I heard she was going to, but never heard any more.  Guess the MSM wanted to squelch that.

And I would agree you are not a "classic US Liberal", and while you may be giving Obama some breathing room, you are not a happy camper (I know the TARP and deficit are the end of the world!).

You are consistent.  I dont agree with most of your positions, but I do enjoy (and have missed) reading them.

Finally, in a way I do agree with you on Bush and Obama.  There are unfortunately too many similarities.  And all of them anti-conservative and anti-freedom.  But where Bush was "j'accused" about things, Obama did them without thinking twice.

Arty, if one were to listen to the media, WMD's would have been the entire reason for going to war in Iraq, but that is just, if I may us Al Gore's word's, an inconvenient truth. Saddam, was in violation of a number of UN resolutions, more than one of which mandated a military response. Europe which can talk a good talk, has very little will to back up its words. The WMD's was only the cherry on top of the cake (I listed those resolution a long time ago /w link, I don't care to find them again, but they are out there). IMO Saddam should have been removed during the first Gulf War. His actions warranted it, but we didn't want to hurt any Arab sensibilities. How many Iraqis died under Saddam and his sons sadistic regime in those 12 years? Plenty. These is the problems one has when they do half the job. I believe the Iraqi's today, despite some lingering violence, have a much brighter future because of US action.

That may be so, but now the same folks that railed Bush are quiet when Obama does the same things, on a much grander scale. Right and wrong are not interchangeable.

Actually Doc, the point I was making was that my name isn't lewis, it's lucas.  [\s--> But yeah, I'm still the lovable guy you love to erroneously assume is as immature, etc. as I was over four years ago (god forbid people change and mature, right doc? from one JU outcast to another \s] Have a lovely christmas.

Actually Charles, according to the words you have used here, there IS something wrong with it. Whether or not those words are your actual principles, or if they're merely the tactics you claim to use - to me, your words reinforce what I see in our nation.

The lack of respect for boundaries; when people don't exactly practice what they preach. You say it's all well and good, that this country is all about differences and the coexistance of such - but I call bullshit. Look at the people the mindlessly follow parties, and bash anyone who is of the opposite (or different) party, it's ridiculous. Or look at those who push their faith onto the mainstream? There is no live and let live Charles.

I believe in coexistance just as you say you do, but the reality is that there is a very chaotic coexistance. Mindless fools snipe and claw at others merely because they're different. Sound familiar?

I want to see people working together to solve our problems, regardless of orientation. I don't truly believe that there is one best way - liberal or conservative. You see where I'm coming from?

~A

Oh yes they are; as long as there are different religions - right and wrong, fact and truth, are interchangeable and relative.

But Nitro, does that give us the right to interfere in other people's affairs? Would you like it if another country assumed (albeit arrogantly) that they had the right to get involved in our affairs?

Sorry, but I just have issues with that notion.

You mean like Japan Dec 7, 1941? Or like AJ answering responses posed to Arty? Please. We should be minding our own business in Copenhagen. Love how liberals pick and choose there definition of "interference". 

So many folks have conveniently forgotten that Iraq fired missiles and AA at our planes on an almost daily basis while our planes were inforcing a UN-mandated no-fly zone.  There were a number of reasons that we went into Iraq, WMD was NOT one of them.  Bush clearly stated on more than one occasion that Hussein was in the process of trying to acquire WMD and that the rest of the world could not wait around for him to get them. 

I am not bored.  I am pissed.  It is not boring to watch a band of political thugs do so much damage to this country that by the time a more conservative regime takes over, it may be too late to recover from the nasty mess that has been created.

If people don't pull their heads out of their fourth point of contact, this country will be is such sorry shape it will not be able to "interfere" in other countries' affairs...then we will see how restrained those other countries will be in meddling in OUR affairs.

Ahh yes, the time honoured debate about the Iraq war. You state that WMD's weren't the entire reason and you are absolutely correct.

-however-

The war was fraudulently sold to the American people as one of necessity, as Bush, Wolfowitz, Feith and co. screamed to high hell that they had "slam dunk" proof that Saddam was re-arming and was a direct threat to the west. He wasn't a threat to anyone but his own people. The UN arms inspectors, in concert with many intelligence and military analysts from your own nation unequivocally stated that Iraq didn't have the means to launch attacks outside their own borders. This was buried, ignored, or, if high-profile lead to criminal activities like the whole Plame affair.

But the invasion, and the war, was not necessary. Was Saddam a bad guy? Absolutely he was. But the U.S has a long history of getting in bed with bad guys the world over, so long as they're playing to your tune. Suharto killed over a million of his own people (most of them non-combatants but deemed politically undesirable) in a coup. And he did it with logistical and military support from the U.S.

