Debates

[Jamie_B]

By the way Ike by today's standards is SO not a Republican.


Ike said this....

[quote][size=4][color=#333333][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas.[/font][/color][url="http://www.eisenhowermemorial.org/presidential-papers/first-term/documents/1147.cfm#5"][sup]5[/sup][/url][color=#333333][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Their number is negligible and they are stupid.[/font][/color][/size][/quote]

That sounds a WHOLE LOT like today's Republican party.

[|Bunghole|]

[quote name='Lewdog' timestamp='1351126699' post='1174393']
A big part of that comes down special interest groups and lobbyist. Government officials can too easily be bought.
[/quote]

Perhaps. What worries me about our government is that its become something of a "golden parachute" in terms of future power and wealth, especially with the Presidency. The lobbyists certainly feed that trough, but there are so many other things that pile into it that it's just depressing. Will we ever see another President from humble upbringings like Lincoln ever again? I highly doubt it. Unfortunately it seems to have become a position that one is groomed for from birth anymore. Sad.

[Jamie_B]

Ok caught up few things.

1. Bung is dead on right about the need for troops (or intellegence ahead of time by way of manpower) on the ground

2. Old, Obama inhearted a mess almost as bad as FDR, not as bad.... we dont see foodlines yet.... and if Romney/Ryan get in charge the need for them will become apparent, but they wont be there due to Ryan's political philosophy.

3. Regarding the notion of political parties.....

[url="http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp"]http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp[/url]


[quote][color=#000000][font=Arial, Verdana, sans-serif]I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.[/font][/color]
[color=#000000][font=Arial, Verdana, sans-serif]
This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.[/font][/color]
[color=#000000][font=Arial, Verdana, sans-serif]
The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.[/font][/color]
[color=#000000][font=Arial, Verdana, sans-serif]
Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.[/font][/color][color=#000000][font=Arial, Verdana, sans-serif]
It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.[/font][/color]

[color=#000000][font=Arial, Verdana, sans-serif]There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.[/font][/color]

[/quote]

[Lewdog]

[quote name='Bunghole' timestamp='1351126690' post='1174392']
Pakistan isn't "working on nuclear weapons"...it already has them, and so does their "mortal enemy" India. We as a nation tread somewhere in between them both...using a placating diplomacy due to India's vastly growing technology sector and Pakistan's alleged "help" in the alleged "war on terror".
[/quote]

The U.S. incursion into Pakistan without their knowledge didn't exactly come across as roses. Honestly I can't blame them. Performing a military action in another country without their awareness, is really arrogant of the U.S.. I'm glad Bin Laden is dead, but that doesn't give the U.S. a pass to go anywhere and do anything they want.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Bunghole' timestamp='1351127064' post='1174397']
Perhaps. What worries me about our government is that its become something of a "golden parachute" in terms of future power and wealth, especially with the Presidency. The lobbyists certainly feed that trough, but there are so many other things that pile into it that it's just depressing. Will we ever see another President from humble upbringings like Lincoln ever again? I highly doubt it. Unfortunately it seems to have become a position that one is groomed for from birth anymore. Sad.
[/quote]

I think T-Dubb's notion that Romney is trying to make this a theocracy is pretty silly but at the same time with regard to the notion of being groomed from birth...

[url="http://www.salon.com/2012/01/29/mitt_and_the_white_horse_prophecy/"]Romney and the White Horse Prophecy.[/url]

[Lewdog]

Jamie, you need to read that website and you will better understand how Clinton was able to make it look like there was a government surplus when they really weren't.

[Lewdog]

I didn't say there was NO need for ground troops, simply that there is less of a need. Drone planes, guided missiles, guided bombs and even remote controlled robots that De-arm bombs and land mines are already in use. Things are only going to grow from there. There is an article on Yahoo of a new laser weapon. That's freaking crazy, straight out of the "Real Genius" movie in the 80's. How well would you fight if the guy next to you was suddenly vaporized by a laser? I'd shit my pants personally.

[Lewdog]

For those that don't feel like reading the link, here is the best paragraph for explaining what Clinton did. As you will see, and like I said earlier, he borrowed more money than was was needed for one group of debt, and paid it towards another. So basically he borrowed from Peter to pay Paul so to speak.

