PDA

View Full Version : What Would You Have Done?if The War Did'nt Happen?



human_pet
06-25-2003, 06:37 AM
I mean if The War in Iraq had not occur,what would you have done to save the iraqis?Though it's too late,I would rather like to know what more we could do other than wage a war.I'm pro-war on this subject as I think war is the only option ,but I don't think Bush should be the one who wage the war,as I don't think many people in the world trusts him,and that includes me,it seems whatever good he does for others,there's always a serious price to pay.....So,what would you have done or Suggest be done???

Salam/Peace :)

slammy_dunken
06-25-2003, 06:41 AM
Wait for the Iraqis to attack first. :lol:

human_pet
06-25-2003, 06:48 AM
Originally posted by slammy_dunken@25 June 2003 - 06:41
Wait for the Iraqis to attack first. :lol:
The 'Iraqis' Are'nt capable and don't want to attack ,they already have too much on their hands to attack some country who's just being paranoid thinking that anyone who's not with him/her are the enemy so they(the 'enemy') must be eliminated,you know what's funny?People keep hating Islam for the reason above which is not true in the case of Islam,but when the US do it,it seems those same people support it...,

Salam/Peace :)

ShockAndAwe^i^
06-25-2003, 06:54 AM
We would probably be on UN Resolution #20 at least by now.
A tyrant would still be in power,professional rapists would be doing their thing and mass graves would still be being dug.

Do you hear that?
That sound.
It's the sound of a thousand leftist's chanting anti American slogans and burning George Bush in effigy.
You asked for it!

human_pet
06-25-2003, 06:56 AM
Originally posted by ShockAndAwe^i^@25 June 2003 - 06:54
,professional rapists would be doing their thing
Who are you referring to?

salam/Peace :)

ShockAndAwe^i^
06-25-2003, 07:01 AM
Are you not aware of the rape squads that Saddam setup?
Google search >Rape squads< or >Saddam Rape Squads

human_pet
06-25-2003, 07:05 AM
Originally posted by ShockAndAwe^i^@25 June 2003 - 07:01
Are you not aware of the rape squads that Saddam setup?
Google search >Rape squads< or >Saddam Rape Squads
Sorry,I was not aware,well,ok,you have a point there,I thought he was just a mass murderer...

human_pet
06-25-2003, 10:52 AM
Personally,I would suggest that the money that was spent on the military be used for the country(US) itself,I would think that one should spend money on one&#39;s country first than on the other country.....,just a thought....

Some_Geezer
06-25-2003, 11:57 AM
Originally posted by ShockAndAwe^i^@25 June 2003 - 06:54
We would probably be on UN Resolution #20 at least by now.
A tyrant would still be in power,professional rapists would be doing their thing and mass graves would still be being dug.


And the US Would&#39;nt be sitting on the worlds 3rd biggest Oil Supply...

clocker
06-25-2003, 01:18 PM
Originally posted by Some_Geezer@25 June 2003 - 05:57

And the US Would&#39;nt be sitting on the worlds 3rd biggest Oil Supply...
No, the French and the Russians would be.

j2k4
06-25-2003, 01:37 PM
Originally posted by clocker+25 June 2003 - 08:18--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker &#064; 25 June 2003 - 08:18)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Some_Geezer@25 June 2003 - 05:57

And the US Would&#39;nt be sitting on the worlds 3rd biggest Oil Supply...
No, the French and the Russians would be.[/b][/quote]
To answer the original question:

I wasn&#39;t personally planning to do anything; even though I was certainly in favor of our military doing so.

I myself was comfortable with my U.N.-like stance of inaction, but then the truth of Clocker&#39;s statement dawned on me, so I called my friends George, Dick and Don together, and we came up with this plan....... ;)

angellynn26
06-25-2003, 10:32 PM
Originally posted by ShockAndAwe^i^@25 June 2003 - 03:01
Are you not aware of the rape squads that Saddam setup?
Google search >Rape squads< or >Saddam Rape Squads
If that is reason enough to wage war, why are we not bombing India, China, Japan, and MANY other countries that sell little girls into slavery and prostitution? Is that not rape of the foulest kind? Funny thing is, in Japan, those little girls are visited in brothels most often by American businessmen.

