Liberalism is a mental disorder.

Were you making any sense at all before the booze? Friends don't let friends drink and post.

I rest my case.

that means that you have no answers....

No it doesn't. It means that in a battle of wits, I refuse to fight the unarmed. Besides, you made my case for me.

No it doesn't. It means that in a battle of wits, I refuse to fight the unarmed. Besides, you made my case for me. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I suppose that you're the witty one.... It's not a battle of wits. It's a battle of logic and you have no logic because your "facts" are spoon-fed to you and you have no logical defense because you aren't the one who's formulated your ideas. You can't explain anything because you don't understand anything. If any case is made, it's that if you can't come up with some lame ass attempt at humor, then you're just another party-line parrot. You're tailor-made for the masters of the conservative movement - and i could give a damn how many anti-tea party quips that you post, you're just another closet neocon in sheep's clothing. There's my case. Now according to your usual bullshit, you'll claim to have seen the emperor's new clothes and your level of understanding is so many light years beyond mine that i couldn't possibly understand, or you'll just try another lame one-liner... If there were some logic behind your reasoning, I'd semi-respect your views...

@T9 Bro,wow,you're letting them yank your chain. Don't let em do it!! They're having more fun than you. Trust me as an unbiased observer who has been VERY entertained by all of your posts.

I think I am going to have to agree with the conservatives on this one. Iran is a threat. If you believe that the US has interests outside of the United States, you can accept this. If you do not, then nothing anyone says will sway you.

One big dirty word that no one has bothered to flail around (but I will) is oil. A whole bunch of it exists in the Middle East. Right now, the way things are, the people who control a good deal of it are our friends. So having them threatened or destroyed would be a bad thing for us. 1) No oil in the immediate future would destroy our economy 2) Oil (now bought and sold in US currency) buoys the value of the dollar (though that might change if our economy keeps on going the way it is - they may switch to Euros).

Another politically sensitive area that no one has mentioned here is the Jewish State of Israel. On a very esoteric level, the country holds the link to our judeo-christian heritage, but on a much more practical level, they are a critical military ally and a think twice policy for any country wanting to be aggressive in the region. Note: Iran has the most formidable force in the region outside of Israel. Iran so far is not willing to take the nuclear bullet to mess with Israel but that could change with them having nukes.

The last politically sensitive area I'll bring up goes along the same lines as another poster here of being spurned by the US in the past when trying to make nice (JD's going to love this). Under Carter, we royally screwed the Iranians and have since created a cultural and political quagmire. Remember Saddam Hussein? Well, he had decided that he wanted to annex ole Iran. From my sources, Iran at the time had virtually no military might but a large population. Saddam knew this. He loaded up on weapons and attacked using weapons he got from the good ole US of A. All Iran could do at the time was throw bodies at the attacking Iraqi's to slow down there military progress. Well, wouldn't you know it? Iran, trying to defend itself, bought weapons from us too - not knowing we were supplying the Iraqi's. When Iran found this out, it effectively ruined ANY chances of us having a decent political relationship. Know too, that this was a very messy war - Saddam used chemical weapons on the Iranians and THEY have never forgotten about this, nor have they forgotten who gave them those weapons.

Finally, if you want Iraq to have a chance to be a flourishing democracy, they are going to need US aid (even though they don't want it). Because, if I were Iran, and I knew Iraq were weak (which they are), I would flatten that place and make it one large Iran (the US thinks they are in the works of doing something along these lines already). The Iranians wouldn't dare do it while we there. And just think, if that happens, the Israelis would become extremely nervous, perhaps nervous enough to attack... and if that happens, you might get other Arab nations to join in, just so they can get a piece of Israel. And if that happens, major disruptions in oil supplies... the rest of the story gets uglier but I'm sure you get the picture... Similar scenario in Korea, albeit, it wouldn't involve oil, just American business and political interests...

I think you are right though on one thing t9... the military the way we have it, needs to change - heavier on intelligence and technology, lighter on tanks and artillery; heavier on speed, agility and logistical flexibility, lighter on drawn out strategical and fortified positions. Rumsfeld agrees with this too and he was trying to do it but he was too much of an a$$hole to get anyone to go along with him. Bush didn't help him either - he wasn't articulate enough to persuade others who had politically entrenched positions with the status quo.

I have to point out that when Saddam attacked Iran, inspite of the US aid, those tanks were Soviet T-64s and T-72s. He also flew French Mirage fighters. Don't be so quick to put all the blame on the USA which was acting against the mullahs of Iran. It was the incompetence of Jimmy Carter that gave us Iran of today which includes international ties to terrorism, a developing nuclear WEAPONS program, and a nut job in charge. Thank you Mr. Peanut.

