drmiller

I am not the source of what voters want. Look at the Blog "2004 Presidential Exit Polls" by Draginol as one example. The truth is that Bush was not elected on his performamce to create Jobs( 5 million workers have come into the work force since Bush took office with no jobs), the economy, the deficit, Health Care, energy policy or the Iraq War.

Reply #24 By: COL Gene - 11/9/2004 9:05:52 AM drmiler You have not looked at the polls and the reasons why Bush was re-elected. It is not his tax policies or his economic policies. In fact the vast majority of Americans in poll after poll did not agree with Bush on these issues. Over half do not agree with the Iraq War. Bush won on other isues and 61 % want major changes in his second term and 80 % want some change.

Your right about the economy but NOT on the taxes. See Draginols post one more time.

MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE BUSH KERRY TOTAL 2004 2004 Taxes (5%) 57% 43% Education (4%) 26% 73% Iraq (15%) 26% 73% Terrorism (19%) 86% 14% Economy/Jobs (20%) 18% 80% Moral Values (22%) 80% 18% Health Care (8%) 23% 77%

At look at the rating on approval to go to war in Iraq.

DECISION TO GO TO WAR IN IRAQ BUSH KERRY TOTAL 2004 2000 2004 Strongly Approve (29%) 94% n/a 6% Somewhat Approve (23%) 75% n/a 24% Somewhat Disapprove (15%) 25% n/a 73% Strongly Disapprove (31%) 5% n/a 94% And to fairly definitively answer this question, 52% of Americans support going into Iraq compared to only 46% who disapprove of going into Iraq. That's well outside the margin of error (in an exit poll that was already tilted a bit incorrectly in Kerry's favor based on the actual results). So yes, most Americans are glad we went into Iraq even though most people think things are going poorly.

drmiller

yes the tax issue per the polls shows people like tax cuts. The problem is that the tax cuts going to the wealthy have not produced the rate of economic growth to even restore the lost revenue from the tax cuts much less the added federal revenue needed to pay for increased defense spending and the Bush War in Iraq. Per the Congressional Budget Office, 270 Billion of the deficit of 450 billion is due to the tax cuts. We are borrowing the money for tax cuts to people who do not need a tax cut and do not spend it and create demand. Some economic policy! Add to this the Bush proposls to make the cuts we can not afforf permanent and to change Social Security that will require several more trillion to implement.

When we look back on the Bush years, there will be a realization how foolish we were to allow these policies to take place.

Reply #33 By: COL Gene - 11/9/2004 7:38:04 PM drmiller yes the tax issue per the polls shows people like tax cuts. The problem is that the tax cuts going to the wealthy have not produced the rate of economic growth to even restore the lost revenue from the tax cuts much less the added federal revenue needed to pay for increased defense spending and the Bush War in Iraq. Per the Congressional Budget Office, 270 Billion of the deficit of 450 billion is due to the tax cuts. We are borrowing the money for tax cuts to people who do not need a tax cut and do not spend it and create demand. Some economic policy! Add to this the Bush proposls to make the cuts we can not afforf permanent and to change Social Security that will require several more trillion to implement.

You know I REALLY hate it when you change course in mid-discussion. We were talking about why people voted for Bush NOT why the tax cuts are bad. This is *exactly* what I was refering to in another post to you. You NEVER say anything positive. Give you an inch and you'll change the subject or go off on an entirely different rant cutting down Bush at every chance.

FUCKING OIL

Well... it does come in handy, whichever word you put the emphasis on.

Cheers,
Daiwa

Moreover, the oil sanction didn't work for 12 years That's what we are told, but in reality, we suffered no detriment from them as opposed to this conflict.

I don't think you get the purpose of a preventive war. According to you, we should have never attacked German in World War 2, since they didn't attack us. The oil sanction was not working by any measure. It didn't make Saddam give up his weapons or make him lose power.

I don't think there is any question that Saddam has the technology for chemical weapons That's never been substantiated. It was true that at one point, he did, but no immediate threat was ever known, only threatened of by those that led us in to the war. Was the invasion a mistake? You will have to look at the time prior to the invasion. Give the knowledge back then, was it a mistake? As they say, hindisight is 20/20 and the faulty intelligence Blair later admitted it being gives me even less confidence in those handling war decisions.