Are you aware of the underground little girl slave trade going on right here in our backyard? People from Asian countries smuggle children into America and sell them to rich perverts as sex slaves or to U.S. sweatshops... YES, sweatshops right here in good &#39;ol America.

While it&#39;s true that most of these countries&#39; leaders did not make a &#39;rape squad&#39;, it is still condoned by these governments. That definitely makes it no different of a situation.

How is our motive only &#39;helping&#39; when we only attack those that are weak enough to be bullied and have something we want, but that &#39;helping&#39; hand goes away when we consider truly getting our hands dirty with countries capable of fighting back? It&#39;s a double standard that makes us look weak, like nothing more than the kind of bully that talks big, but can&#39;t back it up.

I&#39;m not just talking about the rape business, but also the wmd in ours and any country & oil and what our gov&#39;t had to gain from attacking Iraq. Why is it o.k. for ANY country to own wmd? I believe the planet should be rid of them entirely, although I am aware of the dilemma of getting rid of them. It&#39;s no different than the gun issue... if we take them all away, how do we defend ourselves against those who have them? And we know how hard the black market is to control.

As for the war, yes... I believe that Saddam should have been brought down, without a doubt. However, I cannot condone the way Bush went about it. The lies and misleading data were not needed to gain American support to go against Saddam.

I also agree that Bush was not the man to do this. Not because of the feelings the rest of the world has against him, but because his father was the one who started this war with Sadaam. Not to mention the fact that Sr. and Reagan were the ones responsible for putting him into power to begin with&#33; It was not going to be a pretty situation for Jr. no matter which way he approached it. And his choices throughout the situation with Iraq only made it worse for him.

So, what I would have done differently is to have someone else in charge.

Rat Faced
06-26-2003, 07:03 PM
Just out of interest...and i havent looked this up beforehand.

How many Troops, both US and UK have now been killed or injured in Iraq since the war ended...by this population that really wanted us to go in.....

j2k4
06-26-2003, 07:51 PM
Originally posted by Rat Faced@26 June 2003 - 14:03
Just out of interest...and i havent looked this up beforehand.

How many Troops, both US and UK have now been killed or injured in Iraq since the war ended...by this population that really wanted us to go in.....
Good question, but I think one could safely draw a distinction between the population that wished to be liberated and the much smaller one which is now bedevilling our troops.

sArA
06-26-2003, 10:56 PM
And Britain loses 6 more.................

MagicNakor
06-26-2003, 10:57 PM
I don&#39;t have exact numbers, but about a week ago I caught the tail-end of the early morning news, and they mentioned that the "non-combat" causualties are soon-to-be overtaking the "non-combat" causualties of Vietnam. Of course, there&#39;s been more causualties since then, so it could have surpassed those numbers.

:ninja:

clocker
06-26-2003, 11:19 PM
Originally posted by angellynn26@25 June 2003 - 16:32

If that is reason enough to wage war, why are we not bombing India, China, Japan, and MANY other countries that sell little girls into slavery and prostitution? Is that not rape of the foulest kind? Funny thing is, in Japan, those little girls are visited in brothels most often by American businessmen.

.
The Far East has a long and persistent history of slavery and child prostitution. I think that any participation by "American businessmen" is surely only a fraction of a percentage point.

J'Pol
06-26-2003, 11:37 PM
There is every difference in the world between these atrocities taking place in a country and the government of that country doing it to their people.

Drug trafficking takes place in the UK, that does not make the government drug traffickers. Similarly with rape and murder. They happen here, but not because the government cause them to happen.

The point which was made earlier is that rape, murder and heaven knows what else was taking place, in Iraq, at the behest and instruction of the "government". It was part of the whole terror / control method of subjugating the people.

Rat Faced
06-26-2003, 11:57 PM
Originally posted by JPaul@26 June 2003 - 23:37
There is every difference in the world between these atrocities taking place in a country and the government of that country doing it to their people.

Drug trafficking takes place in the UK, that does not make the government drug traffickers. Similarly with rape and murder. They happen here, but not because the government cause them to happen.

The point which was made earlier is that rape, murder and heaven knows what else was taking place, in Iraq, at the behest and instruction of the "government". It was part of the whole terror / control method of subjugating the people.
So, your saying that we now march on Burma, Zimbabwe, Libya, North Korea, Half of South America.........



