<p>I've already been over this, but I think it goes further than you think.</p>
<p>Wilson used (almost to the letter) the same type of argument to get involved into WWI. It was objected to for all the reasons you see today against Iraq. Do you consider Wilson a bad president? Don't tell that to the Princeton board - one of the colleges there is named after him! Mostly latant (as revealed by papers in his presidential library) economic, social, and political ideas forced him to go to war. Germany wasn't going to cross the Atlantic any more than saddam was going to lob chemical shells at us.</p>
<p>If 20 years down the road we find out that the hippies were right - the war was about oil - would that necessarily make him a bad president?</p>
<p>There is little doubt that Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt, and other mideastern (American friendly) tyrannies will eventually crumble or be overthrown. Losing them would mean losing a great percentage of our incoming oil. Losing that much oil would DESTROY the US economy and force the entire world into economic downturn. Iraq has enough oil to keep us going. Getting a foothold there is an obvious advantage.</p>
<p>The price we've payed in Iraq might not be justified by WMDs or Iraqi liberation, but certainly a few billion and a few American lives can be rationalized when compared to total economic collapse.</p>
<p>If, in the end, it is evident that GW Bush saved the US (and the world) economy by simultaneous removal a brutal dictator, would you still consider him a bad president? Seems more like two birds with one stone to me...</p>
<p>You don't know - ergo, you can't (fairly) judge</p>
<p>gee, the time difference kills all the conversation...</p>
<p>maize&blue: "but I assure you that the US was never fighting Russia in Afghanistan"
go to B&N and pick up any book on rise of taliban like a. Afghanistan's endless war b. The hidden war c. Taliban, militant islam or any other and what you will find is tht the US provided financial and arms and ammunition support to the ppl of afghanistan during their war against russia. What happened after tht is very well documented and publicized (maybe just outside the US). After Russians left Afghanistan, the US stopped providin any support to Afghanistan, a country tht had nothing to sustain itself coz of the long war tht it was fighting with the US support.
More afghanistanis were angry at the US for ditchin them than they were towards the russians. Ppl like osama went to afghanistan during the same time and built a following of those who were disenchanted with the americans for ditchin them and tht is what ended up in events like 9/11.</p>
<p>i am just tryin to make an argument tht iraq, no matter how bad of a decision it was, should be completed rather than leaving it incomplete. because an incomplete iraq will only give rise to more ill will towards the US by ppl who thought tht the Americans were their saviour.</p>
<p>"I know the (possibly subconscius) urge to paint the US as the sole problem in the history of the 20th century"
I dont think tht is true, coz if it wasnt for the US, the nazis would be ruling europe, iraq would have been ruling kuwait, russia would have taken over afghanistan and many other asian countries in their communist fold...i think tht US brings more good to the world than bad by promoting capitalism, democracy and a 'hope for a better life' and every1 who understands it, respects it...</p>
<p>"If, in the end, it is evident that GW Bush saved the US (and the world) economy by simultaneous removal a brutal dictator, would you still consider him a bad president? Seems more like two birds with one stone to me"</p>
<p>how are saddam and the world economy related, in case you havent noticed, we are losing in this global village... jobs and intellectual property is migrating to places of innovation and progress, with his clampdown on stem cell research many scientists are moving to other countries(I personally know 2 from Caltech who went to Singapore) the fact is, Dubya is taking us down slippery slope with his national and foreign deficits while cutting taxes for his supporters... isnt it ironic that liberals who are labeled "tax and spend" by conservatives are now nearly 2 to 1 is support of a balanced budget... hmm, maybe a balanced budget and surpluses and international respect and peace and prosperity and common sense ideas went the way of clinton, dubya is just plain dangerous, he is the modern day andrew jackson</p>
<p>"Dubya is taking us down slippery slope with his national and foreign deficits while cutting taxes for his supporters"</p>
<p>sempitern,
- Bush came in power on 1/2001
- The US recession and stock mkt decline had started in 3/2000
- The economy started recovering coz of aggressive monetary policies by greenspan & co.