Given the intelligence we have prior to the Iraq Invasion, Saddam was a bigger threat than Al-Qaeda in 1990. You missed one simple argument all along. The responsibility of the cease-fire agreement is on Saddam not on USA. It was Saddam's responsibility to prove he has destoryed his weapons, not USA responsiblity to prove he has WMD. You see, he had WMD before the Gulf War. We found more WMD in 1992 in Iraq. Since he has never shown he destoryed them, the assumption is that he still has weapons. Very simple: He had the weapons, we don't have any additional information, so we have to assume the original situation: he still has it. Look, let say a robber use a AK47 hold many people hostage in the first day. Now after a 7 days standoff, do you still assume he has his AK47 or you assume he doesn't have it anymore? You don't have any information in these seven days, so there is a chance that the robber might threw his gun away, but is that a logical assumption. Unless additional information is granted, one do not alter the orignal assumption and argument. It turns out that Saddam probably has destroyed his weapons secretly, but it is not our fault that he decides to destory them secretly and not shown any evidence to UN. The burden of proof was never -- never on USA.

Otherwise, what was the sanction for? The oil sanction was preventative medicine, not punishment for acts. To limit the capability of Saddam to gain weapons. This was effective.

Ah no. Who said that? Not according to Clinton. Why do you think he sign the 1997 Iraq Liberation Act (ILA)? I am sorry. The oil sanction does not in any way prevent Saddam building a weapon system and certainly does not prevent Saddam from giving his original WMD to terriosts. How could it? The current explanation for Saddam secretly destoryed his weapons is this: on one hand, he need to make sure the weapon inspectors can't find the weapons, so eventually the sanction will be lifted. On the other hand, he wanted his neighbor Iran as well as Iraqis think he still have WMD, so they don't take advantage of the situation. By destorying the WMD secretly, Saddam achieved both -- no one can be sure. Look, oil sanction does not prevent weapon build up, it just turn out that Saddam did it on his own, but he very well could have not done so. US also has sanction on Iran, and N. Korea, which obviously show you sanction generally does not work. Sanction may weaken a country economy, but it is up to its leader to decide how to allocate the remaining resource. If Saddam wanted, he can build a weapon system. You cannot be serious to say it is the oil sanction which prevented the weapon buildup, if so, you have a lot of explanation to do for Iran and espeically N. Korea. In additioan, It really doesn't take alot of weapons to pull a terriost act on USA. Look at bin Laden. Taliban in Afgahnistan is probably by far the pooriest government on earth. They put off Sepetmeber 11. Palestine is not even a real country. PLO has carried countless terriost acts on Israel. Saddam only has to give one or two weapons to terriost group and that group can do deveasting damaging to USA. By the way, if you think closely, the most expansive part for weapon system is the delivery system/guiding system/radar system. That is, it is relatively cheap to make something like anthrax (remember the anthrax scare shortly after 9/11). Anthrax can be produced in many universities by any graduate microbiology student. The expansive part for chemical/biochemical is the guiding system -- how to make the missile deliver the chemical/biochemical to the destinated target. Guess what? Saddam doesn't have to worry about the deliveray system if he decide to give his WMD to a terriost. They will just use it as a dirty bomb. So, how on earth will oil sanction stop that.

Finally, let me say that the best thing we could do in response to terrorism is to guard our ports, secure our borders, reign in our immigration policy, and address the vulnerabilities in our infrastructure. That's the cheapest, smartest, most effective way of protecting America - decreasing our dependence on oil isn't a bad idea either...

No, that will be more expansive than you think. Who told you it is the cheapest and smartest and most effective way? That person either is outright stupid or he is lying to you. Do you have any idea how much it will cost just to screen every shippings into this country. Turn out that, we can't afford that -- no one can. Defensive war is more expansive than you think. Let me try to explain this easily. Let say I am something who want to hurt your family and you know it. Do you think it is cheaper to buy a weapon and track me down? Or do you think it is cheaper to rebuild your house, put on all new locks, get an alarm system, buy a bullet proof car and maybe bullet proof vest for everyone. Defensive war is extremely expansive and you can never elimate the threat. The threat will always maintain -- because you don't hurt your opponent in a defensive position -- how can you, right? That is the reason FDR didn't just sit there and wait for the Nazi to attack.

Incredibly informative, the best argument for the Iraq war given at JU.

Incredibly informative, the best argument for the Iraq war given at JU.

I guess we will never convince each other's point of view. Although I am sure our conversations have help us understanding the concerns from the other side. Certainly, this is not a black-and-white situation as many believe. Best.

Incredibly informative, the best argument for the Iraq war given at JU.

I guess we will never convince each other's point of view. Although I am sure our conversations have help us understanding the concerns from the other side. Certainly, this is not a black-and-white situation as many believe. Best.

delete this message

If you think Bush invaded iraq for oil you are blinded by the left wing nuts. France and Russia were the contries that were willing to let hundreds of iraqis die in the name of oil. Because Saddham had promised them each oil feilds and 10 dollars a barrel for oil, if they were to vote no on invading iraqi. WHY? so that saddham could keep his evil dictatorship of an empire