Which way do you swing?

[robitusinz]

Inspired by a thought on another topic, I was wondering how people on this site stood politically.  Instead of using Democrat or Republican, let's just go with left or right on the politic spectrum so we can keep the discussion international.  I'm particularly interested in what the political-minded from other countries think on this topic.

Note, this is not really a judgemental topic...there's no right or wrong here.  Just feel free to say where you think you stand and give a few examples.



Personally, I consider myself to the left of center, or a liberal moderate.  The ideal I most adhere to is individuality, which is a decidedly centrist view, considering that moving to either of the extremes of the political spectrum ALWAYS results in a certain loss of individuality.  Going with that, though, privacy is also important to me, and I think that's a concept that liberals handle better than conservatives.  In essence, I think people should just live and let live, and help out your fellow man when he needs a hand.  Nothing too extreme...I'm not advocating taxes that'll choke people to death, or widespread communism...but I do beleive in giving a modest amount of my resources for the good of everyone in general.

Left  <---------------------------------------------------Me---------Center--------------------------------------------------------------> Right

[Apple of Eris]

Political Compass:
Economic Left/Right: -3.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.51

[Swedish Steel]

I do advocate widespread communism!
Well, not really, but by your American way to see things I might aswell be. :)
I should place myself slightly to the left of the Swedish centre, probably putting me alot to the left on the American scale.

[Lirliel]

Hmm, as far as going to Holland's political agenda I consider myself right wing, not an extremist but not very far from it in my own country. As far as if I where living in America I would have been branded with a swastika a long time ago (Bit of an exaggeration)

[Apple of Eris]

Are you kidding? As conservative as this damn country is? Maybe you'd fight ight in with george and he neo-con bastard bunch. *smirk*

[Ellyssa]

I sort of mix and match myself. I don't know where I stand, really, I can agree with some things that all parties do and hate some things that they all do. Vote for me. ;D

[Lirliel]

Are you kidding? As conservative as this damn country is? Maybe you'd fight ight in with george and he neo-con bastard bunch. *smirk*

Well I did support Bush's desicision to enter Iraq and destroy Saddam's goverment and the military, what I didn't agree on was him sticking around, making a second vietnam war (often made refference) out of it. This time not because they where communists but because America needed a source of cheap oil! At least in my eyes best thing they could do, just pull everyone out of Iraq and Afghanistan and let them all get the fuck on with there lives. If these ignorant fuckheads don't care that you guys are trying to help them fuck em let them die!

[robitusinz]

Hmm, as far as going to Holland's political agenda I consider myself right wing, not an extremist but not very far from it in my own country. As far as if I where living in America I would have been branded with a swastika a long time ago (Bit of an exaggeration)

That's interesting.  Do you have any examples of what you think would make you an extreme rightist?  I mean, what topics are you very conservative about?

[robitusinz]

At least in my eyes best thing they could do, just pull everyone out of Iraq and Afghanistan and let them all get the fuck on with there lives. If these ignorant fuckheads don't care that you guys are trying to help them fuck em let them die!

I think the majority opinion in the US is swinging against the current occupation of Iraq.  I still don't think the country's getting any more liberal, though.

[Lirliel]

That's interesting. Do you have any examples of what you think would make you an extreme rightist? I mean, what topics are you very conservative about?

Hmm, like I said I'm not extremly rightwing! I am however a rightwing person, I thoroughly believe in not allowing more people into our already overcrowded nation and putting a fucking halt on these east european bastards who come over here stealing good honest people's jobs by undercutting our wages! All there good for is making us bleed and whimper, I had trouble even landing a steady job because three fucking guys who applied for the job where foreigners who couldn't even talk normal dutch! Luckily I had enough skills to get the job, but if I didn't hell I'd be sitting in my home chewing on a piece of wood because good honest working people get the shaft and there country and goverments sits there and goes *snort* if you want to live.. get a job. Which we all cry and wail about, WE CAN'T YOU FUCKHEADS BECAUSE THOSE DAMN EX-COMMI BASTARDS KEEP STEALING OUR JOBS!

