For the Removal of Saddam, Yet against the war

[Nightwish]

You're such a lib.

No, it doesn't take a lib to realize that when you're in the deepest defecit in your nation's history, you can't cut revenue. You can cut taxes, but you can't cut revenue. So if you're going to cut taxes, you're going to have to find a way to make up for it somewhere else. That's not a liberal position, it's a sensible one. I think the majority of conservatives will agree.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

No, it doesn't take a lib to realize that when you're in the deepest defecit in your nation's history, you can't cut revenue. You can cut taxes, but you can't cut revenue. So if you're going to cut taxes, you're going to have to find a way to make up for it somewhere else. That's not a liberal position, it's a sensible one. I think the majority of conservatives will agree.

If you raise taxes you kill the economy and we all lose.

 

[Nightwish]

If you raise taxes you kill the economy and we all lose.

Who said anything about raising more taxes? You asked what I thought about Bush's tax cuts, not what I thought about raising taxes, or even about leaving them as they are.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Who said anything about raising more taxes? You asked what I thought about Bush's tax cuts, not what I thought about raising taxes, or even about leaving them as they are.

I asked if we should keep the tax cuts bush put in place.

 

[Nightwish]

I asked if we should keep the tax cuts bush put in place.

And I said it depends on where they plan to make up the lost revenue from. If the tax cuts don't result in a loss of revenue, and send us even deeper into debt, then keep them. I don't mind. But if the country starts losing money because of it, and doesn't do something to make it up elsewhere, then they're going to have to roll them back until they figure something else out. I'm not fond of high taxes (hell, I'm not crazy about taxes period), but I'm not in favor of bankrolling the treasury either. That said, I don't pay all that much attention to the day-by-day fluctuations in the economy, so I'm not all that up on how the tax cuts have affected the economy and national deficit overall. Taxes are unfortunately a necessary evil. Without them, you've be driving on dirt roads and changing your shocks every six months.

 

[Gunny]

The only way they would have worked is if we stopped the Oil For Food program, and cut them off cold turkey. But the human cost of that would be unforgivable.


Do I think it should have been used? I plead the 5th on that. Do I think it could've been used? Yes, most definitely. Do I think that if it could work, it would be a better option that full-scale war, yes. It might be more costly to Bush (not that I care), if he were found to be responsible for it, but in my eyes that's a lot less important than the cost it would save both in human lives and trillions of dollars in spending.


Would have worked? I don't know. Could have worked? Yes, with proper planning and execution, it is conceivable.

Even taking out the all-important factor that assassination is illegal in ALL quarters, the tactic itself would not have completed the objective.

The strategy was to remove Saddam and his regime from power. The tactic was military invasion, executed almost flawlessly. The mission was accomplished.

Assassination would certainly result in removing Saddam from power, but that is all. The infrastructure of his regime would remain relatively unchanged except his younger son would move up notch; therefore, the mission would not have been accomplished in its entirety.

You have questioned the credibility of other members of this board for expressing an opinion without credentials that meet your opinion.

Your proposed tactics do not achieve the desired result. Invasion achieved the strategic objective.

I'm all ears if you have a better idea, but so far, none of your ideas are tactically nor strategically sound.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

And I said it depends on where they plan to make up the lost revenue from. If the tax cuts don't result in a loss of revenue, and send us even deeper into debt, then keep them. I don't mind. But if the country starts losing money because of it, and doesn't do something to make it up elsewhere, then they're going to have to roll them back until they figure something else out. I'm not fond of high taxes (hell, I'm not crazy about taxes period), but I'm not in favor of bankrolling the treasury either. That said, I don't pay all that much attention to the day-by-day fluctuations in the economy, so I'm not all that up on how the tax cuts have affected the economy and national deficit overall. Taxes are unfortunately a necessary evil. Without them, you've be driving on dirt roads and changing your shocks every six months.

ANd I called you a lib, because that's a lib position. COnservatives understand that tax cuts kill the economy and that all "lost revenue" should be "made up" by cutting spending. It's a no brainer for people who REALLY care about keeping the economy growing.

 

[Nightwish]

ANd I called you a lib, because that's a lib position.

Uh, no it isn't.

COnservatives understand that tax cuts kill the economy and that all "lost revenue" should be "made up" by cutting spending.

So how are you rationalizing the fact that Bush has cut taxes and increased spending?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Uh, no it isn't.


So how are you rationalizing the fact that Bush has cut taxes and increased spending?