- 9/11 happened in mere 9 months of his taking over the office, further weakening the economy coz of reduced consumer spending
- as the ultimate weapon to further improve the economy he proposed the tax cuts, which as evident helped increase consumer spending and overall economy
- about jobs and intellectual property migration, it was bound to happen and global economy matures
- the deficits were tools to boost the poor economy handed to bush by clinton
- if the world had one balance sheet, US had positive assets since 1982 (which included Reagan, H.W. ,Clinton) and as the laws of averages HAVE to be on the negative side
- If bush tries to decrease the trade deficits, then ofcourse imports from China will have to slow down, but it will also mean that Mr. Average Joe shopping from Wal-Mart will end up paying about 30% more on his average bill, giving rise to inflation.
- With increasing inflation, the int. rates would have to go up, thus making in difficult for the US corporations, small mom-pop shop to take a loan to expand their business, thus further dampening the economy.</p>
<p>I am not saying that running deficits is a good strategy over long term, but given the options tht Bush had coz of the factors prior to his occupyin the office, that was the ONLY option he had.</p>
<p>as far as international respect and peace - yeah, it was for the same reason that clinton did not kill Osama when he had the opportunity for the multiple bombin in africa and on US ships - because ohhh, he wanted to maintain international respect and peace.. ofcourse, you saw what happened coz of that on 9/11 and everything after that...</p>
<p>IMHO i beleive tht there should be a balance between maintainin peace and respect and forging and maintainin alliances...</p>
<p>as far as the two scientists who moved to Singapore - good for them. The good thing about globalalization is that if a country's ethos does not confer with some type of research (like scr for the US) they can opt out of it and still enjoy the advantages of it, if it proves to be a viable innovation in the future (or ppl's ethos change). The fact remains that a large % of the american population live in rural areas and are not from caltech and as a country, the president has to confer to their viewpoint as well...</p>
<p>
[quote]
If you really want to go to Brown next year, you probably shouldn't dismiss the left as "hippies."</p>
<p>Just a thought.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I was referring to actual hippies! (unwashed 40-somethings standing around with no blood for oil signs). I consider myself a centrist democrat if anyone cares.</p>
<p>
[quote]
how are saddam and the world economy related
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I've given like 9 different possibilities on this thread already.</p>
<p>
[quote]
and international respect and peace and prosperity and common sense ideas
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You mean like, from France? The guys who were notoriously abusing the oil-for-food program? The people who were willingly and knowingly enriching themselves and a brutal dictator at the expense of the starving shia and kurdish kids in Iraq? The elites in France opposed the Iraq conflict because of their own interests. They had almost 5x as much capital invested as the next highest country (which was, surprise, Germany).</p>
<p>oh, so when conservatives see bush attacked they have no choice but to bash france and other "wimpy" countries, perhaps they should start calling democrats "girlie men"</p>
<p>blame the tragedy of 9/11 for bush's deficits and troublesome tax cuts.... btw heres an intersting statistic, the US spent less for WWII and the New Deal Programs than bush I and bush II spent... it turns out that democrats are the ones who know how to handle an economy and ensure that a larger plurality of people are in good shape rather than republicans whose administrations benefit the top 1% of wage earners.... over the last 40 years, the poor have gotten poorer and the rich have gotten richer, and the middle class is getting squeezed, stop the bs and return to a progressive tax system, we are currently operating a republican pork barrel budget with 1959 level revenues, this CANNOT continue</p>
<p>
[quote]
oh, so when conservatives see bush attacked they have no choice but to bash france and other "wimpy" countries, perhaps they should start calling democrats "girlie men"
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm not conservative. Regardless, "wimpy" is the last thing I would call France. To act indignant about the Iraq conflict on humanitarian grounds when they had such an obvious agenda for personal gain (at the expense of the Iraqi poor) took some major #^&* !</p>
<p>
[quote]
it turns out that democrats are the ones who know how to handle an economy and ensure that a larger plurality of people are in good shape rather than republicans whose administrations benefit the top 1% of wage earners