That is at least one of the points I think we should close the fucking book on, look out for your own people and let the rest manage. Where a country not a whore that lets other non-countrymen come and suckle on our wealth, draining it and then laughing and running home to there own country. Fuck these assholes, there destroying us from the inside out.

I think the majority opinion in the US is swinging against the current occupation of Iraq. I still don't think the country's getting any more liberal, though.

Hmm, there are some tough descisions that need to be hacked in the world and Iraq is one of those descision. Great we help you, you don't want it fuck off and die end of story! At least, that's my view on the matter

[Apple of Eris]

OOoh, when liriel gets all political like this it makes me hot and bothered. I'm tempted to go to hollandnow and steal a job! *wink*

[robitusinz]

Hmm, like I said I'm not extremly rightwing! I am however a rightwing person, I thoroughly believe in not allowing more people into our already overcrowded nation and putting a fucking halt on these east european bastards who come over here stealing good honest people's jobs by undercutting our wages! All there good for is making us bleed and whimper, I had trouble even landing a steady job because three fucking guys who applied for the job where foreigners who couldn't even talk normal dutch! Luckily I had enough skills to get the job, but if I didn't hell I'd be sitting in my home chewing on a piece of wood because good honest working people get the shaft and there country and goverments sits there and goes *snort* if you want to live.. get a job. Which we all cry and wail about, WE CAN'T YOU FUCKHEADS BECAUSE THOSE DAMN EX-COMMI BASTARDS KEEP STEALING OUR JOBS!

That is at least one of the points I think we should close the fucking book on, look out for your own people and let the rest manage. Where a country not a whore that lets other non-countrymen come and suckle on our wealth, draining it and then laughing and running home to there own country. Fuck these assholes, there destroying us from the inside out.

Now, question, are these illegal immigrants, or legal immigrants?  We definitely have a problem in the US with illegal immigrants too, and on that particular issue, I'm straddling the fence.  In fact, I pretty much agree with the fence-straddling proposal Bush put out.  I beleive we should have stricter border control, but at the same time, be able to facilitate assimilation for the illegals already in the US.  This would resolve the issue of "illegals taking American jobs", since the reality for us is that illegals get such cheap wages simply because employers CAN pay them that little...a lot of illegals with a "job" in this country work at virtual slave wages, when you consider they need housing and food, and the illegals can really do nothing about it because they're here illegally.  If we can get the illegals to be legal residents, they would at least fall under minimum wage laws, and would have basic legal rights against being treated like mules.  I don't think anyone comes to the US illegally and says, "Wow, it's great to be getting paid less than half of what others make for the same job"...given proper rights, they would compete for the same wages as any other worker.

Hmm, there are some tough descisions that need to be hacked in the world and Iraq is one of those descision. Great we help you, you don't want it fuck off and die end of story! At least, that's my view on the matter

Sounds like a plan to me, I wouldn't argue.

[Lirliel]

Now, question, are these illegal immigrants, or legal immigrants? We definitely have a problem in the US with illegal immigrants too, and on that particular issue, I'm straddling the fence. In fact, I pretty much agree with the fence-straddling proposal Bush put out. I beleive we should have stricter border control, but at the same time, be able to facilitate assimilation for the illegals already in the US. This would resolve the issue of "illegals taking American jobs", since the reality for us is that illegals get such cheap wages simply because employers CAN pay them that little...a lot of illegals with a "job" in this country work at virtual slave wages, when you consider they need housing and food, and the illegals can really do nothing about it because they're here illegally. If we can get the illegals to be legal residents, they would at least fall under minimum wage laws, and would have basic legal rights against being treated like mules. I don't think anyone comes to the US illegally and says, "Wow, it's great to be getting paid less than half of what others make for the same job"...given proper rights, they would compete for the same wages as any other worker.



Sounds like a plan to me, I wouldn't argue.

