heads = hawks win, tails = doves lose

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by darkhorse, Mar 20, 2003.

  1. Food for thought: it may be that the left has sharply opposed this war because they knew that if the US followed through, the left is screwed. Bush and Blair called the bluff, and now they have a good shot at taking the pot.

    If the war is short and sweet with minimal U.S. casualties, the operation will be deemed a solid success, and media will soon shift its focus to liberated Iraqis and the horror stories of torture they endured under Hussein's reign.

    If the war is long and protracted and Saddam makes use of human shields and chemical/biological weapons, everything the hawks ever said about Saddam will be 100% vindicated in real time and resolve to take him out will be doubled.

    And furthermore, the "blood for oil" argument will be put to bed after the shooting stops, when a) Iraq's oil fields are put in trust for the people of Iraq, b) oil companies from nations all over the world start bidding for contracts, and c) it becomes abundantly clear that dollars spent on Iraqi resources will be used to build a better life for Iraq's people.

    No wonder the left is screaming bloody murder. Everything they hold dear is on the chopping block. This isn't just a war on Saddam Hussein- it's a war on the rotten, mushy core of their hallowed ideals. Military might and use of force as a legitimate solution to a problem? A country acting in its own interests rather than kowtowing to its lilliputian detractors? UN authority exposed as a sham? Principles of right and wrong elevated above the bureacratic halls of 'international law'? Morality, conviction and duty getting the upper hand on sophistication and ennui? Sons of the grandes écoles being scoffed at and mocked by the unwashed masses? And horror of horrors, when the rebuilding of Iraq comes, the institution of capitalism itself playing a humanitarian role????

    Pardon my callousness, but no wonder that protester threw himself off the golden gate bridge.
     
  2. YOU GOT IT !!! Best post I've seen in a long time.
     

  3. I assume then that you're not one of those conservatives who throws a fit whenever a judge takes into account the particulars of a case, rather than mechanically applying the precise letter of the (bureaucratic) 'law'? (Or, heaven forbid, advocates interpreting the hallowed Constitution through 21st century lenses.)
     
  4. what happens AFTER what worries the saner people even some 'normal' republicans.
    Entertain this for a while....
    Great victory in Iraq and oil falls. We force the Iraqis deal oil in dollars...so far so good (for a while)...
    The US economy is still in doldrums and more and more companies cut back the labor force. No one spends in the US and more and more people fail their mortgage payments. Dollar falls
    even further. Banks are hurting.
    Election time for Bush...he gets voted OUT of office. End of the Bush family presidency...(I hope Colin Powel will run - first smart and decent person in the chair for a long time...)
    Left is back screaming bloody murder and ignoring pressing domestic agendas by the Prez.
    Wars don't always jumps start a poor, deflationary faltering economy. I only wish.
     

  5. Since when was that the point?

    We are in a long term economic cycle that is going to play itself out regardless of war, and things are likely going to get a lot worse on the home front before they get better. This would be true even if the war never happened, even if 9/11 never happened.

    I agree (or rather I assert) that the fiscal consequences of this war may make our economic situation worse than it already would have been. I think Bush knows this full well. But that doesn't change the fact that it's the right thing to do, for reasons far bigger than economic ones.

    Leadership is doing the right thing, the hard thing, even if it does long term damage to your personal agenda. A true leader will stay the course without counting the cost to himself. I think Bush understands this, and I know full well that Blair does. This example of true leadership is another reason why they are hated by some who openly preach virtue, yet have secretly been guided by self-promotion and self-interest all their lives.

    Now back to my regularly scheduled radio silence...
     
  6. "I assume then that you're not one of those conservatives who throws a fit whenever a judge takes into account the particulars of a case, rather than mechanically applying the precise letter of the (bureaucratic) 'law'? (Or, heaven forbid, advocates interpreting the hallowed Constitution through 21st century lenses.)"

    Way to go avoiding all the points that the man had to say!
     
  7. rs7

    rs7

    I hate to do this...really..
    I hate to cut and paste. But I feel compelled to make an exception, because of the source.

    Arianna Huffington. Republican. Fan of Newt Gingrich. Columnist.

    Here is what SHE says about these issues. Not what some "fanatic, tree-hugging left wing liberal damn democrat that Mondo Trader believes should be in prison for sedition".

    This is a well respected conservative active REPUBLICAN and (somewhat diminished after thinking things through) Conservative.

    Here Ya Go:


    Corporate America Divvies Up The Post-Saddam Spoils

    By Arianna Huffington

    Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a winner in Iraq. Yes, I know that
    the first smart bomb has yet to be dropped on Baghdad. But that's
    just a formality. The war has already been won. The conquering
    heroes are not generals in fatigues but CEOs in suits, and the
    shock troops are not an advance guard of commandos but legions of
    lobbyists.

    The Bush administration is currently in the process of doling out
    over $1.5 billion in government contracts to American companies
    lining up to cash in on the rebuilding of postwar Iraq. So bombs
    away! The more destruction the better -- at least for the lucky
    few in the rebuilding business.

