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]Something tells me you're not going to embrace the POV of a socialist[/i] Since socialism tends to suck for all involved, no I'm not. :) [i]The rich comprise only 1% of the population, yet control 45% of all wealth in the US. Numbers, please.[/i] http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-soi/01in01ts.xls These numbers are from the IRS as of 2001. The top 1% of wage-earners earn 17.5% of the wages earned in this country, and pay 33.9% of the income taxes. The botton 50% earn 13.8% of the wages, and pay slightly less than 4% of the taxes. [i]The list of candidates for humanitarian intervention hasn't been shortened much since Bush took office:[/i] It's been shortened by as much as possible with the time, resources, and political capital available. What would you have done differently? [i]1) "Some" as in "less than there was for Saddam & Co to leave Iraq before Bush's ultimatum expired".[/i] There we disagree. Kim is still talking. Sadaam wasn't. [i]2) Saddam allegedly had missiles aimed at every city in Israel, but that didn't stop you from mopping HIS floor.[/i] Someone said this? [i]3) Yes, aka WMDs. You know, it's ironic. Iraq didn't have nukes, but somehow was a grave threat to the US. North Korea actually HAS them, but isn't. Also, the longer you wait, the more innocent victims, which was your argument for invading Iraq. Why doesn't it apply here?[/i] Iraq having biochem weapons was a threat because they could be passed to terrorist organizations. Sadaam may not have had connections with bin Laden and friends, but he did have at least some terrorist connections. North Korea's nukes can't be moved quite so easily, making the threat qualitatively different. They're a threat to everyone in missile range, a threat we're addressing through both technology and diplomacy. Yes, the longer we wait the more innocent victims there are likely to be in N. Korea, but if we invade now we'll probably lose Seoul. Pick the lesser evil. [i]4) So because the country is isolated and not a great demonstrator for The American Way�, its people can rot away indefinitely?[/i] Ahh, the joys of red herrings. For those keeping score, what I actually said was more along these lines: We can not solve all problems at once. Therefore we solve the problem that will have the greater positive effect first. For example, if we'd invaded North Korea, do you think Lybia would now be agreeing to let UN inspectors in? North Korea will have to wait, regrettable as it may be, but what would you do differently? [i]5) By the way, North Korea borders on China. If there is ONE region in the world where proving your intentions might be beneficial, it's THAT one.[/i] Compared to the middle east? Riiiiiiiight... [i]Who said we needed tax cuts in the first place?[/i] The economy was flagging. Tax cuts have historically proven beneficial to the economy. Thus we needed tax cuts. [i]Tax money has to come from somewhere. Shouldn't it come from the people who have money, rather than those who don't?[/i] I tend to agree, at least to some degree. However, this also means that if you're going to give a tax cut, you must give it to the wealthy, since they're the only ones paying taxes. See above. [i]Because, if you take less money from the rich, there are only two things that can happen. Either the governemt will have less money, or they'll have to take more money from the poor.[/i] You're using an overly simplistic model. http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/wm182.cfm "lower tax rates = more robust economy = more federal revenue" Obviously there are limits to the process, but it's hardly a simple "higher taxes = more revenue" system like you propose. [i]I can tell you pretty much from memory Mr. Bush's stated reasons for invasion were because Hussein was an immediate threat to the National Security of the United States...not for any humanitarian reason.[/i] And Rob's memory disagrees. Find me every Bush administration statement on the issue (have you seriously heard and read them all?), or I can't take either position seriously, and will continue giving Bush the benefit of the doubt for lack of a reason not to. [i]The analogy holds in that the people of North Korea are under the thumb of a brutal dictator, lack democracy, and suffer terrible living conditions.[/i] Yes, but the analogy does NOT hold in several variables which I've already pointed out. [i]Which was also the case for the situation in Iraq before Mr. Bush said "Fuck Saddam, were taking him out."[/i] Sadaam was flatly refusing all demands that anyone was making. You're a more hopeful person than I. [i]we only free the people in countries where it is easy?[/i] Try "not practically guarenteed to kill several million locals". [i]I'll just assume that was supposed to mean something.[/i] You wouldn't have to assume if you'd read my post. Yes, perhaps it might have been phrased slightly clearer, but the statement was still understandable, and made sense in the context of the rest of the paragraph you chopped it out of. [i]where are the WMD which were supposed to have been deployed in 45 minutes, you remember, the ones that were an immediate threat?[/i] A very good question, seeing as our intelligence sources said they'd be there. One of those sources has since claimed that the Iraqi army simply didn't want to fight, and thus did not use the weapons they were provided. This source may have lied at one time or another, but that's bad intelligence, not Bush lying. [i]Why all changing justifications for the war?[/i] Which you have not proven. In fact, since I seriously doubt you've been exposed to even a small fraction of the Bush administration's pre-war statement's on the issue, I'm not sure how you can personally justify being so sure of it. So again, why do you say Bush lied? [i]\We�ve attacked Iraq and yet the masterminds behind 9/11 attacks remain at large.[/i] And are being persued by large numbers of troops. It's not as if putting off the invasion of Iraq for a few years would have captured Osama bin Laden faster, y'know. [/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