Hmm... these people that come into our country are coming here because of our open border policy, walk in, steal our jobs and money and wander back to your own country. Except that almost every other country in Europe is saying FU! against these people, but holland NO... we have to be the good people.. *sighs*... where was the Golden Age of Slave driving, World sailing Holland..

[RogueJedi]

I am a conservative libertarian.  I tend to side with the right about 90% of the time.  I come from an old military family and also from the South.

Two things make me angrier than anything else.  Illegal immigration and gun control.

Illegal immigrants are for lack of a better term, ILLEGAL.  That means they are breaking the law.  As a Texan, I find it laughable that members of Congress from Massachusetts are telling us how to deal with illegals and how we have to respect them.  Forget that.  Every poll I have seen, and everyone I have talked to in border areas, especially legal immigrants from Mexico, are VERY much against illegal immigration.  It's time for the politicians to do something about it.

Gun control on the other hand is unconstitutional as far as I am concerned.  We have the right to carry guns, and I will.  Besides, if you outlaw guns, the criminals are still going to have them.  If I am not mistaken, the English learned that in the last several years.  So, as a card-carrying member of the NRA, leave my guns alone!

[National Acrobat]

I am also a Conservative Libertarian, who agrees with the Right on about 80% of the issues.

Where I disagree with them mostly is their attempt to trample the constitution when there is a behavior that they do not like personally, so they believe it must be either abolished or regulated.

Illegal Immigration, Gun Control and Taxes tend to be my hot button issues.

Neither major party understands the budgetary concerns and spending anymore however, which is another huge issue.

[robitusinz]

Hmm... these people that come into our country are coming here because of our open border policy, walk in, steal our jobs and money and wander back to your own country. Except that almost every other country in Europe is saying FU! against these people, but holland NO... we have to be the good people.. *sighs*... where was the Golden Age of Slave driving, World sailing Holland..

Ah, I see.  That is a unique issue that I don't really have the point of view to discuss.  My first instinct is to question this open-border policy, but I have no way of judging how it affects the country in general, aside from the issue you're mentionning here.  Hmmm...an interesting situation.  I'll leave it at that, can't say much else.

[robitusinz]

Neither major party understands the budgetary concerns and spending anymore however, which is another huge issue.

Honestly, I would say this is the true heart of all party division in the US.  The budget.  Since you money isn't limitless, you need to choose what to cut and what to fund, and your (general) party affiliation is primarily based upon what you think should be cut or what should be funded.  All causes in the US move forward solely on the back of cash.  I don't think there's an issue you can come up with that doesn't have money as its most basic need.

In general, I prefer to fund domestic programs...welfare, social security, healthcare, etc...and remain domestic-focused as opposed to foreign-focused.  I'm more of an isolationist when it comes to the rest of the world.  I don't support wars, regardless of their need.  I basically think that if the US would stop fucking with other countries, they'd leave us the hell alone.  We only need enough military to defend our shit...no need to be going out and actively attacking anyone.  In my opinion, if no one's trying to invade us, then all of our soldiers should be in training, safe and secure.

I'm also against gun control, not because I have any particular hard-on for guns, but because I think the gov't needs to leave people the fuck alone.  However, I do beleive that there needs to be a bureaucratic buffer in place, just to keep every dumbass from owning one.  In my opinion, those who are gun enthusiasts (and I know plenty) would have no qualms about waiting 3 days for their latest piece, and I have no problems against them acquiring said piece.  However, the same 3 day buffer would probably delay your average nut from getting pissed off at his wife, going to Walmart, then going home and shooting up said wife and whoever else happens to be around.  I do agree that criminals will get guns no matter what, but I don't beleive in making it *that* easy.  Going by the gun enthusiasts who I know personally, I don't think this viewpoint is unreasonable.

[RubySlippers]

I would say Right on pretty much all issues. Not neo-conservative I'm a traditional conservative. As in proper spending of money by the government to meet the needs of the people in the most efficient manner, smaller government, States Rights, balance of powers, going to war when we HAVE TO send our troops to war and that should be the last option, government acting when needed for the best interests of the people, right to privacy, keeping religion out of political decisions, taxing as needed to fund necessary programs and sound common sense public policy.