I have to point out that when Saddam attacked Iran, inspite of the US aid, those tanks were Soviet T-64s and T-72s. He also flew French Mirage fighters. Don't be so quick to put all the blame on the USA which was acting against the mullahs of Iran. It was the incompetence of Jimmy Carter that gave us Iran of today which includes international ties to terrorism, a developing nuclear WEAPONS program, and a nut job in charge. Thank you Mr. Peanut. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

What a bunch of BS, it was the years of US support for the Shaw who much like most middle eastern rulers kept the money for himself and let his people live in poverty. If we would stop being selective about who we allow to be ruthless rulers and who we want to fight because they are we would maybe one day earn the respect of the middle eastern people. We go after Saddam but leave north korea alone, we go to lybia to stop innocents from being killed yet 200,000 yemens have been murdered and we have done nothing, we helped Afghanistan beat the russians then abandon them to rebuild alone. I dont agree with what the terroist do and want to kill them all, but I understand why they feel the way they do. No one in this country would like to be on the receiving end of this type of behavior, why do we think other countries will take it and thank us for the mistreatment. Until we get rid of all the old fogies in the joint chiefs, Pentagon, congress etc. who still try to push the cold war american ideology of spreading democracy through nation building, last I checked the spread of communisim has slowed to a crawl.

ARRGH! I've been found out! T9 exposed my cover! I need to take this up with my superiors at Neocon HQ! This will not end well, I'm afraid. I may be demoted to Newt Gingrich's staff! CURSE YOU, T9! I'm sure Hope and Change, Inc. will give a nice promotion now. Dammit!

@ COG LMAO

@ JD I wouldn't claim all the blame for the US if other countries sold chemical weapons to Senor Saddam.

OH!

@ Dirty Dog No one should fault the shiftiness and shadiness of US foreign policy. No country is unique in this regard. The only difference is that other countries want to hold the US to a higher standard that they envision us to be. We are never gonna be there for everyone that needs us and we will never be consistent in how we approach the world. If others are pissed about this (to the point of acting beyond politics), they are insanely naive.

I'd also like to point out that when I was in the UAE a few years ago, they didn't necessarily hate (disrespect) Americans; they hated (disrespected) our politics, a similar thing occurs in Europe, Central and South America, and many of our other allies.

Actually the idea behind tax cuts has been proven by both democrats and republicans more than once. Two recent examples; JFK and Ronald Reagan. The only problem with both times is that spending increased faster than the revenue base expanded. I could point out that the congress in both cases was controlled by democrats, but I won't. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

This makes me think he isn't John Galt. Galt would know better because I've rubbed his nose in this lie before.

JD Barleycorn probably doesn't even know the name of the infamous "Curve" that this lie is based on. Or that its creator is pissed that it is being misused and misunderstood by idiot Teabaggers.

Revenue increases due to a wider tax base NEVER fully pay for the revenue lost due to the tax cuts. They only PARTIALLY pay for the tax cuts. As a result, tax cuts result in a LOSS of revenue (duh!).

JD Barleycorn sounds older than JG, too. Since when is JFK 'recent'?

Then there's the whole Reagan thing. Reagan raised taxes on just about everybody except the rich...while raising the debt ceiling 18 times...and going on a spending spree...and tripling the debt. He did lower the taxes on the rich, however. So they could blow it on all that product that Ronnie smuggled in from Colombia. You know, when he was negotiating with terrorists (Hezbollah) and selling missiles to Iran and funding narcoterrorists with death squads.

@ Longermonger Ahh, an educated man in Econ! Excellent! Of Course, the Laffer curve is a piece of doodie... Anything could be happening statistically between the two endpoints. I pointed this out in my MBA class... And as for Reagan lowering the taxes for the rich - I guess it depends on your definition of rich... I think Reagan was a bit narrower in his definition than Obama. In fact, if I remember a-correct, Reagan's overall tax rates were HIGHER than the ones Bush proposed. Conservatives seem to forget that too.

ARRGH! I've been found out! T9 exposed my cover! I need to take this up with my superiors at Neocon HQ! This will not end well, I'm afraid. I may be demoted to Newt Gingrich's staff! CURSE YOU, T9! I'm sure Hope and Change, Inc. will give a nice promotion now. Dammit! Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

LMAO!!!

C'mon COG, leave poor T9 alone!

[quote=Seomon;1507320I'd also like to point out that when I was in the UAE a few years ago, they didn't necessarily hate (disrespect) Americans; they hated (disrespected) our politics, a similar thing occurs in Europe, Central and South America, and many of our other allies.[/quote]

This is exactly the point I am trying to make.