The Far East has a long and persistent history of slavery and child prostitution. I think that any participation by "American businessmen" is surely only a fraction of a percentage point.


Middle East has a long history of all of the above too.....

So what are you saying?

Its alright in one place but not in another?

clocker
06-27-2003, 12:21 AM
Originally posted by Rat Faced@26 June 2003 - 17:57



The Far East has a long and persistent history of slavery and child prostitution. I think that any participation by "American businessmen" is surely only a fraction of a percentage point.


Middle East has a long history of all of the above too.....

So what are you saying?

Its alright in one place but not in another?
Not at all.

My perception of her post was that "American businessmen" were the driving force behind this slavery/prostitution trade, which I find to be a highly dubious assertion.


I am getting "too many connections/mysql error"ed to death here.

J'Pol
06-27-2003, 12:23 AM
Originally posted by Rat Faced+27 June 2003 - 00:57--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Rat Faced &#064; 27 June 2003 - 00:57)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-JPaul@26 June 2003 - 23:37
There is every difference in the world between these atrocities taking place in a country and the government of that country doing it to their people.

Drug trafficking takes place in the UK, that does not make the government drug traffickers. Similarly with rape and murder. They happen here, but not because the government cause them to happen.

The point which was made earlier is that rape, murder and heaven knows what else was taking place, in Iraq, at the behest and instruction of the "government". It was part of the whole terror / control method of subjugating the people.
So, your saying that we now march on Burma, Zimbabwe, Libya, North Korea, Half of South America.........


?[/b][/quote]
I am saying no such thing. I am replying to an earlier post which was using specious arguments.

J'Pol
06-27-2003, 12:26 AM
@ Clocker

What&#39;s the chances, similar sentiments posted almost simultaneously.

Mine was better though.

clocker
06-27-2003, 12:29 AM
Originally posted by JPaul@26 June 2003 - 18:26
@ Clocker

What&#39;s the chances, similar sentiments posted almost simultaneously.

Mine was better though.
My first two attempts( which got me disconnected) blew yours out of the water.

The post that actually made it was inferior to yours.

J'Pol
06-27-2003, 12:41 AM
Yeah - really. That&#39;s easy for you to say.

Go file your cogs. Literally and figuratively.

clocker
06-27-2003, 01:03 AM
Originally posted by JPaul@26 June 2003 - 18:41


Go file your cogs. Literally and figuratively.
Watch out, JPaul.

They can make me better&#33; faster&#33; stronger&#33;...
http://americanhistory.si.edu/archives/images/d8707-13.jpg

J'Pol
06-27-2003, 01:16 AM
Originally posted by clocker@27 June 2003 - 01:29
My first two attempts( which got me disconnected) blew yours out of the water.

Can they teach you where to put an apostrophe.

clocker
06-27-2003, 01:51 AM
Originally posted by JPaul+26 June 2003 - 19:16--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (JPaul @ 26 June 2003 - 19:16)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-clocker@27 June 2003 - 01:29
My first two attempts( which got me disconnected) blew yours out of the water.

Can they teach you where to put an apostrophe. [/b][/quote]
Th&#39;at wil b part&#39; of the so&#39;ftwar upgrade, Im sure.

j2k4
06-27-2003, 03:19 AM
Originally posted by clocker+26 June 2003 - 20:51--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker &#064; 26 June 2003 - 20:51)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by JPaul@26 June 2003 - 19:16
<!--QuoteBegin-clocker@27 June 2003 - 01:29
My first two attempts( which got me disconnected) blew yours out of the water.

Can they teach you where to put an apostrophe.
Th&#39;at wil b part&#39; of the so&#39;ftwar upgrade, Im sure.[/b][/quote]
Would that then be: "Ctrl+Alt+Con"ascend"?

angellynn26
06-27-2003, 04:23 AM
Originally posted by clocker@26 June 2003 - 20:21

Not at all.

My perception of her post was that "American businessmen" were the driving force behind this slavery/prostitution trade, which I find to be a highly dubious assertion.


I am getting "too many connections/mysql error"ed to death here.
Unfortunately, your perception was incorrect. I was merely pointing out that from what I have researched, these young girls are visited most often by American businessmen... this is out of the mouths of the brothel owners themselves, I insinuated nothing.