I believe the government is to serve the people not we serve the government.

Some things I do feel have to be handled by the Federal Government- health care might be better overseen at the Federal level in some manner better.

I believe also that government has a limited role environmentally to protect humans and our fundamental resorces- air, drinking water and food production but not to put animals ahead of humans. Wise-use means USING natural resources in the best way to sustain humans in this country.

And I believe lastly if a person comes here to stay they better lean english and assimilate into the American Experiement we should not cater to them. We should have work vistas for people that want to work then go home in a good system. And illegal immigrants are ILLEGAL so kick them out!

[robitusinz]

I would say Right on pretty much all issues. Not neo-conservative I'm a traditional conservative. As in proper spending of money by the government to meet the needs of the people in the most efficient manner, smaller government, States Rights, balance of powers, going to war when we HAVE TO send our troops to war and that should be the last option, government acting when needed for the best interests of the people, right to privacy, keeping religion out of political decisions, taxing as needed to fund necessary programs and sound common sense public policy.

I believe the government is to serve the people not we serve the government.

Some things I do feel have to be handled by the Federal Government- health care might be better overseen at the Federal level in some manner better.

I believe also that government has a limited role environmentally to protect humans and our fundamental resorces- air, drinking water and food production but not to put animals ahead of humans. Wise-use means USING natural resources in the best way to sustain humans in this country.

And I believe lastly if a person comes here to stay they better lean english and assimilate into the American Experiement we should not cater to them. We should have work vistas for people that want to work then go home in a good system. And illegal immigrants are ILLEGAL so kick them out!

Eh, to me, that sounds like you swing left.  And, going by other posts I've seen of yours, you do seem pretty left.  You beleive the most important things (like health care) should be taken care of Federally.  States would essentially take care of the unimportant junk...the everyday stuff.  If you care any about the environment, then you're also left.

I might put you as a moderate, though.  Like most typical Americans, you have issues that are important to you, and others that aren't.  Overall, on the stuff you care about, you seem to rather left, but you're ok with a conservative control over the day-to-day junk you don't care about.

[RubySlippers]

Not really I think the federal government can guide health care reform but it should still be the states to figure out how to have it more a shared responsibility. I oppose wasting taxpayer money a conservative viewpoint. I think the states should APPOINT Senators as per the original mandate of the Constitution. I oppose Gay Marriage as a Federal issue that should be left to the States to decide. I oppose Abortion Rights but again think each STATE should decide on the practice of medicine including abortion. Above all on the government being run soundly and unbiased to be in the best interest of the people the leaders are sworn to SERVE. I think most feminists are NUTS I believe strongly women are not victims, are not under some attack by a Patriarchy and should stop whining and focus on being leaders and mothers and workers and the equal to men with strengths and weakenesses to them. Many leaders of the movement make me sick.

[robitusinz]

I think most feminists are NUTS I believe strongly women are not victims, are not under some attack by a Patriarchy and should stop whining and focus on being leaders and mothers and workers and the equal to men with strengths and weakenesses to them. Many leaders of the movement make me sick.

LOL...you've obviously never been involved in the corporate world.  I'm a lowly grunt, and I've probably done a few things that would classify as sexual harassment, not to mention all the stuff I've witnessed from guys above that could easily get hit with a discrimination suit and win.

If you truly think women are on equal footing with men where it counts...not just the lip service people pay to "equality"...then you are way naive.

[Moondazed]

I believe also that government has a limited role environmentally to protect humans and our fundamental resorces- air, drinking water and food production but not to put animals ahead of humans. Wise-use means USING natural resources in the best way to sustain humans in this country.

Ahh... a perfect example of the right's habit of naming something exactly what it ISN'T!  Wise-use... yeah right, right up there with the Clean Air Act.  It's about balance: balance between man and nature, between human and animal, and at the point you upset the balance you risk being shaken off like a bit fat tick.

