: Some detail would be nice here before I have my response.
: I'm skeptical at best of this. (Invading a foreign
: country to stand up for freedom and virtue, right...)
: But then, this is all opinion right here.
Actually, that's a fantastic example. The status quo would have been maintaining Saddam Hussein's malign regime. That was certainly not an option anymore, in the mind of our President, who radically has begun a campaign to turn the world on its head, the best of ways. It's certainly not conservative, and it's liberal at the very least, as far as technicality goes.
Indeed, the United States invaded another country in order to stand up for freedom and virtue; Saddam Hussein for too long had tortured and murdered his people. It was a country with one of the worst human rights records in the world, ranking about third on the scale of baddies after North Korea and Saudi Arabia. To end the horrors that were going on there, to liberate the Iraqi people, to prevent the dictator from having the opportunity to threaten and blackmail his neighbors any more, to, indeed, stand up for virtue and liberty and freedom and everything we cherish, the invasion took place, and was a success.
: Define "better" and "safer".
In this context, I would call it better that there is one less place in the world where people are able to hurt each other so horrendously, and safer for the Mideast, and the world at large, that one lowly despot can no longer screw everyone else over who's around him.
: I will be very surprised if what we did in Iraq does not
: make the US a few more enemies, and I certainly think
: that we trampled on the UN's credibility (Whatever it
: has, I don't think it's got much to spare for various
: petty reasons some decades ago.)
Petty reasons? You call those petty reasons? I can think of no greater cause anywhere in the world than freeing people from tyranny and ending torment and death, to say nothing of the potential blackmail ability with having any weapons of mass destruction to threaten neighbors as far away as Turkey. That's why the resolutions were agreed upon.
The UN trampled on its own credibility. It said lots and lots of things on Iraq, decreed them from supposθdly the highest authority in the world, the Security Council, in the most powerful forms of resolutions that it can make... and yet it was doing nothing in the slightest to support them. I think that's pretty hypocritical right there.
I understand why, why France, Germany, Russia, and China did not want to damage the very lucrative oil contracts they had with Saddam Hussein, which most likely will not be accepted by the new order of Iraqis that will take control.
It was about oil for them, and oil is a very important commodity, especially for countries in Europe where they have virtually no oil of their own and must buy it entirely from the Middle East. Thankfully, the US doesn't have to worry about oil at all; we have more than enough of our own on our own soil. I'm glad this gives us the ability to concentrate on moral rectitude in the world without shooting ourselves in the foot.
As for making more enemies, more people who don't like us, I fully expect that. People are idiots; they'll contrive all sorts of nonsense.
: When taxes are cut, and spending is kept the same or
: raised, services suffer. When services suffer, people
: suffer.
Americans take more chances than that. Having the extra spending money encourages people to buy, and to invest. Doing that improves the economy far more than any service funded by taxes ever could.
: Also, aren't most of the tax cuts going to the people
: with money already burning holes in their pockets?
Actually, proportionally, they're getting even less than expected; the average citizen's taxes are quite small compared with a wealthier person's, and yet the average citizen will get far more relief than the rich man will. True, more money would go to the wealthy guy; but more is taken away by taxes.
Not that he should be boohooed and we should feel sorry for him that he has to live in opulency, but we can understand at least that it's a fairly just arrangement.
But you're right, the tax cuts do have a large concentration on the economy, on jumpstarting it by jumpstarting buying, and selling, and investing... and though they are the smallest part of the population, the wealthy do the largest portion of the activities that improve the economy. Therefore, it follows logically that giving them the opportunity to invest, more than others, will improve the economy in the quickest and most painless fashion.
Besides, who wants a marrage tax? *Smiles.*
: I firmly disagree.
: We are going into war, with countries that we don't like
: (I'm going to eschew debating if those countries
: deserve US intervention or not...let some less
: hot-headed people discuss that), with the intent of
: overthrowing their goverments and replacing them with
: ones we like.
Does just because the United States may like them denote that they are evil?
Indeed, we will be replacing no governments at all so much as giving the people the ability to form what kind of governments they desire. I'd say that's pretty moral. And that we will not allow a people to suffer demonstrates our ardent inclination to help, not to sit isolated on our American Throne.
