Quote:
Thank you. I'm enjoying this little BYC debate as well. It's nice to have a chat about these things without needing to resort to name calling. Thanks for your respectful banter. It's fun.
I'll try to respond in kind to some of your thoughts. . .
Quote:
Unfortunately, when one enters the world of politics, one enters a world where people convene to push through their own agendas, and sometimes those agendas are less than honorable. I tend to be a very trusting person and I have no doubt that were I to be a politician, which thank God I am not, I'm sure I'd be attached some day to someone with less than honorable intentions. But, this is no less true of everyone else in politics. We have only to look to Palin and her connections to Stevens and Troopergate or McCain and his connections to the Keating scandal. No doubt, if Palin had a few more years under her belt, there'd be more. It just happens, sad to say, so it's best to judge politicians less on their connections and more on what they do. As for Obama's connections, I don't know whether you're referring to Obama's church connections and I really don't want to go into it here since politics and religion threads tend to get closed, so if you'd like, PM me we can take that discussion off the list. This is too good of a thread to get closed down. Thanks.
Quote:
Sadly, not many and there's good reason. But, I still believe that the situation in this country is too tentative to risk it with Palin. Depending on which medical report is consulted, McCain's most recent bout with melanoma was either a stage 2 or a stage 3. The treatment pattern was either being very careful for a stage 2, or was accurate for a stage 3. Either way, given his health history and his age, there's a pretty good chance that he'll die in office and Palin will take the lead. Many people like to point to his mother's longevity as reason to think he'll also live a long time. However, as a genealogist, I did some snooping into McCain's paternal history. In the 4 or 5 generations that preceded him and for whom there are records, only his great-grandfather lived to be older than McCain is today. So, while it may seem odd to compare Obama and Palin, there's a very real chance that this IS our choice.
Quote:
I think that history has yet to show whether that's the case or not. Yes, it broke up what we all came to see as the bad guys, but remember exactly how Reagan did that. He began an arms race that the SU couldn't keep up with, thereby outspending them and making them broke. But, Russia is coming back and is enriched with the oil money that we are spending because we haven't put into place the plans to break free from the use of oil. In the meantime, we're now in debt to both Russia and to China, who are the current holders of large portions our debt. At which point will we, too, break? We certainly won't do that by continuing to spend more and more money that we do not have.
Quote:
Right, my point from earlier. A stronger middle class paves the way for a stronger economy. The middle class doesn't exist naturally in the world. It is created by a thoughtful government pulling in the reins on those who would normally profit at the expense of others. Cutting taxes from billionaires does not trickle down to the little guy. Good wages based on policy that empowers the people to earn more, does reverberate througout the economy to make it strong for all. Combine that with the right kind of government spending, and you have a recipe for success. Government IS going to spend money. The question is on HOW and WHERE they spend it.
Quote:
There are issues I have with both Clinton and with Reagan, though I generally liked (and voted) for both of them. I can appreciate your like for Palin. She does seem like a likeable and feisty gal and as a woman, I would love to see women rise to power when they've earned it. I'm not sure that she has. Time will tell.
Quote:
Yes, but he was also a stabilizing force as well. He kept Iran in check, something that is now a bigger threat than it was before we went in. And, we certainly had no problem aligning with him back in the late 70s. It's actually one of the things I've not liked about our involvement overseas. We fund terrorists (Saddam, Bin Laden, et al) when they're willing to fight our enemies (Iran, Russia, et al). Yeah, maybe that's unavoidable, but I find it personally detestable.
Quote:
Both true points. But, do these things automatically dictate that we send our precious blood to be spilled to fight it? Isn't there another way? We certainly seem to be willing to ignore violations by other countries, or use diplomacy and our allies to combat issues rather than guns and bombs to do so.
Quote:
My understanding is that Iraq sits somewhere around #4, with Saudi Arabia, Canada, and Iran having more. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Other than Canada, we have complicated relationships with the other nations on this list, AND Saudi Arabia was home to most of the people who did attack us on 9/11. But, from a moral point of view, it would seem that we need to stop using 25% of the world's oil. Greed isn't a trait that we should aspire to.
Quote:
That may be the case. Unfortunately, once we invaded, WMD really weren't our priority. We left large caches of weapons unguarded while we secured the oil wells. How many of our brave soldiers died because of our priorities, because those weapons came into the hands of those who then used them against us?