Just my humble opinion... you could say the environment is my hot button issue :)

[alahendra]

This may be the ultimate in cynical viewpoints, but I do take comfort in the belief that once we  humans destroy our environment and thus destroy ourselves, the earth will ultimately recover and go on without us. I'd like to believe that we'll learn some day.  I loved Star Trek (the original series, Shatner's overacting and all) when I was a kid, but the older I get, the less Roddenbury-esque is my point of view on humanity as a whole...

[Sugarman (hal)]

true liberal in most every social foreign issue. However I have mostly gone conservative with the issue of capital punishment. Still believe that "All you need is love"

[Apple of Eris]

I used to be conservative on the death penalty, now I'm liberal. Especially with these DNA tests that are exonerating death row inmates. Death is permanent, if we screw up we can't bring that person back. And, I can't bring myself to support that, even if it only happens once it is too many times for me.

[Zakharra]

 Death penalty; Use DNA and truth drugs to get the truth out. If they atre guilty, then have a 6 month time limit on no more than 3 appeals, then execute. By firing squad or hanging. If you are weak stomached, then lethal injection. Which is NOT imnumane. For some crimes I'd put a gun to the forehead of the criminnal and pull the trigger myself.

[Sugarman (hal)]

Death penalty; Use DNA and truth drugs to get the truth out. If they atre guilty, then have a 6 month time limit on no more than 3 appeals, then execute. By firing squad or hanging. If you are weak stomached, then lethal injection. Which is NOT imnumane. For some crimes I'd put a gun to the forehead of the criminnal and pull the trigger myself.

:o my

[Apple of Eris]

You forget the right to protection against self-incrimination meaning you can't use truth drugs on a prisoner, and DNA is not always available nor is that 100% all the time either.

The police, at least in america, are not the damn gestapo and I for one am appalled that you would like to see some sort of fascist police state where people would apparently be assumed guilty rather than innocent until proven otherwise.

[Elvi]

Whoah.........
I scanned briefly through this topic and as I would probably be branded a commy bastard by most of you and am pro imigration I think I will keep well out of this one........

[kylie]

I think conservative and liberal are still awful broad to apply across national and regional borders. 
But to offer a few positions:

Iraq -- Send Bush and Cheney to the Hague.  Or at least jail them for creating the mess only to contract it to their buddies. 

Abortion -- It's her body.  And, the quality of life is more important than the quantity.

Arms Control --  If enough states have nukes, they have to get along (or else).  Until then, the big ones will be bullies.   

Gun Control -- A hunting rifle or single-action shotgun, okay.  Assault rifles, no.

Death Penalty -- Mixed, but I think I'd reserve it more for cases like serial murder or prolonged torture (hmm, sounds like Iraq). 

Taxes -- I'd like to see a flat tax rate (and a higher minimum wage).  More taxes for working social security / health insurance, okay.

Censorship -- I don't think it's useful to regulate works in general circulation.  People are too varied and creative for that.

Drugs -- Legalize the soft stuff, already.  (What a lousy, costly excuse to terrorize the inner city working class.)

Environment -- I don't have all the answers, but up the emissions controls, fuels research, and mass transit.

Gay Marriage -- Yes, please.  I also wouldn't mind polygamy in principle, but the benefits might have to be divided?

Immigration -- Naturalize easy.  Give the benefits, take the taxes, enforce minimum wage and fair working conditions.

[RogueJedi]

As far as taxes go, I am one of the supporters of the FairTax movement.  It is definitely more fair than our current bloated and corrupt system.  I have a problem with a billionaire like Soros (or anyone) getting tax breaks because of political connections.  And we need to fix the system.

Social Security - I am all for the private accounts.  Otherwise, I'll never see the money that I've been paying into it.

[Zakharra]

 Flat tax, golod idea. And private accounts for Soc Sec. Because the Soc Sec funds are spent every year since they go to the general fund. Not to a private system just for Soc Sec.