[/quote]
</p>
<p>...and my good friend, Mr. Karl Marx, knew how to handle an economy so that an even LARGER plurality of people were in good shape. Are you going somewhere other than socialism/gutted communism with this?</p>
<p>
[quote]
over the last 40 years, the poor have gotten poorer and the rich have gotten richer, and the middle class is getting squeezed, stop the bs and return to a progressive tax system, we are currently operating a republican pork barrel budget with 1959 level revenues, this CANNOT continue
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I guess not--Go ye out and sow the seeds of revolution among the proletariat!</p>
<p>dont think I wont.... lol, I think we should return to the days of LBJ without Vietnam... those were good days, the economy was booming and the great society program was in effect.. the country was progressive and democrats controlled all the parts of government...( I espescially like the WArren court)</p>
<p>and yes, you didn't refute my earlier assertations regarding </p>
<p>"over the last 40 years, the poor have gotten poorer and the rich have gotten richer, and the middle class is getting squeezed, stop the bs and return to a progressive tax system, we are currently operating a republican pork barrel budget with 1959 level revenues, this CANNOT continue"</p>
<p>oddly enough, a balanced budget was part of Newt Gingrich's Contract with America, last I remeber Gingrich was quite conservative. If I am a fiscal conservative and social liberal, that makes me a libertarian.. not a marxist or communist, you should get your ideologies right before labeling people .... BUshie(ha ha, jk,:))</p>
<p>"blame the tragedy of 9/11 for bush's deficits and troublesome tax cuts.... btw heres an intersting statistic, the US spent less for WWII and the New Deal Programs than bush I and bush II spent"</p>
<p>sure they would. The current US economy is a $10 trillion economy compared to WWII economy that was hardly $250 bn (adjusted for inflation).
economics 101 - federal spending and measured deficits helps spur consumer spending in short term and reduces the shocks in economic cycle...</p>
<p>I don't think full socialism can work in any large-stage, industrial economy, but I also think the US would be better served to be <em>a little</em> more socialist in some sectors if it was carried out intelligently (actually, just medicine--99.999% of the time I think the Gov's hands should be off).</p>
<p>I actually agree with you. In fact, I voted libertarian for every office that I could conscionably throw my vote away (EG not for president, congress, ect). They seem to be the perfect mix. Right in the areas when they should be right (no massive social programs) and left when they should be progressive (stem cells, abortion). There's a lot to be said for not being influenced by bible-thumpers or out-of-touch limousine liberals.</p>
<p>"economics 101 - federal spending and measured deficits helps spur consumer spending in short term and reduces the shocks in economic cycle..."</p>
<p>I wonder who's going to have to pay back those deficits, it'll be us and I don't want to get stuck with the bill of republican pork barrel politics</p>
<p>sempitern - the gr8 thing about having the $ as the global currency is tht every1 in the world ends up payin the bill. For example - China and Japan are the main provide of money to fund our deficits (we borrow, they lend). So essentially, they buy US $ treasuries and sell their goods to us.
High deficits over some time will lead to currency devaluation (30% since 2002 against Euro). But the fun part comes in that a lot of these loss is also suffered by Chinese and Japanese, because those ppl are holding so much of US $.
The reason they have to do it is coz otherwise, US wont have a good enough economy to buy their goods and keep their economy alive.</p>
<p>having said tht, over a long term US demographic problem (baby boomers) is a much bigger problem than the deficits etc. and I think tht taking a strong stance on social security, bush has shown some 'wise' decisiveness to tackle long term problems, even it it means using unpopular means...</p>
<p>The future of the dollar looks bleak in terms of increase in value. All thanks to Bush. He's no doubt getting a dig at China, Japan and Korea, and is boosting U.S exports, but the question is: How Long? it cant continue forever. export TO u.s will drop because the countries will be getting less in return for exported goods. As it is, the trade deficit of America is burgeoning, and Bush's policy will hurt America in the future. </p>
<p>Gore was no better. He wanted to curb outsourcing and inturn stifle the economy to such a point that the dollar will crumble. And Adi, I'm the one suffering here in korea with the korean won dropping from 1400 wons per dollar to 1000 wons per dollar :mad:</p>