sci-Fi Forums
»
Community
»
The Flameboard
»
Saddam got caught!!!?!
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Omega: [QB] [i]I think that's the first time I've ever heard the Reagan/Bush years described as a time of "massive economic growth".[/i] Then you need to find some new sources, Tim. :) http://cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-261.html Admittedly, it might not have been the tax cuts directly, human endeavours are difficult to trace back to a single ultimate cause. Still, do you have a better explanation for the eighties economy? Also, I'd like to address your statement about the tax cuts being directed at the rich. Where else would you have them be directed? The rich pay nearly all the taxes in this country. You can't give the poor tax cuts because they're not paying taxes to begin with. Further, why would it be bad to take less income from the rich? What do they do with their money that you find so objectionable? [i]Rob: Actually, the liberation angle was stressed "OVER AND OVER AGAIN" as well. Jay: Yeah, once we couldn't find any WMD. Then Bush's little vendetta became about a bunch of different things, none of which threatened the national security of the United States.[/i] You know, we keep going back and forth on this one. Rob says that Bush always had many reasons for invading Iraq, Jay says those only came up after WMDs weren't found, Rob says nuh-uh, Jay says yuh-huh, repeat ad nauseum. Does anyone actually know where we can find transscripts of the Bush administration's statements on the issue from before we invaded? 'Cause that's the only way further discussion on the point can serve any purpose. [i]I'd also point out that we don�t have a foreign policy of humanitarian intervention, if we did, we wouldn�t stop at Iraq.[/i] Who says we don't under this administration, and who says we've stopped? [i]Heck, Iraq might not have even been on the top of the list...North Korea anyone??[/i] The situation in North Korea is hardly analogous. First, there's still some chance of a diplomatic solution. Second, they have nukes, and missiles that can hit densely populated cities. Shoot, even without the nukes the missiles are bad enough. Even if diplomacy fails, it'd be in everyone's best interest to put that war off as long as possible, because the longer we wait the closer we are to having working theatre missile defense. Third, North Korea is an isolated country. Replacing its government will keep it from attacking its neighbors, and help its people, just like Iraq. Iraq becoming a stable democracy will do all those things, but it will also become an example to all the countries around it that there's a better way to do things. Further, once the job's done and we pull out, it will likely help prove our good intentions to many more in the middle east. Basically, North Korea is isolated, what happens there doesn't change anything elsewhere. Iraq can change its whole region. [i]he flat out fabricated a story about Saddam�s WMD being aimed out our proverbial hearts[/i] At least point out that this is your opinion. You have no evidence that Bush lied. We did in fact have very good intelligence stating that Iraq had biological and chemical weapons. [i]Yes, it's very sad when we cant rally any support to free a country victimized by it's leader but that we'll leap to war if there's a chance in hell they're a threat to us personally.[/i] Amen to that. I hate war, war sucks. But sometimes it's better than the alternative. What's the use of having the most powerful military and economy anyone's ever seen if you don't do some good with it all? [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
© 1999-2024 Charles Capps
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3