[Zakharra]

 Umm.. you know that Iraq is a legal war? 17 broken UN resolutions and Saddam broke the cease-fire agreement he signed at the end of the 1st Gulf War. Since it was a cease fire, war was still in effect. It's just that military operations had stopped for the time. We could have restarted them anytime after the first violation. With out ANY UN backing. He signed a  treaty and quickly violated it. Good enough reason to take his arse out.

People might not like the fact that wqe did go in, but the war is not illegal, nor do Bush and Cheny deserve to be tried as war ciminals. If you do that then you have to add the French and German and some British politicians to that list for aiding and abetting Saddam in his deceptions.

[RubySlippers]

Excuse me but as far as I know we never DECLARED WAR as per vote to that effect as per the Constitution. And when are WE the UN lapdogs and the world police.

And if we declared war we could have war powers in effect for the President, a war tax to pay for the war (read the Constitution they can issue a 5 year tax for war funding), call up the National Guard (I could make no arguement then we would be in a legal war) and have many other benefits.

That means in public each member of Congress in public must vote for or against a war, be willing to commit their people to do what is needed for the war and take the obligations of sending our soldiers to fight. Granting authority is not a declaration of war. And in times we act with the UN then why are our troops the vast majority of the forces present? Why didn't we invoke the NATO alliance and bring in our allies we would have that right in war?

This was not a humanitarian mission or a action to protect our citizens like evacuating Americans from a civil war zone- we attacked Iraq a independant nation without a Geneva Convention REQUIRED Declaration of War. Remember we got the Japanese for not declaring war BEFORE their attack on Pearl Harbor- same thing.

[Apple of Eris]

I say, based on the Medina Standard, the Administration, and commanders at Gitmo should be tried for war crimes.

-The Medina standard is based upon the massacre at My Lai which US captain Ernest Medina failed to prevent. It holds that a commanding officer, being aware of a human rights violation or a war crime, will be held criminally liable when he does not take action.[-

for more info, see:
Human Rights and the Commander By Barry McCaffrey, autumn 1995
The My Lai Massacre: A Case Study By MAJ. Tony Raimondo, Human Rights Program, School of the Americas, Fort Benning, Georgia

[kylie]

Before anyone tries the French and Germans for being in cahoots with Saddam, what happened to Reagan-Bush Sr. providing him arms and looking the other way during the gassings of the Kurds?  The sort of thing we claim to have gone to war to prevent.

Seems to me we're party to the UN, and the leader of the UN insists the attack on Iraq was illegal.  There are also several American soldiers that have refused deployment partly based on arguments that it violates international treaties we have signed. 

However, I'm less concerned with whether the war is legal than whether it was honestly represented or helpful.  I don't believe it has been either of these.  Unless perhaps you're an oil baron, defense contractor, or perhaps certain Iraqi exlies (often linked to fiery militias or Iranian influence).  I believe the administration fabricated claims of present danger, and has since trashed our economy for the sake of manly harumphing and pounding against relatively defenseless people.

[MadPanda]

Shame, shame!  It's all the fault of those dirty peacenik cut-and-run Democrats and libruls!  Why, if they hadn't dared to doubt our Great Leader's wisdom from the outset, this happy little war wouldn't have been necessary!  Everyone knows total devotion to the President's will is the only proper American thing to feel.  Unless, of course, the President's a Democrat.  Everyone knows that they don't serve in the military or earn medals like real Americans.

You ain't wunna them traitorous types who reads books, are ya?

::)

I suggest Barbara Tuchman's The March of Folly, especially the chapters on Vietnam.  Wooden-headed pursuit of policy contrary to state interest in the face of viable alternatives, anyone?

[Swedish Steel]

Bush won a medal? Neat! What for?

[MadPanda]

Self-administered, Hero of Kompassionate Konservatism, Second Klass.

[Swedish Steel]

Cool. Bet it's shiny.

[MadPanda]

Don't tell the man, but it's balsa wood that's been spray-painted silver.

[Apple of Eris]

I thought it was wrapped in foil.