[quote]When it is claimed that Clinton paid down the national debt, that is patently false--as can be seen, the national debt went up every single year. What Clinton [i]did[/i] do was pay down the [i]public[/i] debt--notice that the claimed surplus is relatively close to the decrease in the public debt for those years. But he paid down the public debt by borrowing far [i]more[/i] money in the form of intragovernmental holdings (mostly Social Security).[/quote]

The link has several charts showing this along with explanations.

[Homer_Rice]

[quote name='Lewdog' timestamp='1351122830' post='1174366']
Do you think the U.S. would be happy if Canada flew some troops into Michigan to kill someone?
[/quote]

[url="http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/10/23/greedy-u-s-billionaire-urges-michigan-voters-to-reject-free-bridge-to-canada/"]Here's the parasitic 1% for ya.[/url] Free bridge funded by Canada, which would be a boon to commerce, and this fellow--[b]who is not atypical when it comes to the rich and their greed[/b]--works against it.

I laugh my ass off when I hear all this crap about the "job creators." The cold, harsh truth of it is that us working stiffs are the creators of the asshole 1%.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Homer_Rice' timestamp='1351128846' post='1174409']
[url="http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/10/23/greedy-u-s-billionaire-urges-michigan-voters-to-reject-free-bridge-to-canada/"]Here's the parasitic 1% for ya.[/url] Free bridge funded by Canada, which would be a boon to commerce, and this fellow--[b]who is not atypical when it comes to the rich and their greed[/b]--works against it.

[color=#ff0000]I laugh my ass off when I hear all this crap about the "job creators." The cold, harsh truth of it is that us working stiffs are the creators of the asshole 1%.[/color]
[/quote]


So much this.

[|Elflocko|]

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1351125625' post='1174385']
Sad a woman has more balls than most men AG's.
[/quote]

I hope she runs for Governor or Senate. She's like Elizabeth Warren.

If Warren, instead of giving eloquent speeches, kicked in the door of the bank's CEO, grabbed them by the shirt collar and said "Listen up, [b]Bitch[/b]!"

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Elflocko' timestamp='1351129505' post='1174411']
I hope she runs for Governor or Senate. She's like Elizabeth Warren.

If Warren, instead of giving eloquent speeches, kicked in the door of the bank's CEO, grabbed them by the shirt collar and said "Listen up, [b]Bitch[/b]!"
[/quote]

Some men pay for that kind of treatment.

[Lewdog]

[quote name='Homer_Rice' timestamp='1351128846' post='1174409']
[url="http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/10/23/greedy-u-s-billionaire-urges-michigan-voters-to-reject-free-bridge-to-canada/"]Here's the parasitic 1% for ya.[/url] Free bridge funded by Canada, which would be a boon to commerce, and this fellow--[b]who is not atypical when it comes to the rich and their greed[/b]--works against it.

I laugh my ass off when I hear all this crap about the "job creators." The cold, harsh truth of it is that us working stiffs are the creators of the asshole 1%.
[/quote]

I'm not real sure how this would be considered Canada invading Michigan, but I think it is silly that Detroit would turn this down. I've never been to Detroit or Windsor so I can't say how the traffic is now. I don't know if this extra bridge would take business away from Detroit and send it to Windsor. The U.S. would have to hire new border crossing agents and build the buildings associated with it. There would also need to be some kind of agreement put in place on who would perform repairs and maintenance.

Well there is always going to be a bigger fish in the pond than you are.

[|Elflocko|]

[quote name='bengalrick' timestamp='1351106451' post='1174305']
lol probably. Like I said, we'll see how he is viewed in history. My focus is economically right now (primarily trade and national debt), and he seemed to do a good job with that part of it.

<never thought I'd be defending Clinton though... feels very strange>
[/quote]

The preface in my copy of Agar's book touches on this when explaining the time frames discussed:

"The detailed history is carried to 1909. Thereafter, the political passions of today confuse the issue, [b]and much of the evidence is not yet sifted[/b]."

[Lewdog]

I can't stand Hillary Clinton. Hillary and Bill have aged 30 years in the last 10.