: And at home, we're doing some questionable things to
: civil liberties.
*Smiles.* I'd say those terrorists have done some questionable things to sacrifice their own civil liberties. Besides, we could strip away half of our vast wealth of civil liberties and still be more free than the average European (it's just the little things, but we're only talking about the little things anyway).
Keep in mind that this is how it's always been; people have been incarcerated in such a way, without trial, lawyer, bail, etcetera, for countless decades. But, as these events are so very public, we're merely hearing about them now.
Besides, back in the sixties when the President forced the Southern schools, like in Alabama, to integrate, he used the national guard to support the transition with guns, to uphold the constitution. The Governor of Alabama, Wallace, warned against the country becoming a military dictatorship, etcetera... (He was shot later while he was running for President.) Though it essentially seemed to conflict with freedoms of the people, and used the negatively connotive aspect of military force to accomplish it, that does not mean it was a bad thing, for it prevented further military use in the future, and upheld the rights and freedoms of those students who should have been allowed to go to school with everyone else. Apply that to the Adminstration's foreign policy, and you can see a similar moral rectitude.
: It may have been, but this is still warmongering.
*Smiles.* Please, do define 'warmongering'.
: Bold, yes. Commendable...I'll agree, when we've
: dismantled the organization entirely.
*Chuckles.* Ah, cynicism...
: Well, if this is the result of placing responsibility on
: the masses, I'm going to turn Monarchist.
Hehe, I'm a believer in Aristotle and Locke, personally.
Ever read Leviathan?
: And Socio-Capitalist mix?
: Where's the Socialism in any way shape or form?
Pure Capitalism is like the jungle. There's no help from anyone ever anywhere. The only person that pays for you is you. Businesses control everything, because the government regulates nothing.
Clearly, America is very different. Indeed, we invented most of the Socialistic reforms that the Europeans claim to cherish so very much. We have healthcare, and medical insurrance (not regulated by the government, but encouraged strongly), social security, and everything else, from roads to ramparts, that our taxes pay for. That's why we have taxes.
But true Socialism, in my opinion, concentrates too heavily on the state, and not the individual. I like the idea of having responsibility for oneself.
: I don't recall Clinton smashing through currently
: existing enviromental protection laws either.
*Smiles.* I think you should elaborate on these environmental issues.
: I don't think what Bush is doing is making things better,
: but I agree keeping the "Status quo" and
: staying "political correct" are unlikely to
: be good ideas either.
Well right, our Radical Republican President (much as Lincoln was) is doing a number of seemingly outrageous things in order to improve the world. If you think combatting terrorism on all fronts is a bad thing, especially ideologically, do tell me why.
: It's not a question of having courage.
: It's a question of knowing I'm a tactless butthead when
: emotionally worked up about something.
Good, then you know what your faults are and seem determined to work on them. We should all take a lesson from such.
: Even if I almost entirely disagree with you, Archer, its
: good to see someone intelligently disagreeing with me
: (Not to say the rest of you are idiots, just that I
: enjoy intelligent debates, and this is one of the few
: places I see them.)
Well thank you, Seraph. *Smiles.* It's my pleasure as well.
: I guess the problem we basically have is this: Bush is
: doing some questionable things.
: You think that's positive.
: I think that's negative.
Very well summed up. I think we can agree on that much.
: I might be overly simplifing, but it seems to be the
: bottom of our disagreement...you're optimistic that
: his actions won't lead to trouble in the long run, I'm
: cynically pessimistic that they will, and already are
: leading to trouble.
Neat. I like that.
: Seraph
: P.S. Who, of all presidents, would you say did the most
: good and the most harm to this country and/or the
: world at large?
: Bush, Jr. doesn't count. Yet. (Hasn't finished a full
: term in office)
: My two nominations...
: FDR as the "best"
: Johnson (the first one, not LBJ) as the
: "worst", although I'd need to give both
: areas more thought.
Hmm... I know it's clichιed, but I'd have to say Lincoln did the best with his courage to take on the malign cycle that was perpetuating, and forcibly end it for good.
I can't think of a bad one right now.