Quote:
I think that Bush1 did a far better job of that in '91. We went in, resolved the problem, and got out, wisely realizing at the time that the Sunni/Shia issue was too complicated to stick our noses in. What exactly have we shown that we're capable of militarily in this war? It has now been 5 1/2 years, and we're still there. Patraeus has said that the situation is too tentative to declare any sort of victory. If showing the world what we were capable of militarily was the goal, what exactly have we achieved in 5.5 years? I do not at all fault our servicemen and women. They do their job and do it well. It's just that these issues in the Middle East are more complicated than a military exercise and fighting a war doesn't necessarily mean that there is a military solution to the particular problem at hand.
Quote:
See number 1.
Quote:
Yes, the "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" theory. This theory doesn't really hold up for several reasons. First, Al Qaeda exists in something like 60 countries throughout the world. Only a small portion of them are fighting us in Iraq, and portions of them that are fighting us in Iraq joined Al Qaeda because they were angry at us invading, thus our war in Iraq actually brought MORE people into the Al Qaeda fold. I know that you know that they weren't in Iraq prior to our entry. Second, by most accounts, Al Qaeda is as strong now as they were before 9/11. Some would argue that they're stronger because they've gotten the opportunity to train for bigger warfare by fighting us "over there." Third, and this is the one that scares me. Just because we're fighting them over there, does not mean that they won't try to attack us over here at some point in the future. While they were active in other attacks in the years between, they were perfectly willing to wait 8 years between their attacks on US soil (1993 WTC bombing and 2001 WTC airplane attack). That they haven't attacked us on our soil in the 7 years since 9/11, doesn't reassure me in any way shape or form that this war in Iraq is the reason why they haven't.
Quote:
I hope to God that you're right, for the safety of the United States of America and for the world. I'm just not so sure that we haven't created more enemies than we've conquered. For me, I'd like whoever takes office in January to do more talking and less bombing, more working with our allies and fewer unilateral exercises in foreign lands. I hope that whoever gets into office strengthens us at home while it keeps watch and stands up to those on the outside. And I hope and I pray that the men and women that go on to lead our great nation will learn from the mistakes and go on to make the changes necessary to take us forward.
Quote:
And, thanks to you as well. I hope you feel better soon!
Thank you. I'm enjoying this little BYC debate as well. It's nice to have a chat about these things without needing to resort to name calling. Thanks for your respectful banter. It's fun.
I'll try to respond in kind to some of your thoughts. . .
Quote:
Unfortunately, when one enters the world of politics, one enters a world where people convene to push through their own agendas, and sometimes those agendas are less than honorable. I tend to be a very trusting person and I have no doubt that were I to be a politician, which thank God I am not, I'm sure I'd be attached some day to someone with less than honorable intentions. But, this is no less true of everyone else in politics. We have only to look to Palin and her connections to Stevens and Troopergate or McCain and his connections to the Keating scandal. No doubt, if Palin had a few more years under her belt, there'd be more. It just happens, sad to say, so it's best to judge politicians less on their connections and more on what they do. As for Obama's connections, I don't know whether you're referring to Obama's church connections and I really don't want to go into it here since politics and religion threads tend to get closed, so if you'd like, PM me we can take that discussion off the list. This is too good of a thread to get closed down. Thanks.
Quote:
Sadly, not many and there's good reason. But, I still believe that the situation in this country is too tentative to risk it with Palin. Depending on which medical report is consulted, McCain's most recent bout with melanoma was either a stage 2 or a stage 3. The treatment pattern was either being very careful for a stage 2, or was accurate for a stage 3. Either way, given his health history and his age, there's a pretty good chance that he'll die in office and Palin will take the lead. Many people like to point to his mother's longevity as reason to think he'll also live a long time. However, as a genealogist, I did some snooping into McCain's paternal history. In the 4 or 5 generations that preceded him and for whom there are records, only his great-grandfather lived to be older than McCain is today. So, while it may seem odd to compare Obama and Palin, there's a very real chance that this IS our choice.
Quote:
I think that history has yet to show whether that's the case or not. Yes, it broke up what we all came to see as the bad guys, but remember exactly how Reagan did that. He began an arms race that the SU couldn't keep up with, thereby outspending them and making them broke. But, Russia is coming back and is enriched with the oil money that we are spending because we haven't put into place the plans to break free from the use of oil. In the meantime, we're now in debt to both Russia and to China, who are the current holders of large portions our debt. At which point will we, too, break? We certainly won't do that by continuing to spend more and more money that we do not have.