[|Bunghole|]

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1351127114' post='1174398'] Ok caught up few things. 1. Bung is dead on right about the need for troops (or intellegence ahead of time by way of manpower) on the ground . [/quote]

You're goddamned right. Not that this is some kind of preferred outcome, but if you're going to invade, do it right, and that means infantry. Overwhelming amounts of it. Not bullshit staged crap like Vietnam or the early stages of the Iraq War. If you're going to commit, then fucking commit. The problem is that it better be for a damn good reason. Iraq wasn't that reason, and I acknowledge that as someone that initially supported that war effort. How different Afghanistan may have turned out sooner had those assets been deployed there instead of on a wild goose chase to harangue and ultimately kill a brutal dictator is anyone's guess.

[|Bunghole|]

[quote name='Lewdog' timestamp='1351127181' post='1174399']
The U.S. incursion into Pakistan without their knowledge didn't exactly come across as roses. Honestly I can't blame them. Performing a military action in another country without their awareness, is really arrogant of the U.S.. I'm glad Bin Laden is dead, but that doesn't give the U.S. a pass to go anywhere and do anything they want.
[/quote]

You know what? Fuck them. This is actually an instance where I support video game wars. They didn't do jack shit to help us despite their insistence and Osama was living right under their noses (with their protection, no doubt...he was the MOST WANTED MAN IN THE WORLD) and they protected him. So fuck them and their protests, They got a TON of money from us to "help out" in this effort and the most we got was "sometimes" clear mountainous routes to re-supply our military. IKOTA is one of my favorite posters as a Pakistani-American but even he will have to agree that the effort on their end was lackluster. Now whether that was due to an inability to control areas along their border with Afghanistan, an outright hatred of the USA despite the money, malfeasance or just maliase, I cannot tell.


But get the fuck outta here with the "we violated your precious sovereign borders to kill the world's most infamous terrorist" bullshit. Fuck you. We got him when you couldn't (and I suspect an element of the ISI knew EXACTLY where he was an protected him).

Ultimate result: mastermind of 9/11=dead. That's all I care about. Pakistan does NOT control it's tribal borders with Afghanistan (although I have to admit that we don't either and I am uncertain that anyone even can, given the terrain and tribal loyalties),

[Lewdog]

[quote name='Bunghole' timestamp='1351130869' post='1174419']
You're goddamned right. Not that this is some kind of preferred outcome, but if you're going to invade, do it right, and that means infantry. Overwhelming amounts of it. Not bullshit staged crap like Vietnam or the early stages of the Iraq War. If you're going to commit, then fucking commit. The problem is that it better be for a damn good reason. Iraq wasn't that reason, and I acknowledge that as someone that initially supported that war effort. How different Afghanistan may have turned out sooner had those assets been deployed there instead of on a wild goose chase to harangue and ultimately kill a brutal dictator is anyone's guess.
[/quote]

Come on now. You, as well as I, and everyone else on this board knows, if the U.S. troops would have went ahead and hunted down and killed Saddam during the Desert Storm, our troops would have been out of Iraq long ago. That was the fault of Bush Sr. and the Democrats in Congress that took forever to sign off on it being a war in the first place. Congress refused to sign off on more funding, so the troops were eventually sent him before the job was done. To argue that mass amounts of soldiers on the ground is important, was proven wrong by that same war. After a time of bombing, sending cruise missiles, and Apache helicopter attacks Iraq and it's third largest army in the world was in ruin. Forward Marines and special forces cleared out remnants of Saddam's Republican Guard all the way to Baghdad. All the regular army forces cleaned up the surrendering forces. The country was pretty much defeated before soldiers even hit the beach. Yes there were special forces already in place in many areas of the country, but they were mostly scouting and marking targets.

That's right, the U.S. with with very few casualties, DESTROYED the third largest military in the world. Now seriously, what are you scared more of, the possibility of being killed by a missile or bomb you never see coming, or soldiers on foot?

