KaskadskyjKozak

On a related note... The more I read and hear about this post-election analysis, I am coming to the conclusion that the whole "moral values" influence on the election is bogus. Apparently there was a poll that listed several options and asked voters what was the #1 issue that influenced their vote. "Moral Values" was listed and received the most responses (20% or so). The problems with this are 1) if you ask people to come up with their #1 issue without *listing* the issues for them, much fewer say moral values, and 2) this item combines many issues for people (gay marriage, abortion, the war in Iraq), 3) liberals opposed to Bush's policies also may be included in this statistic (the war in Iraq is a moral issue for many). 4) In those states where a gay marriage issue was on the ballot, Bush's performance was relatively worse than his overall performance (3% improvement over 2000). I think both sides are trying to leverage this question to their advantage. Liberals want to attack Bush and Bush supporters and claim the election was decided out of fear. Some Bush supporters want to claim morality is "on their side" and claim credit for the victory to get payback for their support in terms of policy. I think both sides of this are wrong, and that the moral values issue was BS to begin with.

Why do you think I left there? 12+ years now...

Ok, but we were off of Iraqi soil. But, then again the no-fly zones were enforced by the air force for 10+ years. It's still a difference w/r/t Vietnam.

Is anyone else in the lower right quadrant? (economic 1.00 / social -1.74)

In Vietnam there was almost 20 years of war; they didn't use chemical weapons, they had random executions; they only invaded one sovereign nation (South Vietnam); the North didn't lie about Gulf of Tonkin - I don't remember Saddam lying about WMD, he just acted like he had them. Kaskady for all time best avatar! One more difference: Vietnam: gradual escalation Iraq: massive use of force/complete withdrawal/large use of force again

In Vietnam there was not a 10 year history of defying the terms of a peace agreement, and playing cat and mouse games with inspectors. In Vietnam there was no history of using chemical weapons on the Vietnamese people. Vietnam did not recently invade two sovereign nations and try to annex them. In Vietnam, only one side made the claims about the facts surrounding the Tonkin Bay. In Iraq everyone seemed to agree that Iraq had had WMD, had violated UN resolutions, and *something* needed to be done. Huge differences.

Maybe it was just CYA - in our litiginous society, you always have to worry about being sued.

You've gotta take everything you find on the internet with a grain of salt. The authors of the site refuse to give their "formula" for how they compute the scores - that strikes me as a bit suspect. Everyone has an agenda, after all. Having said that, I think Republicans and Democrats in the US are generally pretty damn close together.

how about any excess profits made by trial lawyers?

Yes.

I'm not blaming them for the current conflict, but the legacy of European imperialism affects the world profoundly even to this day. Wait a minute, where did the Nigerian memo originate???

Keep the system and rates as they are for now, cut spending, and when we have a surplus again, cut all the marginal rates more. Repeat.

Yeah, OK, but threads evolve. Similarities: 1) imperialism f**ked up the world (French in Vietnam, Brits in Iraq) 2) there's no good way out 3) threat of post war violence in the region (Cambodia vs. Kurds/Shia/Sunnis/Iran/Turkey)

Your premise was that they weren't more dangerous. It seems clear that Iran is close to completing a nuclear reactor, but they claim it is for non-military purposes. The stance of countries with nukes is to not allow proliferation to new nations. Even with nuclear power plants, one has to ask whether it constitutes a threat? It is hard to prove that Iran has military intentions, and it might be impossible to do until it is too late. And then what? Would deterrence be enough? I guess in principle I am for non-proliferation, but I don't see how we can force it. It makes the evaluation of "threat" a lot easier, that's for sure.

Yes, I'm glad he is gone. But the stage is set for a revolution with a political power vacuum, ethnic strife, chaos, and neighboring countries either worried or licking their lips with the promise of booty to be gained. Our presence is the only thing holding anything together, but, as you say, the cost is high.

The FAQ link on the site provides some answers to the questions you raise.

Should we allow nuclear proliferation to occur?

I agree with Colin Powell morally - "you buy it, you break it". But I don't know if we can put Humpty Dumpty back together again. I also worry that we would share in the responsibility of the deaths in a civil war that would undoubtedly ensue. Damn the imperialist Brits with their artifical borders (Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq...).

Maybe they aren't more dangerous (I assume you mean Iran and N. Korea). Maybe it's all just exaggerated - like the WMD programs in Iraq. If not, then what can we do about it?

How do we get out?

Gandhi is famous for his philosophy of non-violence. Judging by the strong stance against (any) war of other people on this list who fall in the left/lower quadrant of the chart, I am very surprised that Gandhi would consider killing "not too bad" as long as "few" died.

Wow. Amazing.

There's interesting quotes from the Dalai Lama and Gandhi as well. For example, who said: "I do not consider Hitler to be as bad as he is depicted. He is showing an ability that is amazing and seems to be gaining his victories without much bloodshed ?" Mahatma Gandhi, May 1940

Kerry's the one with "plans"

No, I'm new to this forum.