Quote:
Right, my point from earlier. A stronger middle class paves the way for a stronger economy. The middle class doesn't exist naturally in the world. It is created by a thoughtful government pulling in the reins on those who would normally profit at the expense of others. Cutting taxes from billionaires does not trickle down to the little guy. Good wages based on policy that empowers the people to earn more, does reverberate througout the economy to make it strong for all. Combine that with the right kind of government spending, and you have a recipe for success. Government IS going to spend money. The question is on HOW and WHERE they spend it.
Quote:
There are issues I have with both Clinton and with Reagan, though I generally liked (and voted) for both of them. I can appreciate your like for Palin. She does seem like a likeable and feisty gal and as a woman, I would love to see women rise to power when they've earned it. I'm not sure that she has. Time will tell.
Quote:
Yes, but he was also a stabilizing force as well. He kept Iran in check, something that is now a bigger threat than it was before we went in. And, we certainly had no problem aligning with him back in the late 70s. It's actually one of the things I've not liked about our involvement overseas. We fund terrorists (Saddam, Bin Laden, et al) when they're willing to fight our enemies (Iran, Russia, et al). Yeah, maybe that's unavoidable, but I find it personally detestable.
Quote:
Both true points. But, do these things automatically dictate that we send our precious blood to be spilled to fight it? Isn't there another way? We certainly seem to be willing to ignore violations by other countries, or use diplomacy and our allies to combat issues rather than guns and bombs to do so.
Quote:
My understanding is that Iraq sits somewhere around #4, with Saudi Arabia, Canada, and Iran having more. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Other than Canada, we have complicated relationships with the other nations on this list, AND Saudi Arabia was home to most of the people who did attack us on 9/11. But, from a moral point of view, it would seem that we need to stop using 25% of the world's oil. Greed isn't a trait that we should aspire to.
Quote:
That may be the case. Unfortunately, once we invaded, WMD really weren't our priority. We left large caches of weapons unguarded while we secured the oil wells. How many of our brave soldiers died because of our priorities, because those weapons came into the hands of those who then used them against us?
Quote:
I think that Bush1 did a far better job of that in '91. We went in, resolved the problem, and got out, wisely realizing at the time that the Sunni/Shia issue was too complicated to stick our noses in. What exactly have we shown that we're capable of militarily in this war? It has now been 5 1/2 years, and we're still there. Patraeus has said that the situation is too tentative to declare any sort of victory. If showing the world what we were capable of militarily was the goal, what exactly have we achieved in 5.5 years? I do not at all fault our servicemen and women. They do their job and do it well. It's just that these issues in the Middle East are more complicated than a military exercise and fighting a war doesn't necessarily mean that there is a military solution to the particular problem at hand.
Quote:
See number 1.
Quote:
Yes, the "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" theory. This theory doesn't really hold up for several reasons. First, Al Qaeda exists in something like 60 countries throughout the world. Only a small portion of them are fighting us in Iraq, and portions of them that are fighting us in Iraq joined Al Qaeda because they were angry at us invading, thus our war in Iraq actually brought MORE people into the Al Qaeda fold. I know that you know that they weren't in Iraq prior to our entry. Second, by most accounts, Al Qaeda is as strong now as they were before 9/11. Some would argue that they're stronger because they've gotten the opportunity to train for bigger warfare by fighting us "over there." Third, and this is the one that scares me. Just because we're fighting them over there, does not mean that they won't try to attack us over here at some point in the future. While they were active in other attacks in the years between, they were perfectly willing to wait 8 years between their attacks on US soil (1993 WTC bombing and 2001 WTC airplane attack). That they haven't attacked us on our soil in the 7 years since 9/11, doesn't reassure me in any way shape or form that this war in Iraq is the reason why they haven't.
Quote:
I hope to God that you're right, for the safety of the United States of America and for the world. I'm just not so sure that we haven't created more enemies than we've conquered. For me, I'd like whoever takes office in January to do more talking and less bombing, more working with our allies and fewer unilateral exercises in foreign lands. I hope that whoever gets into office strengthens us at home while it keeps watch and stands up to those on the outside. And I hope and I pray that the men and women that go on to lead our great nation will learn from the mistakes and go on to make the changes necessary to take us forward.
Quote:
And, thanks to you as well. I hope you feel better soon!
