What is your objective? Do you want to see the government turned into just the Military, FBI, CIA, and Homeland Security? You don't seem to realize that tax dollars are an investment in the future. As for the war... my friends are not in Iraq fighting for American security. We all know that our economy is floating on a dirty pool of oil... now mixed with lots and lots of blood. Who's paying for this war? You can't have it both ways. You can't have tax cuts and support a war. I wish you would think about the future beyond tomorrow. Your post just made me so sad...
 

Tetricus - My future beyond tomorrow has an IHOP in Tehran, a Wal-Mart in Fallujah, a Hyundai plant in Pyongyang, and a statue of that kid who stood up to the tanks in Beijing.
 

Hmm, you've covered a lot of ground here tetricus. I'll attempt to reply point by point.

**What is your objective?
I guess in the context of my post, freedom abroad, and the benefits that that freedom creates, including peace and prosperity for those enjoying it, and a more secure state of affairs domestically.

**Do you want to see the government turned into just the Military, FBI, CIA, and Homeland Security?

For brevity's sake, I'll roll all of these functions of government up under national and domestic security. As a conservative (with a libertarian bent) I believe that the function of government should be limited. That said, the most important functions of government, in fact the primary reasons for the existance of a government are national and domestic security. Without these, none of the rest matters.

**You don't seem to realize that tax dollars are an investment in the future.

Tax dollars are an investment in government. It's money that we entrust the government with to perform functions which it's not feasible for individuals and small groups to perform. Things which are in our common interest. National and domestic security are included in this, as are things like road work and international treaties. Some tax dollars are an investment in the future, some are an investment in the present, and still others are paying for functions performed in the past.

**As for the war... my friends are not in Iraq fighting for American security.

We clearly disagree here. Phrasing it as you have, I'm reluctant to believe that either of us will convince each other to change their mind. However, I urge you to keep an open mind. Positive things are happening in the Middle East and in other parts of the world, that even the hard-core left-wing is beginning to conced is, at least in part, the result of our actions in Iraq. Freedom, democracy, and the corresponding peace and prosperity that these things tend to bring, are the objectives I believe we're pursuing. I believe events are indicating that we're being successful.

**We all know that our economy is floating on a dirty pool of oil...

Oil is vital to our economy as it is to the economies of every nation in the world. Until we develop viable alternative energy sources, or the supply of oil makes its use unfeasible, this will continue to be true.

**now mixed with lots and lots of blood.

As long as their have been dictatorships in countries from which we and other countries purchase oil, there has always been blood mixed with oil (I'll indulge your metaphor). I would argue that, by liberating the people in the region the oil comes from, we give them ultimate control over the fruits of that oil. There has been an undeniable cost, true. I believe the ultimate outcome will be a positive for both the people we've liberated, and for the US and the rest of the world.

**Who's paying for this war?

Good question. At the moment, mostly (but not solely) U.S. taxpayers. I believe we'll see some return on that investment as a peaceful Iraq becomes a friendly trading partner, and as a safer world eliminates some of the need for defense spending.

**You can't have it both ways. You can't have tax cuts and support a war.

I disagree. You might argue that there will be a cost in the future for having low taxes while spending heavily on our national defense. I would argue that the benefits of low taxes to our economy (a more productive economy will produce more revenue at a lower taxation rate than a less productive economy will at a higher one) will offset some of this cost.

**I wish you would think about the future beyond tomorrow.

I believe that is precisely what the neocon international agenda does. It was easy to sit back and allow dictatorships to continue to create conditions that were horrific for those living under them, and posed a threat to ourselves. It would have been easy to continue that policy, and pretend (as we did throughout the 90's) that there was no cost to such an approach. I believe by investing heavily in Iraq's liberation, and in a corresponding change in the regional dynamics that is resulting from that liberation, we are absolutely looking long-term; and not sacrificing our children's security for our own comfort. We clearly disagree on this point.

**Your post just made me so sad...

I'm sorry it did. I stand by every word.
 

Well I do appreciate the time you took to write this response. Honestly, I am so disgusted with discussing politics that I could hardly write a decent response. But since you took the time to respond to me, I’ll just highlight some differences and possible oversights while hopefully staying in context of the original post.

***objective: freedom abroad, and the benefits that that freedom creates, including peace and prosperity for those enjoying it, and a more secure state of affairs domestically.