Turkey (then the Ottoman empire) killed approximately 1.5 million Armenians in a genocidal campaign, the American ambassador sent a telegram to Washington recounting how he personally witnessed mass-slaughter that was part of a "campaign of race extermination" Washington didn't want to lose their ally so they let it slide. Even today, Turkey refuses to admit that the genocide even occurred and the U.S won't call a spade a spade, largely because they don't want to lose such a large, geo-politically important ally.

To state that you went into Iraq to spread freedom and get rid of a bad guy -because- he was a bad guy is disingenous at best. You went into Iraq to get rid of a bad guy who wouldn't play to your tune and was an obstacle to U.S geopolitical goals.... but, he posed no threat to you of any kind, therefore, you should not have invaded. Otherwise, why didn't you invade Indonesia when Suharto was knocking people off left and right? Why didn't you sever ties with Turkey and demand they at minimum acknowledge the genocide that occurred? There are many, many cases of the U.S doing business with men just as bad or worse then Saddam, so why all of the sudden take the high road in one isolated case? hhhmm?

Why thanks Dr. Guy! It's been awhile since I've seen you around these parts, but have enjoyed the fact that dialogue with you has always been civil and constructive despite major differences of opinion.

In regards to Obama, I most certainly am not a happy camper. I really do wish that your nation could break the stranglehold that two parties (both of whom I consider rotten and beholden to the same special interests) have on the political discussion. If more independents or, god-forbid a third party started to actually gain some traction maybe folks might feel like they have a choice other than "bad" and "worse" at the ballot box.

Yep, they sure did. Cindy Sheehan came in second with 46,118 votes. Not too bad for an independent taking on an entrenched incumbent like Pelosi!

BFD-

I don't think the U.S should be in the position to militarily interfere with any country, unless of course they are a beligerint who has declared war on you. Armies exist to defend a nation, -NOT- to garrison a planet and act as a rapid reaction force for the oil companies when one of the local strongmen decides to get uppity and go off-script.

But, don't worry. In a few more years your nation simply won't be able to afford it's network of hundreds of bases that exist outside of your borders and coupled with the fact that more than 60% of your energy is being imported from foreign sources, if you don't find a way to get off the oil and the coal you'll be in a world of hurt.

I wonder how much oil the US military is "garrisoning" in Germany, Korea, Italy, and of course Afghanistan.

And why were they saying this?  YOu brought it up, now tell the whole truth.

A lot of us do as well.  Just not enough.  And it is a game of chicken.  The first side that breaks will lose in the short term.

When the communist and socialist parties leave the Democrat party, there will be more than three (counting the Libertarian party).  So arty what your really saying is when the US becomes Canada, all will be right in the world...

Not totally.  Canada has its problems, but then I like the choice that NY 23 had.  And while some may say conservatives lost, I dont see it that way.  the Republicans will not run another Democrat lite in that district.

We need to be able to vote for a conservative (and let the liberals vote for whatever label they are hiding behind today).  But as we see, we may lose in the short term.  But I think it will be better in the long term.  We wont get everything, but at least we wont have the crap we do now where the 2 parties we have are trying to outspend each other.

For Iraq, most people say that we fought the war for oil.  Then what's this:

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1948787,00.html?cnn=yes

I was surprised to find that article or see that article in times.

As for the WMD, there are certain things that government and military organization would rather keep quiet.  Just because the media sprouts off that we didn't find anything over there doesn't necessarily mean that we didn't. 

In the 1990s, Russian genetic scientists were able to altered the immunological properties of anthrax, making existing vaccines and detection methods ineffective against this new genetically engineered type.

Saddam had connection with Russia, remember Russia was totally against Saddam being toppled.  Where do you think Saddam obtained information on how to build that nuclear plant back in the 80s?

Saddam also was very involved in the genetic engineering and the science of biological weapons.  There are certain things that governments and military would rather keep quiet to keep the masses from freaking out.

One more thing, the strain of influenza virus that caused the 1918 global epidemic was a particularly aggressive type. It showed a high capacity to cause severe disease and a propensity to kill fit young adults rather than the elderly. The mortality rate among the infected was over 2.5%, as compared to less than 0.1% in other influenza epidemics (Taubenberger et al. 1997). This high mortality rate, especially amongst the younger, lowered the average life expectancy in the USA by almost 10 years (Tumpey et al. 2002).

Most countries have access to this strain of flu (Iraq being one of them).  It is possible to genetically alter this strain in such a way to make it more aggressive and have a higher mortality rate as well as to ensure that it will affect young adults.