As for those of you pointing out that many countries have a criminal element not supported by the governments of these countries.. how true, but not my point at all. I was saying that in India, China, Japan, etc... these rapist actions are CONDONED by the government. It is not a criminal element, it is not wrong to them, it is LEGAL to do this&#33; I would definitely say that makes the gov&#39;t a party to the crime... no matter how you look at it.

j2k4
06-27-2003, 12:22 PM
Originally posted by angellynn26@25 June 2003 - 17:32
I also agree that Bush was not the man to do this.&nbsp; Not because of the feelings the rest of the world has against him, but because his father was the one who started this war with Sadaam.&nbsp; Not to mention the fact that Sr. and Reagan were the ones responsible for putting him into power to begin with&#33;&nbsp; It was not going to be a pretty situation for Jr. no matter which way he approached it.&nbsp; And his choices throughout the situation with Iraq only made it worse for him.&nbsp;

So, what I would have done differently is to have someone else in charge.
Your dismissal of Bush the younger as a capable leader begs the question:

If not him, who?

Your anti-conservative vehemence also invites comparisons between Bush and the last liberal president and current icon, Bill Clinton.

Forgive the pun, but Mr. Clinton&#39;s resume is not without a few "stains"-to name a very few:

The Whitewater fiasco was much more than just an "ill-advised financial speculation".

His efforts at projecting U.S. military might abroad were largely misguided and ineffectual, and in the case of Saddam and Iraq, misleading as well.

While it is convenient-and more than a bit disingenuous-to paint Bush as the oil-hungry crony and pawn of back-door interests, the same argument could be made (however speciously) about anybody, including Clinton, or Al Gore, for that matter.

Point being, unless proven by some irrefutable means, accusations of industrial collusion are best left out of the debate.

As for dragging Bush the elder and Reagan into the fray, to do so serves no purpose other than to paint yourself into a liberal "corner", from which you might find yourself fielding such questions as "Why are our schools such a mess when we spend so much money on them, and why are they demanding more of my hard-earned cash?"

One thing at a time, angellynn26. ;)

clocker
06-27-2003, 01:05 PM
Originally posted by j2k4@27 June 2003 - 06:22

Your dismissal of Bush the younger as a capable leader begs the question:

If not him, who?

Your anti-conservative vehemence also invites comparisons between Bush and the last liberal president and current icon, Bill Clinton.

Forgive the pun, but Mr. Clinton&#39;s resume is not without a few "stains"-to name a very few:


How about Nader?


Your anti-conservative vehemence also invites comparisons between Bush and the last liberal president and current icon, Bill Clinton.
Sorry j2, but this seems like a weak comparison to me.
Why not compare Bush to Lincoln, Roosevelt or Washington?
He certainly suffers when judged by higher standards than just Bill Clinton.

As I know you possess more than a passing grasp of American history, it strikes me as a limp defense to limit your comparison to only the most recent of Presidents.

Rat Faced
06-27-2003, 02:26 PM
In addition, although not overly liked by yourselves, Clinton was hugely respected abroad......unlike GW.

j2k4
06-27-2003, 02:41 PM
Originally posted by clocker+27 June 2003 - 08:05--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker &#064; 27 June 2003 - 08:05)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@27 June 2003 - 06:22

Your dismissal of Bush the younger as a capable leader begs the question:

If not him, who?

Your anti-conservative vehemence also invites comparisons between Bush and the last liberal president and current icon, Bill Clinton.

Forgive the pun, but Mr. Clinton&#39;s resume is not without a few "stains"-to name a very few:


How about Nader?


Your anti-conservative vehemence also invites comparisons between Bush and the last liberal president and current icon, Bill Clinton.
Sorry j2, but this seems like a weak comparison to me.
Why not compare Bush to Lincoln, Roosevelt or Washington?
He certainly suffers when judged by higher standards than just Bill Clinton.

As I know you possess more than a passing grasp of American history, it strikes me as a limp defense to limit your comparison to only the most recent of Presidents.[/b][/quote]
An object lesson-

Just trying to point out the irrelevance of the expression of anti-Bush/conservative sentiment for it&#39;s own sake; in this instance it struck me as gratuitous in light of the very clear indication of angellynn&#39;s wish for someone else to be occupying the White House so as to have avoided military involvement in Iraq.