Your objectives are noble, and I believe genuine, however the objectives of this administration lay somewhere in the umbrage of liberating and rebuilding the Middle East. Our ‘closed door’ energy policies and no-bid contracts surely are defying your own notions of free (fair?) market ideals. I’m suspicious about the freedom ‘we’ are interested in creating. Expanding markets does not equate to the development of individual liberty. Call me a pessimist, but I don’t see Iraq competitively producing many products besides energy (The US, as a developed economy, and Mexico, as a developing economy, don’t even try to compete with China in many areas). Opening up Iraq as a “periphery” economy to satisfy our ‘core’ needs (energy) will favor turning Iraq into another “under-developed” IMF debtor nation. Those enjoying their newfound freedom will undoubtedly be those in control of Iraq’s oil. When there’s a large degree of inequality and high relative deprivation, which I see occurring as Iraq’s economy develops and there are inevitably people who thought their new freedom would bring better economic conditions, stability would hardly be the world to describe Iraq’s domestic affairs.


***in fact the primary reasons for the existence of a government are national and domestic security. Without these, none of the rest matters.

While Thomas Hobbes may agree with you, I’m not too fearful of any Leviathan besides Osama, who, coincidently, is still running around free. To me, natural law is not a state of war in which “every man is an enemy to every man.” The natural law is a state of equality and freedom, therefore government is necessary in order to preserve natural law. That’s why many of us on the Left find Bush’s policies akin to an over-protective father. The Patriot Act is a prime example of Big Brother at work. While you place an emphasis on Safety needs, with I do respect, I think you are leaving out a more basic level of need, such as the physiological needs: Clean water, air, affordable housing, safe food, etc. Only when the last tree has been felled, the last river poisoned and the last fish caught, man will know that he cannot eat money.


***Tax dollars….common interest…National and domestic security are included in this, as are things like road work and international treaties. Some tax dollars are an investment in the future, some are an investment in the present, and still others are paying for functions performed in the past.

I think we may somewhat agree on this. Taxes are the dues we pay to enjoy the benefits of our society. I don’t want to get on a Social Security trip right now.

** Positive things are happening in the Middle East…Freedom, democracy, and the corresponding peace and prosperity that these things tend to bring, are the objectives I believe we're pursuing.

I’d of preferred to see higher representation of all groups voting in Iraq, but I suppose I’ll take what we can get if it means sending my friends home sooner. I disagree with you about our true motives in the Middle East. I never made the connection with the immediate need for war with Saddam Hussein, and not concentrating our efforts on capturing Osama Bin Laden.

***Until we develop viable alternative energy sources, or the supply of oil makes its use unfeasible, this will continue to be true.

I believe a step in the right direction would be closing SUV tax loopholes (farm equipment Hummers?) and encouraging alternative energy in our own backyard, instead of encouraging mercury-emitting coal-fire power plants to expand their capabilities by neglecting the New Source Review in the Orwellian named “Clear Skies Initiative.” If we increased our CAFÉ standards, national fuel economy standards, we could greatly reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Ignoring Kyoto, which I’ll admit is not perfect, is definitely a step in the wrong direction. I’m waiting to see Bush’s alternative to assist in the global effort to reduce global warming (not climate change – additional Orwellian language).


** I believe the ultimate outcome will be a positive for both the people we've liberated, and for the US and the rest of the world. / I believe we'll see some return on that investment as a peaceful Iraq becomes a friendly trading partner, and as a safer world eliminates some of the need for defense spending.

I really wish I shared your optimism on this matter. I see Iraq selling oil to help finance its reconstruction, but I also see this as furtherance of global dependence on oil. Developed and developing nations are dependent on oil, we are both right there. As an economist and a believer of inevitable ecological fascism, I see securing Iraq as militarily and economically smart…that is until you count the externalities of an oil economy. Let’s look past how many soldiers and civilians have died in this war, every day in the US and around the world our use of oil for energy is damaging our environment and our health. The way Bush is wagging his whoop-ass stick around the region; I hope you are right about the defense spending.