[|Bunghole|]

[quote name='Lewdog' timestamp='1351131964' post='1174424']
Come on now. You, as well as I, and everyone else on this board knows, if the U.S. troops would have went ahead and hunted down and killed Saddam during the Desert Storm, our troops would have been out of Iraq long ago. That was the fault of Bush Sr. and the Democrats in Congress that took forever to sign off on it being a war in the first place. Congress refused to sign off on more funding, so the troops were eventually sent him before the job was done. To argue that mass amounts of soldiers on the ground is important, was proven wrong by that same war. After a time of bombing, sending cruise missiles, and Apache helicopter attacks Iraq and it's third largest army in the world was in ruin. Forward Marines and special forces cleared out remnants of Saddam's Republican Guard all the way to Baghdad. All the regular army forces cleaned up the surrendering forces. The country was pretty much defeated before soldiers even hit the beach. Yes there were special forces already in place in many areas of the country, but they were mostly scouting and marking targets.

That's right, the U.S. with with very few casualties, DESTROYED the third largest military in the world. Now seriously, what are you scared more of, the possibility of being killed by a missile or bomb you never see coming, or soldiers on foot?
[/quote]

You have no concept of how the First Gulf War occurred at all. Yes, we bombed the shit out of them initially to destroy their CC centers (command and control) and their SAM batteries, but the real work was done in blitzkrieg fashion by tanks and infantry. Tanks cannot operate in a void. They need support chains and infantry. What you might be implying is how our air superiority kept them from attacking us in any meaningful way after the initial assault (SHOCK AND AWE) by air, and I'd agree. But there's no way to hold a supply chain, let alone an invasion of the enormity of Gulf War I (Daddy's War) without boots. Its really as simple as that. You cannot hold territory without infantry.

And even then, the second Iraq war showed us (much to the chagrin of Vietnam War vets) that an occupation isn't always what it seems, especially if that occupation wasn't supposed to be an occupation but ended up being one anyway.

[Lewdog]

[quote name='Bunghole' timestamp='1351131391' post='1174421']
You know what? Fuck them. This is actually an instance where I support video game wars. They didn't do jack shit to help us despite their insistence and Osama was living right under their noses (with their protection, no doubt...he was the MOST WANTED MAN IN THE WORLD) and they protected him. So fuck them and their protests, They got a TON of money from us to "help out" in this effort and the most we got was "sometimes" clear mountainous routes to re-supply our military. IKOTA is one of my favorite posters as a Pakistani-American but even he will have to agree that the effort on their end was lackluster. Now whether that was due to an inability to control areas along their border with Afghanistan, an outright hatred of the USA despite the money, malfeasance or just maliase, I cannot tell.


But get the fuck outta here with the "we violated your precious sovereign borders to kill the world's most infamous terrorist" bullshit. Fuck you. We got him when you couldn't (and I suspect an element of the ISI knew EXACTLY where he was an protected him).

Ultimate result: mastermind of 9/11=dead. That's all I care about. Pakistan does NOT control it's tribal borders with Afghanistan (although I have to admit that we don't either and I am uncertain that anyone even can, given the terrain and tribal loyalties),
[/quote]

I'm not really sure what to say about your post. Yes like every person in the United States wanted to see Bin Ladan killed. I just can't understand the double standard associated with how we killed him. People will say we should have never attack Iraq the second time and how Bush is a warmonger and wasted tax payers money. Yet when Obama does something that is similar in nature, it's "Fuck Packistan" they were protecting Bin Ladan and who cares if we go to war with them. That just doesn't make sense to me, especially given their nuclear weapon prowess. These operations are a key reason why the United States is hated in the Muslim world. I'm just going to say I disagree with your opinion and move on. I know I wouldn't want another country flying into the U.S. and killing people, whether it is a murderer or what. So what would you say if Egypt flew into the U.S. to kill Salman Rushdie? Where do things stop?