It is a lib position.

Bush has spent too much, but in no circumstance should we raise taxes. Cutting spending is the only thing that should happen.

 

[Nightwish]

Even taking out the all-important factor that assassination is illegal in ALL quarters, the tactic itself would not have completed the objective.

As I said, the illegality has never stopped them before.

The strategy was to remove Saddam and his regime from power. The tactic was military invasion, executed almost flawlessly. The mission was accomplished.

That wasn't the objective at the start. Initially, they had been leaning toward taking Saddam out and leaving the Ba'athists in power.

Assassination would certainly result in removing Saddam from power, but that is all. The infrastructure of his regime would remain relatively unchanged except his younger son would move up notch; therefore, the mission would not have been accomplished in its entirety.

Take out the sons, too.

You have questioned the credibility of other members of this board for expressing an opinion without credentials that meet your opinion.

No, that's a strawman that some of your cohorts have tried to paint. What I questioned was the authority of some members to make objective statements that they supported with nothing but opinion.

Your proposed tactics do not achieve the desired result.

In your opinion.

none of your ideas are tactically nor strategically sound.

In your opinion.

 

[Nightwish]

It is a lib position.

No, it isn't. Saying that before we undertake a policy change, we should make sure that the change will not result in deeper debt is neither a liberal nor a conservative position. Not every question comes down on one side of the line or the other. If both the libs and the cons both agree with the same idea (and they do), then it's simply what it is, a sensible idea.

Bush has spent too much, but in no circumstance should we raise taxes. Cutting spending is the only thing that should happen.

Again, I never said anything about raising taxes. You need to get off that horse.

 

[Gunny]

As I said, the illegality has never stopped them before.

Which is irrelevant to whether or not it is legal and/or right.


That wasn't the objective at the start. Initially, they had been leaning toward taking Saddam out and leaving the Ba'athists in power.

Don't insult my intelligence. Every set of plans I ever looked at was that both he AND his regime were the targets of any proposed invasion.


Take out the sons, too.

Right. And anyone else in the regime that was hostile to us. The probability of success in carrying that out is slim-to-none.

No, that's a strawman that some of your cohorts have tried to paint. What I questioned was the authority of some members to make objective statements that they supported with nothing but opinion.

All you are doing is stated YOUR opinion. You have posted NOTHING that supports it, nor the strategy/tactics you propose. You have defended your strategy by attacking the credibility of others while you have shown absolutely no reason why yours should be held in higher regard.

Everyone's opinion is as good as yours.


In your opinion.

Fact. Taking out Saddam does not take out his regime.


In your opinion.

You are ignoring fact. If the goal is to take out Saddam and his regime and all you do is take out Saddam, the tactics you employ are in fact unsound as they do not achieve the desired result.

YOU need a new strategy. I have shown clearly that your tactics do not support the objective. You have responded with an attack on my credibility as you have others.

When my opinion is supported by fact and yours is not, that kinda' makes mine the more educated one in this instance.

 

[Nightwish]

You are ignoring fact. If the goal is to take out Saddam and his regime and all you do is take out Saddam, the tactics you employ are in fact unsound as they do not achieve the desired result.

In your opinion.

YOU need a new strategy. I have shown clearly that your tactics do not support the objective.

No, you've clearly stated your opinion.

You have responded with an attack on my credibility as you have others.

No, I've asked you to respond with facts, not opinions, when you make objective statements. Do I need to define the word "objective" for you, so you'll understand the conundrum?

When my opinion is supported by fact and yours is not, that kinda' makes mine the more educated one in this instance.

Just claiming that your opinion is supported by fact doesn't establish that it is. You'll need to actually present those facts. Thus far, you've only presented opinions. "I don't think that would work, because I think this is what would happen" in a statement of opinion, not one of fact. Your statements have had that character.

Don't insult my intelligence. Every set of plans I ever looked at was that both he AND his regime were the targets of any proposed invasion.

I don't know of any online resources that speak of it directly, I'm mostly remembering it from a televised press conference in 2003 with Rumsfeld, and someone asked if they were going to leave the Ba'athists in power if Saddam Hussein were deposed because they oppose the desecularization of Iraq, and his resonse was something to the effect of "There are still a number of ideas on the table," neither affirming nor denying. I did find this article from August of last year, indicating plans in the military to possibly bring some of the ex-military and Ba'ath party members back into the new government.

All you are doing is stated YOUR opinion.