** I would argue that the benefits of low taxes to our economy … will offset some of this cost.

The economy –and particularly the labor market, in which middle-class families have seen their incomes decline for four years – continues to need assistance. The tax cuts were top heavy; that is, most of the tax changes were targeted towards higher income earners, who are typically more likely to save money than to spend it (marginal propensity to save)– the opposite of what the economy needed. In the first five years of the tax cuts, those earning more than $200,000 a year received an estimated tax cut that was 12 times as large as the average. This should sound familiar; we tried this with Hoover and Reagan. Supply-side or “trickle down” economics does not work. 7.7 trillion dollars is a hell of a lot of money for us to “offset,” particularly when it is financed by foreign investors. Unemployment is still high; wages are suppressed for most entry level positions. Income inequality, (check out the gini coefficient), is rising. Right now every citizen has to individually pay off $26,142.96 of this debt. You declared yourself a Neo-con; I think its time to come clean. My experience with Neo-Conservatives has taught me that they appreciate the affects of a large national debt mainly because a large deficit leaves little to no room for social spending. The game goes ‘The EPA and environmental protection is something we can’t afford at this time’ as we pile on the debt. It’s a backdoor way to remove social safety nets and regulatory agencies that protect citizens. I said your objectives seem to be supporting “safety” organizations, such as the CIA to the Military. Neo-Conservatives believe in a dominant-father ideology where failure is the result of a lack of discipline. While you may care for the environment (who doesn’t want clean air and water?) you find that the government’s only role in your life is to secure your safety.

** It was easy to sit back and allow dictatorships to continue to create conditions that were horrific for those living under them, and posed a threat to ourselves… our children's security for our own comfort.

I was all for negotiations to remove Saddam from power. I don’t like to see Iraqis tortured (by the US or Saddam) any more than I want to see Rwandan children getting their ears sliced off during the 1994 genocides. There are a lot of opportunities for humanitarian efforts. Some time war is necessary, like when the US entered WWII to stop the Nazis, but had diplomacy been exhausted when we entered this war? Did Iraq pose a threat to our security or our children? I think we have placed our children at even ever greater risk from the cost of this war and the ramifications of what may happen if we screw up and breed another generation of disenfranchised youth, angry at the west. I can’t help thinking of how many Iraqi families have been destroyed due to this war. Death brings some bitter feelings, no matter how much economic prosperity their neighbors experience.


I do hope things work out in Iraq, but if we MUST intervene again, I hope we look towards diplomacy before jumping into another war.
 

Tetricus,

No guarantee I'm going to find time over the weekend to respond thoughtfully to the many points you've raised. If I do get a chance, I think I'll try to raise it up a level from issue by issue positions to explore the core beliefs which lead us to our various differing opinions.

In case I don't get a chance to have that discussion any time soon, I simply wanted to thank you for your thoughtful response, and especially for your rare recognition of the base motivations which we share: peace, prosperity, liberty, security, etc. So often, the debate between our respective sides reduces to accusations impugning the motives of our adversaries. It seems you agree with me that, while our goals are the same, it is in the means that we differ (often drastically).

You do assign ulterior motives to President Bush and others in the government. While I acknowledge that there is always a degree of cynical motivation in any position of power, I'll assert my belief that Bush's motives - at least with respect to Iraq and the Middle East - are more noble than you believe them to be.

Anyhow, thanks again for the thoughtful and respectful discourse. I hope I find the time to continue it later.

-Nomad
 

I'm all for civil discourse, but can you can't seriously believe that we could have negotiated with Saddam for his removal from power, can you? Okay, fair enough, rhetorical question.

About oil - you didn't read the liberal New Republic's point that if all we wanted were oil, we could have lobbied the UN to lift sanctions? I'm not saying the UN would have happily complied - the sanctions were too profitable for their staff. But still, it's a good point.

About Sunni participation in the elections - surely you've heard that now that the elections went off with nary a hitch, Sunni leaders are telling their peeps to participate in the process. Furthermore, in Iraq you had a minority oppressing a majority. When apartheid ended, would you have complained that whites were not voting in large numbers, especially if the white leadership called on all whites to boycott, and some white gangs let it be known they would kill their own if they tried to vote? Again, I'm hoping this is rhetorical.

Also, I don't know why you trust Nomad but not Bush - you know equally little about both of them, and, trust me, Nomad's a real jerk. And I'm pretty sure he's heavily invested in the oil market. Or maybe it's fast food - I forget.
 

Yeah, actually, I do know Bush. There are not a lot of people who make working campaigns a career path, so the circles are close, on both sides...believe it or not. It's not important. I guess it goes back to the fact that I like to believe in people until they prove me wrong. I've seen what Bush has done to our environment, and that alone, even blind to the other things this administration is reponsible for, is enough for me to turn my back on him. And I'll leave off with this note. A democracy itself is not a tool for freedom. A deliberated democracy is... If you aren't familiar with it, please find out more about it.

-- The Angry Sicilian
 

OBL is not the answer,AQ is here whether or not he lives or dies. It is an ideological problem that needs to be dealt with.
 

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=566425&page=1

Actually, according to ABC News AQ might not be here.
 

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=566425&page=1

Actually, according to ABC News AQ might not be as big a threat as we originally supposed.