Great point. I was there for the lead up and beginning of the war. Everyone was issued Atropine and 2 Pam Chloride (in addition to gas masks). Hours of required training was given to all personnel. All this stuff costs money and time. It is also not visible preparations to the average citizen. Why would the US government carry on a charade like this with no audience present, unless they believed the threat to be real? WMD detractors seem to forget that biological and chemical weapons are WMD's, and that Iraq had previously used these weapons against the Kurds and the Iranians during their war.

It would be great if the rest of the world could keep their own backyards clean, so the US wouldn't have too. What many don't realize is that prevention is much less costlier than to clean up the worlds mess after it has a fit. Instead of asking the US to do less how about asking the rest of the free world to do more.

Well, actually in the case of Afghanistan a large portion of the U.S military deployments are located near the proposed route for the mother-of-all-pipelines that's going to theoretically carry natural gas from the caspian area and bypass Russia entirely. If you look at your history, the Clinton and even Bush 2 administrations courted the Taliban frequently to try and secure the rights and safety guarantees to build this pipeline. During this time the Taliban were running around carrying out summary executions and implementing sharia law that makes Saudi look like a paradise in comparison, their brutal and oppressive practices were well known but so long as the negotiations were on no one cared (similar to how everyone knew Saddam was gassing the Kurds but he was A-OK so long as he was fighting Iran)

When the Taliban made it clear that the deal was never going to happen, suddenly the buddy-buddy relationship ended and shortly thereafter came 9/11 and the subsequent invasion.

Now don't over-simplify this by thinking that it's another "oil-grab" argument. It isn't. Building this pipeline and transporting the energy resources through it has just as much to do  with the geo-political strategy of denying an adversary a winning hand.

Right now, Russia is one of the primary providers of natural gas to much of Europe. It is for this reason, coupled with the fact that Russia is a nuclear power, that Europe isn't going to fuck with them, end of story. Since Europe won't fuck with Russia, not only is the U.S extremely limited in what it can do, it's also a sure bet that if they were to take any unilateral action against Russia they could lose their European bases in Germany and Italy, similar in concept to when Turkey denied use of their country to U.S forces as a jumping off point to invade Iraq in GW2.

So anywho, with this pipeline built you've just provided a significant alternative to the Russian spigot, removing one potential dependency that would otherwise force European countries to sit on the sidelines. The second point, that Russia is a nuclear power, was supposed to be nullified by the missile shield that was being placed in Eastern Europe. I mean seriously, to state that interceptors in Poland were there to defend against Iranian missiles is beyond absurd. Once these two measures were in place, the U.S would have a much freer hand in what it could do to influence events in the region, and could seriously hamper Russia's economy, due to the massive revenues they generate from shipping natural gas from the Caspian through their own pipelines.

But, don't listen to me. I'm a no-nothing idiot. Go read about it here, and if you don't like what you read here go do your own research on it.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2001/hydrocarbons.htm

Oh, and by the way. You know the current president of Afghanistan, that fellow who just got "re-elected" despite the admission of massive voting fraud? He used to be a consultant for UNOCAL, the company formed to build the pipeline. 

Not at all my good fellow! I think you're drastically over-simplifying politics with the above statement. Who's to say that your nation should only have one major conservative party, one major liberal party, and everything else has to be flavours in between (one socialist party, one libertarian party, etc)

Why shouldn't some folks form a conservative party that's -actually- conservative...as I believe Dr. Guy has suggested... to take on the Republicans? What would be so horrible about having three left-leaning parties and three right-leaning parties all running at the same time? You might even get a true conservative party that's not beholden to the military-industrial complex like Eisenhower warned the nation about when he was leaving office. You might actually get the beginning stages of national discussion on topics like healthcare, environment, energy policy, education and so forth. Right now, every topic that I see seems to be boiling down to the party line, which is ludicrous and kills constructive dialogue.

For every topic out there, exists the official party stance on that subject. It's the world according to the democrats or the republicans, period end of sentence....and like I've been stating, this world vision between the two parties really isn't terribly different, other than the window dressing to give the appearance of difference.

For example, NAFTA is one of the most damaging bills to ever come into North America. And it was pushed through by both a Republican (Bush 1) and Democratic (Clinton) administration working towards the same goal. If either party really gave two rips about your nation, they would have killed it. Of course, we passed it here in Canada too, with a similar background of a conservative leader starting it and a liberal leader finalizing it.

While I'm mad as hell that it's still around and that my country is part of it, at least we have other parties that have a role in the national dialogue who are against it. Meanwhile, the official party line from both Dems and Repubs is that it's part of free trade which is inherently good, period end of sentence. Nevermind the millions of skilled laborers who lost their livelihoods and had to take up far less income generating service jobs like janitors, gas station attendants and wal-mart greeters.