Of course I'm stating my opinion. I've never pretended otherwise. I'm speaking of possibilities, not of definites, and have explicitly said so numerous times. I am not making objective statements about what absolutely will or will not work. I'm simply offering food for thought. It is you and your fellow hawks who are foolishly making objective statements that you can't back up with facts. An opinion doesn't need to be backed up with facts and resources. An objective statement does. Why are you having such difficulty understanding that?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

No, it isn't. Saying that before we undertake a policy change, we should make sure that the change will not result in deeper debt is neither a liberal nor a conservative position. Not every question comes down on one side of the line or the other. If both the libs and the cons both agree with the same idea (and they do), then it's simply what it is, a sensible idea.


Again, I never said anything about raising taxes. You need to get off that horse.

When you say we should keep the tax cuts only if X, that means the possibility of raising them is open to you. Your lack of cognitive ability is tedious.

 

[manu1959]

The only way they would have worked is if we stopped the Oil For Food program, and cut them off cold turkey. But the human cost of that would be unforgivable.


Do I think it should have been used? I plead the 5th on that. Do I think it could've been used? Yes, most definitely. Do I think that if it could work, it would be a better option that full-scale war, yes. It might be more costly to Bush (not that I care), if he were found to be responsible for it, but in my eyes that's a lot less important than the cost it would save both in human lives and trillions of dollars in spending.


Would have worked? I don't know. Could have worked? Yes, with proper planning and execution, it is conceivable.

nice fence sitting.....were you promised a postition in the kerry cabinet?

 

[Nightwish]

When you say we should keep the tax cuts only if X, that means the possibility of raising them is open to you.

Taxes are a necessary evil. Not even the most staunch conservative will say otherwise. And only the stupidest people would ever say that lowering taxes without having a plan to make up the money somewhere else is a good thing. It's not a liberal or conservative thing, it's a common sense thing.

Your lack of cognitive ability is tedious.

Your propensity for wrapping up each post with a juvenile ad hominem insult is doing you no service. I just hope you understand that.

 

[Nightwish]

nice fence sitting.....were you promised a postition in the kerry cabinet?

What is it that you see as "fence sitting?" I'm simply saying that this has never been a black and white issue, it's never been as simple as saying, "It's either A or B, and nothing else is possible." People can stick their opinions out there to their hearts' content, but nobody can state objectively that nothing short of full-scale war could possibly have effected the regime change we sought. Not unless they're Madame Cleo.

 

[manu1959]

What is it that you see as "fence sitting?" I'm simply saying that this has never been a black and white issue, it's never been as simple as saying, "It's either A or B, and nothing else is possible." People can stick their opinions out there to their hearts' content, but nobody can state objectively that nothing short of full-scale war could possibly have effected the regime change we sought. Not unless they're Madame Cleo.

i asked three simple questions....you split hairs and gave conditional answers

either the sanctions were or were not working

either you are for or against assasination of foreign leaders

either you belive turning sadams own forces against him would or would not work

it is easy watch:

no
no
no

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Taxes are a necessary evil. Not even the most staunch conservative will say otherwise. And only the stupidest people would ever say that lowering taxes without having a plan to make up the money somewhere else is a good thing. It's not a liberal or conservative thing, it's a common sense thing.

That's what a lib would say. And I'm only talking about keeping the ones bush gave us early on in his reign.

Your propensity for wrapping up each post with a juvenile ad hominem insult is doing you no service. I just hope you understand that.

It's entertaining me. I consider that self-service.

 

[manu1959]

Taxes are a necessary evil. Not even the most staunch conservative will say otherwise. And only the stupidest people would ever say that lowering taxes without having a plan to make up the money somewhere else is a good thing. It's not a liberal or conservative thing, it's a common sense thing.


Your propensity for wrapping up each post with a juvenile ad hominem insult is doing you no service. I just hope you understand that.

taxes are only a necessary evil because people will not "pay as you go"....they expect a lot of government freebies

lets see he cut taxes which casued business to grow (mine by 10%) which caused me to hire people (about 25 in 2005 at an average salary of 60k) which caused salaries to go up for exiting employees (about 5%) which caused more taxes to be paid to the US government......hmmmmmmmmmm....bush's common sense seemed to have worked....yours seems suspect.....funny thing....when regan did this it worked too.....when clinton didn't do it we downsized because there was no incentive to grow....but when clinton did do it we grew....bizzare huh?