I felt a contemporary comparison thus appropriate.

Although I hear he is mulling another run, I&#39;m afraid Ralph Nader is far enough off my radar-screen I hadn&#39;t given him any thought; if memory serves, outside of an appearance on "Saturday Night Live" a while back, he is/would be a scandal-free candidate.

He surely seems to have steered clear of any unfortunate female entanglements (this is not to cast aspersions or speculate in any way on Mr. Nader&#39;s orientation).

What do you think he would have done?

j2k4
06-27-2003, 02:44 PM
Originally posted by Rat Faced@27 June 2003 - 09:26
In addition, although not overly liked by yourselves, Clinton was hugely respected abroad......unlike GW.
How so, exactly? :huh:

I have heard this, but always thought it a peculiarity personified by the French, in admiration for what they took to be his success rate with females.

Actually, wasn&#39;t Tony Blair more popular in the U.K. when Clinton was president?

clocker
06-28-2003, 11:52 AM
Originally posted by j2k4@27 June 2003 - 08:41


Although I hear he is mulling another run, I&#39;m afraid Ralph Nader is far enough off my radar-screen I hadn&#39;t given him any thought; if memory serves, outside of an appearance on "Saturday Night Live" a while back, he is/would be a scandal-free candidate.

He surely seems to have steered clear of any unfortunate female entanglements (this is not to cast aspersions or speculate in any way on Mr. Nader&#39;s orientation).

What do you think he would have done?
Speculation of that sort is, of course, useless. However...
After decades of ferreting out governmental duplicity and deception, I suspect that Mr. Nader&#39;s Presidency would be characterized by a greater sense of transparency and decency.

Should an invasion of Iraq have come to pass, I doubt that Nader&#39;s Vice-President&#39;s old company would have been awarded a mega-million dollar contract (in secret, with no competitive bidding) to rebuild the infrastructure. Unlike the Cheney/Halliburton deal.

White House position papers would probably not be issued where conclusions are justified by the simple expedience of gutting all dissenting views ( The Bush Admin. recent papers on global warming and the condition of Yellowstone Park come to mind).

Not being a terribly charismatic man, I think Nader might have spent more energy trying to reach agreement with the rest of the world rather than glorying in the "lone cowboy", John Wayne persona that Bush is so fond of.

Nader would never have used veiled references to 9/11 to justify completely unrelated actions.



And Nader can correctly pronounce "nuclear".

clocker
06-28-2003, 01:47 PM
Originally posted by j2k4@27 June 2003 - 06:22


While it is convenient-and more than a bit disingenuous-to paint Bush as the oil-hungry crony and pawn of back-door interests, the same argument could be made (however speciously) about anybody, including Clinton, or Al Gore, for that matter.

Point being, unless proven by some irrefutable means, accusations of industrial collusion are best left out of the debate.


I&#39;m afraid that, once again, I must disagree, j2.

When he became President, Bush tacitly agreed to adhere to a higher standard of conduct than the average businessman.
The Cheney/Halliburton connection reeks of special interest intervention and thus reflects poorly on Bush.
Even lawyers, in theory, try to avoid the " appearance of impropriety".
Bush seems oblivious to this behavioral guideline.

j2k4
06-28-2003, 08:15 PM
Originally posted by clocker+28 June 2003 - 08:47--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker &#064; 28 June 2003 - 08:47)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@27 June 2003 - 06:22


While it is convenient-and more than a bit disingenuous-to paint Bush as the oil-hungry crony and pawn of back-door interests, the same argument could be made (however speciously) about anybody, including Clinton, or Al Gore, for that matter.

Point being, unless proven by some irrefutable means, accusations of industrial collusion are best left out of the debate.


I&#39;m afraid that, once again, I must disagree, j2.

When he became President, Bush tacitly agreed to adhere to a higher standard of conduct than the average businessman.
The Cheney/Halliburton connection reeks of special interest intervention and thus reflects poorly on Bush.
Even lawyers, in theory, try to avoid the " appearance of impropriety".
Bush seems oblivious to this behavioral guideline.[/b][/quote]
In lieu of a more comprehensive response, I must point out for now that politics is a game currently "owned" by politicians, whose ranks include, almost exclusively, businessmen and, even more regretfully, lawyers.