[|Bunghole|]

[quote name='Lewdog' timestamp='1351132432' post='1174427']
I'm not really sure to say about your post. Yes like every person in the United States wanted to see Bin Ladan killed. I just can't understand the double standard associated with how we killed him. People will say we should have never attack Iraq the second time and how Bush is a warmonger and wasted tax payers money. Yet when Obama does something that is similar in nature, it's "Fuck Packistan" they were protecting Bin Ladan and who cares if we go to war with them. That just doesn't make sense to me, especially given their nuclear weapon prowess. These operations are a key reason why the United States is hated in the Muslim world. I'm just going to say I disagree with your opinion and move on. I know I wouldn't want another country flying into the U.S. and killing people, whether it is a murderer or what. So what would you say if Egypt flew into the U.S. to kill Salman Rushdie? Where do things stop?
[/quote]

When Salmon Rushdie masterminds a terror attack on thousands of innocent people rather than being condemned to death by radical assholes that deserve their fate because some dude wrote a book, gimme a call.

[Lewdog]

[quote name='Bunghole' timestamp='1351132391' post='1174426']
You have no concept of how the First Gulf War occurred at all. Yes, we bombed the shit out of them initially to destroy their CC centers (command and control) and their SAM batteries, but the real work was done in blitzkrieg fashion by tanks and infantry. Tanks cannot operate in a void. They need support chains and infantry. What you might be implying is how our air superiority kept them from attacking us in any meaningful way after the initial assault (SHOCK AND AWE) by air, and I'd agree. But there's no way to hold a supply chain, let alone an invasion of the enormity of Gulf War I (Daddy's War) without boots. Its really as simple as that. You cannot hold territory without infantry.

And even then, the second Iraq war showed us (much to the chagrin of Vietnam War vets) that an occupation isn't always what it seems, especially if that occupation wasn't supposed to be an occupation but ended up being one anyway.
[/quote]

Just another thing we disagree on. For the first bit of the war the missiles and bombs tore through Iraq, especially in Baghdad where reporters video taped the assault. There were several times that Iraq was given the option of allowing UN inspectors to resume their search for chemical weapons and WMDs. They would refuse and the barrage would continue. Saddam would make television and radio addresses that Iraq was winning the conflict and would not give in to NATO's demands. This type of barrage would continue for a few weeks as special forces were put in place to find sites to be bombed and find the best path for troops to go into Baghdad.

There is only one person to blame for the second incursion into Iraq, it's the Democratic Congress that cut off the funding for the war, because it was obvious that Iraq's military was decimated and that Saddam had agreed to follow NATO demands for a cease fire. So they saved a dollar then that cost tax payers a large sum of money going back in Iraq under Bush Jr.

[Lewdog]

[quote name='Bunghole' timestamp='1351132557' post='1174428']
When Salmon Rushdie masterminds a terror attack on thousands of innocent people rather than being condemned to death by radical assholes that deserve their fate because some dude wrote a book, gimme a call.
[/quote]

You don't get the point I was making. To them Salman Rushdie did something a lot worse then killing all the people during 9/11. Radical Muslims will die in a blink of an eye over their religion. They consider the U.S. as a harbor-er of one of the most hated men in the world.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Bunghole' timestamp='1351130869' post='1174419']
You're goddamned right. Not that this is some kind of preferred outcome, but if you're going to invade, do it right, and that means infantry. Overwhelming amounts of it. Not bullshit staged crap like Vietnam or the early stages of the Iraq War. If you're going to commit, then fucking commit. The problem is that it better be for a damn good reason. Iraq wasn't that reason, and I acknowledge that as someone that initially supported that war effort. How different Afghanistan may have turned out sooner had those assets been deployed there instead of on a wild goose chase to harangue and ultimately kill a brutal dictator is anyone's guess.
[/quote]

I'm not sure Afghan given the people and environment is a winnable war.

[Lewdog]

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1351133217' post='1174432']
I'm not sure Afghan given the people and environment is a winnable war.
[/quote]

Honestly it's not. It would be a dirty war. Afghans can hunker down in places that would make almost impossible to get to them without casualties. Not only that, but so many of the bad guys there could easily cross the border into other countries that are sympathetic to them. It would not be advisable because it would create a conflict on multiple fronts. With new regimes just now trying to grow a stable leadership, there really is no U.S. ally in the region. Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Syria gave the U.S. rights to fly in their airspace, and Saudi Arabia actually allowed them to have a forward base. I'm not so sure that would happen right now.

The only way things are going to change is if the United Nations approved it. You also have to take into account, Putin is back in power in Russia.