xerxes

Yes Ray, its as we call it in Iran: Bahman. An "avalanche", which just gets bigger and bigger, gets inheritated from one administartion to another with different velocity and magnitude, but which ultimatly will dissipate with time.

Just to clarify something here: of the republicans in Bush 67 administration, only Wolfiwitz wanted the tyrant remove from power right after liberating Kuwait. While the Grand Architect (Cheney) wanted to put a stop to it, as well as Powell who was happy with conclusion of his Powell Doctrine. So there were not only leftist who advocated such way. I assume Cheney and Powell still lived - quite rightly infact - in the days of Cold War, where a US invasion of proper Iraq, which was a client-state of the Soviet Union and part of its sphere of influence, was seen as too sudden or too aggressive. Others such a James Baker or Bush the Elder himself, I dont quite remember their view. All I can say is that being superpower is a damn tough job, geopolitics sometimes vetoes humaniterian effort. When that happens humaniterian will critize, which is a very human reaction to that effect.

__________________
If we contrast the rapid progress of this mischievous discovery of gunpowder with the slow and laborious advances of reason, science, and the arts of peace, a philosopher, according to his temper, will laugh or weep at the folly of mankind. - Edward Gibbon

Horrido

Cheney is known for his incompetency, and Powell was not enthusiastic at all for the endeavor, painting a bleak portrait of excessive casualties and irrecoverable political fall-out in the hopes we'd just let Kuwait go. The House and Senate at the time, which had the most influence and control, were DNC-controlled and set the rules. The Soviet Union at the time was clearly on its way out and more or less considered a non-player by that time.

__________________
The black flag is raised: Ban them all... Let the Admin sort them out.

I know I'm going to have the last word... I have powers of deletion and lock.

Woodsy the Lar

The name of the Game is OIL France and Russia had bought Iraq thus putting the backers of the Bush Regime up in arms they needed a Decision and pdq. The U N would never have made a decision because the security council members China, Russia and France would have Vetoed any military involement in Iraq due to personal involvement.

The states of Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman and Saudi Arabia Cancelled Trillions of Dollars worth of Military Equipment from U.S. Factories,showing everyone where Mr.W Bush allegiance lies.With a buffer of American Troops between Iraq and Iran there is no need for the defence systems anymore.

Where are the Pulitzer Prize Journalists now.

Another Big Beef of mine is When you go for a WAR have the Balls to support the people who are putting their lives on the line.Lindsy England and co. What did they do wrong? And the Yellow man "we dont want incedents like this in our Army" Who kicked the bucket no-one. Weak willed leaders Both B LIAR and W Bush.

ExNavyAmerican

Collaborating with the Iraqi insurgency at the moment, but I think they have a 2 o'clock with Hugo Chavez...

__________________
"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever."
- Thomas Jefferson

Dreadnought

And a 4:30 with a JDAM.

__________________
Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

Ray

Multinational force sits in Lebanon sanctioned by the UN and so they shall sit.

Whether they are effective is another issue!

Israel does not wait for UN to sanction anything. They act unilaterally and couldn't care less since in their opinion they are fighting for their existence. Therefore, morality or otherwise is not something of tremendous concern to them!

__________________


"Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

HAKUNA MATATA

gunnut

You need to learn how our government works. The so-called budget surplus did not come from wise management of the economy. It was a combination of a business cycle upswing and gutting the military budget. Any idiot in the White House could have generated that during the 90s. Clinton was the luckiest president in US history.

Democrats are the fundamental problem of this nation. They sqander tax dollars on welfare programs rather than bolster military. If you want to see a more extreme example of this problem, look at the United Kingdom. Their liberals gut military whenever possible to bolster social spendings. The Royal Navy is but a shell of its former self. The Royal Navy!!! The pride and joy of the British Empire for 400 years. Gutted!

__________________
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

astralis

gunnut,

i'm not sure the UK is the best example of this. the responsibilities the UK has now vis-a-vis the world stage is not the same as the responsibilities it had in its heyday of Empire. no more sealanes to protect to vital crown jewel India, and no more nasty jerries and froggies waiting to land an army on british shores, either...or for that matter, spaniards

and there is only so much independence the UK has in matters of foreign policy, sadly enough. look how the US *****-slapped france and the UK over the 1956 suez crisis...

also, regarding democrats and spending, do tell, which president and which congress presided over the largest increase in federal spending in over 30 years?

and who said "Reagan taught us deficits don't matter."?

__________________
Never let the future disturb you. You will meet it, if you have to, with the same weapons of reason which today arm you against the present.

-Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

gunnut

I have said many times (maybe not here) that I disagree with Bush's domestic policies. He spends money just a tad slower than a drunken Ted Kennedy out on a Saturday night date. I can't believe Bush pushed through the drug bill. I can't believe Bush pushed through the education bill he had Ted write up. I can't believe Bush will have Ted write the amnesty bill. The department of homeland security is entirely a bureaucratic construct that really doesn't do much.

Bush does one thing right though. He held the line on taxes.

By the way, didn't FDR teach us that deficit doesn't matter?

astralis

gunnut,

i don't think that was FDR. we ran up plenty of deficit during the depression years and WWII (this in particular), but the massive employment gained through the use of government spending more than off-set the financial costs of the deficit.

however, in the case of reagan and bush, this deficit spending did not produce a similar economic gain, simply because 1. there wasn't that much economic "slack" to soak up, 2. gains in our economy are increasingly coming from efficiency, produced by technological growth. bush probably would have done better for the economy had he geared the tax cuts for technology sectors, or better yet, a combination of tax cuts and funding for high-technology research (which, to his credit, the latter of which he has done, but IMO not enough).

reagan's best move when it came to domestic policy was paul volcker, and sticking by that guy while he killed inflation. when it came to following reagan's own mantra of reversing government growth, though, that never happened on reagan's watch. at best, reagan slowed down the rate of growth by a small amount...for a few years...and then the rate of growth went right back up afterwards.

Jan

Sheesh. That was supposed to be a spoof/ commentary on a free society- not some run-down of the NYT in particular.

__________________
"Just another brick in the wall."

Jan

[quote=Horrido;356563]HW Bush followed the left-leaning line of thinking: formed a coalition, and listened to the UN and local nations when they all recommended they only liberate Kuwait and leave Saddam in power, ie, "not finish the job". QUOTE]

Pretty smart thing to do no? Saddam, though a nasty SOB, was a counterweight to Iran and and anti-islamist.

Not going the whole hog in 1991 saved the US alot of grief.

Jan

The multinational UNIFIL force pre- dates the the israeli incursion by 20 years.

gunnut

Keynesian economics, it's ok when applied carefully in small amounts and not prolonged use. What we have here is government intervention gone awry.

In Reagan's case, I would argue his voodoo economics actually worked. He cut taxes for the rich to stimulate spending and investment. The top income bracket went from paying 70% in income tax to 25% under Reagan. The result was the boom in the late 80s and 90s.

Bush just tried not to raise taxes.

I agree that Reagan didn't decrease the size of the government. He had to work with a hostile congress in building up the arms. He had to give something.

TopHatter

Just my humble opinion, but I'd say that the 372nd MP Co. did plenty wrong, from the top on down.

And according to a video diary kept by SSgt Ivan Frederick, at least one person did die.

Not to worry, the New York Times does plenty enough all on it's enough to be run-down.