While this doesn&#39;t fit my ideal scenario (I would prefer a massive overhaul of the whole system, starting with a return to a part-time legislature), I&#39;m cognizant that it is what it is, and we&#39;re not likely to change it anytime soon.

I&#39;ll also point out two other things:

The "appearance of impropriety" was a phrase coined during the Dems pursuit of Ed Meese.

Other phrases cropped up during the last administration, such as "No controlling legal authority".

I call them "buzz-phrases"; they are meant to get one&#39;s attention and affix it to what rhetorically follows.

They are intended to mislead and deflect-they have the opposite effect with me.

I am guessing that you were not entirely pleased with Clinton, either; as one who practiced cronyism to the extent those who weren&#39;t in bed with him were far in the minority, I&#39;m sure that if cars ran on chicken, Clinton would have unapologetically handed the entire industry to his friend Tyson, who made the rivers run with feathers in Arkansas.

Again, as regards Ralph Nader, I would submit to being tested as to his viewpoints on any subject; I suspect I would not agree with him in many areas, but I would read his comprehensive platform (if one is extant) and and give it the thought it warrants.

I&#39;m in total agreement as to your assessment of his honesty and the potential transparency of a Nader administration, but there are other areas of concern, which I can&#39;t enumerate adequately absent a better "picture" of him.

I must say, if he desires to build credibility for another campaign, I would recommend not sitting down with Phil Donahue this time around. ;)

clocker
06-29-2003, 12:16 AM
Originally posted by j2k4@28 June 2003 - 14:15


The "appearance of impropriety" was a phrase coined during the Dems pursuit of Ed Meese.


Not so, buddy.
This phrase has long been a staple of canons of legal ethics and is, in fact, a part of several state constitutions- Rhode Island, for instance.

As to Nader&#39;s platform, perhaps this will provide a start (http://www.votenader.org/).

j2k4
06-29-2003, 03:27 AM
Originally posted by clocker+28 June 2003 - 19:16--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker &#064; 28 June 2003 - 19:16)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@28 June 2003 - 14:15


The "appearance of impropriety" was a phrase coined during the Dems pursuit of Ed Meese.


Not so, buddy.
This phrase has long been a staple of canons of legal ethics and is, in fact, a part of several state constitutions- Rhode Island, for instance.

As to Nader&#39;s platform, perhaps this will provide a start (http://www.votenader.org/).[/b][/quote]
Please excuse my laziness; it would have been more correct in both instances to note the phrases in question were embedded in the public consciousness by these people and events.

I went to the Nader website and sort of cherry-picked the following to comment on:

Tuesday, July 27, 1999

PERSPECTIVES ON FEDERAL SPENDING

Build On, Repair What We Have

The debate over how to allocate funds must include how best to improve
our great shared assets.

By RALPH NADER

New projections of a federal budget surplus have left Washington abuzz with proposals on how the government should allocate hundreds of billions of dollars. Strikingly absent from the debate are recommendations to revitalize our commonwealth by investing in a public works program.