    The United Nations has traditionally overseen the reconstruction
    of war zones like Afghanistan or Kosovo. But in keeping with its
    unilateral, the-world-is-our-sandbox approach to this invasion,
    the White House has decided to nail a "Made in the USA" sign on
    this Iraqi fixer-upper. Postwar Iraq will be rebuilt using red,
    white, and blueprints.

    Talk about advance planning: Even as the people of Iraq are
    girding themselves for the thousands of bombs expected to rain
    down on them during the first 24 hours of the attack, the
    administration is already picking and choosing who will be given
    the lucrative job of cleaning up the rubble. Postwar rebuilding
    is a solitary bright spot in our own carpet-bombed economy.

    To further expedite matters, the war-powers-that-be invoked
    "urgent circumstances" clauses that allowed them to subvert the
    requisite competitive bidding process -- the free market be
    damned -- and invite a select group of companies to bid on the
    rebuilding projects. No British companies were included, which
    has left many of them seething and meeting with government
    officials in London to find out where they stand.

    So just which companies were given first crack at the post-Saddam
    spoils?

    Well, given Team Bush's track record, it will probably not fill
    you with "shock and awe" to learn that the common denominator
    among the chosen few is a proven willingness to make large
    campaign donations to the Grand Old Party. Between them, the
    bidders -- a quartet of well-connected corporate consortiums that
    includes Bechtel Group, Fluor Corp., and, of course, Vice
    President Cheney's old cronies at Halliburton -- have donated a
    combined $2.8 million over the past two election cycles, 68
    percent of which went to Republicans.

    The insider track given these fat cat donors proves afresh that
    splurging on a politician is one of the soundest and safest
    investments you can make. Where else will a $2.8 million ante
    offer you a one-in-four shot at raking in a $1.5 billion payoff?

    And that $1.5 billion is just for starters. The president is
    planning to give post-Saddam Iraq an extreme makeover -- a
    wide-ranging overhaul that will include the transformation of the
    country's educational, health-care, and banking systems -- all
    funded by taxpayer dollars and administered by private U.S.
    contractors. Think of it as a for-profit Marshall Plan.

    "The administration's goal," reads one of the reconstruction
    contracts that are up for bids, "is to provide tangible evidence
    to the people of Iraq that the U.S. will support efforts to bring
    the country to political security and economic prosperity."

    As a first step toward Iraqi prosperity, the president's
    ambitious postwar plan earmarks $100 million to ensure that
    Iraq's 25,000 schools have all the supplies and support necessary
    to "function at a standard level of quality" -- including books
    and supplies for 4.1 million Iraqi schoolchildren.

    I'm sure those schools in Oregon that are being forced to shut
    down a month early due to inadequate funding, or the low-income
    students in California who are suing the state in a desperate
    effort to obtain adequate textbooks and qualified teachers of
    their own, would love to see the same kind of "tangible evidence"
    of President Bush's support.

    The same goes for our flatlining public health-care system. While
    more than a million poor Americans are about to lose their access
    to publicly funded medical care, the president is in the market
    for a corporate contractor to oversee a $100 million upgrade of
    Iraq's hospitals and clinics.

    And the White House has announced its intention to redesign
    Iraq's financial rules and banking system after it bombs the
    country halfway to oblivion. Too bad the administration keeps
    watering down reforms for the financial rules and banking system
    here at home.

    That's another way corporate America is profiting from the
    looming war. With all eyes on Iraq, few are paying attention to
    how little is being done to reform and redesign our own financial
    rules.

    The new chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, for
    instance, is getting away with an enforcement regime every bit as
    limp as that of his predecessor, the supremely spineless Harvey
    Pitt.

    Last week, in his first congressional testimony since assuming
    control of the watchdog agency, William Donaldson made it clear
    that, despite a massive increase in the SEC's budget, we
    shouldn't expect too much in the way of fundamental reform --
    stressing that one of his top priorities would be boosting the
    morale of the agency.

    I don't know about you, but I would feel a whole lot better if
    he'd made boosting the morale of a badly burned public Job No. 1.
    Tossing a slew of corporate crooks in the slammer would be a good
    start.

    Maybe America's beleaguered investors should band together with
    this country's "left behind" schoolchildren and start stockpiling
    a couple of plywood drones with overly long wingspans, some
    high-strength aluminum tubes, and a few discarded canisters of
    chemical gas.

    Apparently, that's the only way to get this administration's
    attention.


    Peace my brethren,
    :)Rs7
     

  8. I wasn't 'avoiding' them at all. I actually agree that attacking Iraq may indeed have been the best thing to do.

    Apart from that, I didn't see a whole lot of 'points' to respond to. It's just amusing to see conservatives acting in the same "we know better", self-righteous manner they've long accused (often justifiably) the left of.

    Please.

    Personally, I prefer Anne Coulter -- she makes a good point, oh, once every month or two. The rest of the time it's a good laugh. :) This guy had neither.
     
  9. Anne Coulter makes a good point every day, excellent show. Both the left and the right think they know better, the difference is that reality doesn't clash with the right wing as it stands today, and the mainstream voter realizes it. There is over 70% support for a war that Tom Daschle hates so much he is destroying his career over it.
     
  10. more accurately, mainstream news sources say that polls say that there is support for the war.
     
    #10     Mar 20, 2003