At no time in recent history has a program to construct, rebuild or repair crumbling bridges, schools, drinking water facilities, sewer lines, docks, parks, mass transit systems, libraries, clinics, courthouses and other public amenities and infrastructure been so urgent or achievable. Too many of our roads and bridges are decrepit; school roofs across the nation are leaking or falling in; the public water system does not deliver safe drinking water for millions; the reach of public transportation systems is dwindling; the great national park system is seriously decaying--and this is only the beginning of the list. It is past time to commence a major public works initiative to repair this great storehouse of shared wealth.
Federal, state and local governments already spend substantial funds on various public works projects, most notably highway construction. And a modest debate is now percolating on federal support for school building construction. But current expenditures are hugely inadequate to meet many of our most pressing public works needs.
Consider the following:
* One in three schools across the United States is "in need of extensive repair or replacement," according to a 1995 General Accounting Office report. Fixing the schools, the GAO estimates, will cost &#036;113 billion over three years.
* The Centers for Disease Control estimates 1 million people become sick every year from bad water, with about 900 deaths occurring. The EPA estimates nearly &#036;140 billion will be needed over the next 20 years for water system
investments to install, upgrade or replace failing drinking water infrastructure.
* Maintaining the public transit system at current levels, the Department of Transportation estimates, will cost &#036;9.7 billion a year. Improving the infrastructure to a condition of "good" would require upping annual expenditures to &#036;14.2 billion a year. However, maintaining or slightly upgrading the public transit is not nearly enough. Bold new investments
are needed to create a modern mass transit system conducive to livable cities, one which will bring community residents closer together, combat the momentum toward sprawl, guarantee lower-income groups the ability to travel efficiently in metropolitan areas, abate air pollution and improve transportation safety.
* As a society we have failed to respect the foresight of Theodore Roosevelt, John Muir and other conservationist founders of the national park system, neglecting to invest sufficient resources to maintain, let alone properly expand, the parks. A National Park Service-estimated funding gap of nearly &#036;9 billion has left animal populations at risk, park amenities in substandard or unusable conditions and many national historical artifacts in danger of being lost to posterity.
Investments in public works--those mentioned here, plus others,such as construction of public health clinics, libraries, sewers and courthouses; bridge and road repair, and cleanup efforts of military and nuclear waste sites--make our communities stronger and more closely knit. While many of these community benefits do not accrue in citizens&#39; personal bank accounts, they do register in direct and discernible improvements in every person&#39;s life. Investing in and protecting our great public assets makes us richer as a nation and a people. Public investments also strengthen the economy
through a better-educated and healthier work force and through efficient transportation of goods and people.
Historically, investments in public works have been a key spur to private wealth creation. A national public works plan, Franklin Roosevelt said in his 1934 State of the Union speech, "will, in a generation or two, return many times the money spent on it . . . More important, it will conserve our natural resources, prevent waste and enable millions of our people to take better advantage of the opportunities which God has given our country."
This--an era of burgeoning private wealth and large projected public surplus--is the time to reinvigorate our public investments.


Now, this whole treatise is predicated on the premise the Federal Government is best equipped to determine what to do with our tax money.

I think Mr. Nader forgets that, as taxes go, the cart has been before the horse far too long.

The American taxpayer has not been given that to which he has the undeniable right-that before the Federal Government demands more taxes, it ought to be required TO PROVE it is adequately husbanding it&#39;s current revenue intake.

Mr. Nader instead wants to create a new bureaucracy to administer these "excess funds" for public works.

Let us not forget-before the Feds can give money to the states for public works, it first must take the money from the states, in the form of taxes, in order to return the money to them for this purpose.

The money in question (thus bureaucratically "washed") shrinks like cheap cloth before it gets to it&#39;s end; the Federal Government is sated, and perpetuated.

As a preferrable alternative, why not allow the states to assume control over their own needs, and raise their own taxes for public works projects?

The other day, I read that Georgia, as an example, is a leading light among states for it&#39;s budgetary effectiveness and efficiency.

California, by comparison, exemplifies waste and poor planning.

Is it fair or moral that the citizens of Georgia pay taxes so the Feds can send the cash to California for a "public works" project which will have the effect of allowing the politicians and bureaucracy there to cover their own mismanagement and inefficiencies?

Surely you can see how the current system perpetuates itself through this defective web of systemic and endemic indifference?

No, Bush has this one right; get the Feds out of the business of confiscatory taxation-put the burden of responsible spending back on the states where it belongs-where WE can keep an eye on the spenders.

That Mr. Nader believes the Federal bureaucracy is best equipped to spend excess revenue indicates (to me-I&#39;m sure you disagree) an elemental misunderstanding of what constitutes genuine efficiency and fairness, and the concurrent buy-in to big government likewise indicates that, while he would have us believe a "Vote For Ralph" is a radical departure from &#39;politics as usual&#39;, it&#39;s really the same old bill of goods.

clocker
06-29-2003, 03:41 AM
After the spectacularly successful Republican efforts at gerrymandering state voting districts ( with substantial White House support), I have little reason to trust my state government either.
I would be all for Federal oversight of public works. The Federal government managed to create the Interstate highway system after all.
To see a grahic example of how states have mishandled their duties just witness the change in pavement conditions as you go from Nebraska to Colorado on I-76.

j2k4
06-29-2003, 04:04 AM
Originally posted by clocker@28 June 2003 - 22:41
After the spectacularly successful Republican efforts at gerrymandering state voting districts ( with substantial White House support), I have little reason to trust my state government either.
I would be all for Federal oversight of public works. The Federal government managed to create the Interstate highway system after all.
To see a grahic example of how states have mishandled their duties just witness the change in pavement conditions as you go from Nebraska to Colorado on I-76.
Gerrymandering of districts has been practiced with equal effect by both parties, and is a great example of local/state political gymnastics in aid of National party politics.

I deplore this tactic, no matter which party practices it; but-how to get back to any sensible construct? Outlawing the tactic at this stage would cause big problems.

You can foment trust in your state government by voting intelligently and being a big-mouth about waste on the state level; it&#39;s much more effective than a letter to the Feds.
If voters vote ignorantly or irresponsibly, they deserve what they get, i.e., crappy pavement.

Engaging the system on the state level works; I did it-I had state senators and reps calling me at home, at work, you name it-ironically, it also cost me my Civil Service job, as I pissed off former Governor John Engler.

The Interstate highway system is an example of proper Federal purview; however, I don&#39;t see a federal rep having the same degree of familiarity with a local project as a state rep-likewise I don&#39;t see you being as familiar with the federal rep as you might be with the state rep.

MagicNakor
06-29-2003, 08:47 AM
I realize this going back a ways, but I came recently across a study done by The Lancet (which is a medical journal). Rather than posting the entire thing, I&#39;m just going to summarize the relevant points. ;)

Most child prostitutes are exploited by local men, although some are abused by pedophiles and foreign tourists.

Estimates of child prostitutes and the top 4 offending countries (1 - 4):

India - 400,000 - 575,000
Brazil - 100,000 - 500,000
USA - 300,000
Thailand and China tie for 4th - 200,000

:ninja:

Rat Faced
06-29-2003, 02:21 PM
J2k4,

You and Clocker have now totally lost all non US readers (probably).

I take it that Federal Government is responsable for all highways in USA?


In UK, granted a MUCH smaller country, Government is resposible for the A Road/Motorway system (equivalent of your interstates I believe) and local government is responsible for all other roads.

The end result being that local roads are usually crap, and major roads are always crap.


Not that this means anything to US citizens of course, but gives you an incite as to what will happen if Road maintainance goes local ;)


As to Clinton:

He is perceived by most of the world to have been a great statesman and peacemaker (Northern Ireland, Middle East Peace Process (until Sharron tore it up that is)etc etc), with the added bonus of his personal life being comical.

Granted, I have no idea as to the results of his Domestic Policies (or indeed what they were)...but internationally, hugely respected.

j2k4
06-29-2003, 08:00 PM
Originally posted by Rat Faced@29 June 2003 - 09:21
J2k4,

You and Clocker have now totally lost all non US readers (probably).

I take it that Federal Government is responsable for all highways in USA?


In UK, granted a MUCH smaller country, Government is resposible for the A Road/Motorway system (equivalent of your interstates I believe) and local government is responsible for all other roads.

The end result being that local roads are usually crap, and major roads are always crap.


Not that this means anything to US citizens of course, but gives you an incite as to what will happen if Road maintainance goes local ;)


As to Clinton:

He is perceived by most of the world to have been a great statesman and peacemaker (Northern Ireland, Middle East Peace Process (until Sharron tore it up that is)etc etc), with the added bonus of his personal life being comical.

Granted, I have no idea as to the results of his Domestic Policies (or indeed what they were)...but internationally, hugely respected.
Our highway system and it&#39;s auspices more-or-less reflect yours.

Clinton may have had some success re: the Irish situation, but the failure of his grand plan for the Mideast was a product of his half-baked, and indeed half-hearted efforts; he didn&#39;t provide proper stewardship for the process to work.

Sharon reacted to some late-developing demands and piquish behavior on Arafat&#39;s part that was not widely publicized do to the love affair the press had with Clinton and also the media&#39;s somewhat mis-guided urge to try to salvage a "peace".

I will, when I have time, try to provide more particulars.

Beyond that, I&#39;m baffled as to foreign perceptions of Clinton&#39;s "wonderfulness". :huh:

Clocker and I should have started another thread.