[Swedish Steel]

Well, I guess you couldn't make it to shiny, those damn things can be distracting.

[MadPanda]

Plus the metal ones have sharp edges.  We don't want Beloved Leader to hurt himself, do we?

[Elvi]

Wasn't it moulded rubber and the staff at the White House through it up and down the corridor for him?

[RubySlippers]

Exactly take sending troops to help disaster relief after the Tsunami that was a good use of our troops it helped people, we gained honor and we did not risk our troops. And Indonesia said come in for a month, no weapons, help and then LEAVE. And we did.

I also question Bush's motives he had no proof Saddam even had WMD's anymore and even if he did no proof he was going to arm terrorists with them. He was contained and hurting why did we have to invade Iraq?

[MadPanda]

Unfortunately, it will take a lot of Indonesias to redress the damage done by other errors.  :-\  Not impossible, but not easy.  And in my experience, those who shriek the most shrilly have the least stomach for what must be done.

[robitusinz]

Whoah.........
I scanned briefly through this topic and as I would probably be branded a commy bastard by most of you and am pro imigration I think I will keep well out of this one........

I wanna hear about a pro-immigration stance.  That sounds like it'd be interesting.

[MadPanda]

The greatest strength of the Republic has been, and always will be, it's openness.  ANYBODY can come here, take a citizenship class, and become an American.  Argue the melting pot versus the salad all you want--we are capable and flexible enough to allow for multiple ethnicities and sub-cultures, and yet this does not change America for the worse.  (Except for the rabid isolationists, but they'll gripe about anything)  Freedom and justice for all, remember?

Contrary to the complaining and whining of some folks who can't stand the thought of admitting that there are non-white, non-European, non-Christian citizens, they do exist, and they are important.  It is the immigrant who keeps us strong and vibrant, whose cultural contributions make us more diverse and fascinating.

Immigration is a good thing.  It always has been: the benefits have outweighed the costs, which have almost never been as horrible as some people want to think.

Now, that said...illegal immigration is still illegal, and is a major concern.  Thanks to the heated rhetoric of a few citizens *cough*Buchanan*cough* it has become very difficult to calmly and carefully discuss the issue without accusations of 'appeasement' going one way and 'racist' going the other. 

Obviously, we don't want just anybody coming in, or sneaking over the border for who knows what nefarious purposes.  So we have quotas and limits.  But the result?  Legally immigrating is time consuming, costly, and a bureaucratic pain in the neck.  Which in many ways encourages illegal immigration.

There's got to be a better way.  I don't know what it is, but there's got to be one.  How does one punish the guilty without in some way also punishing the innocent? That takes a form of wisdom that's in short supply these days.

[RogueJedi]

I am not in lockstep with Bush.  I definitely don't agree with him on "gay marriage".  However, he is not the pure evil some people are making him out to be.

He makes decisions and carries them out.  I, for one, would rather have that than a president who waits to see whch direction the wind is blowing before coming to a decision.  If we don't agree, fine.  Get involved in the political process.  As long as you are a LEGAL citizen, that is your right.

But, with family and friends who serve in the military in my family (including some DIEHARD Democrats), I have asked them about leadership.  Every single one of them say that they prefer someone like Bush to our previous President who cut and run in Somalia after causing the events of October 3rd, 1993 by not listening to his commanders on the ground.  They also said that they didn't trust Kerry who is notorious for his flip-flops.  (Including on Immigration)  And by the way, if we ever go to war with Iran, Kerry has already said (on the record) that we must go to war with Iran if they get a nuke and we can't peacefully resolve it.  So, if that comes true, don't go saying that whoever is President has overstepped his authority.

We do not hand over our sovereignty and control to anyone else, not the UN, not the World Court, no one.  Over 225 years ago, our forefathers fought to give us our freedom and sovereignty.  We should honor it.

[MadPanda]

Do a little more homework on this and you may find something interesting.

Clinton 'cut and run' in no small part because if he hadn't, the House and Senate would have yanked the rug out from under him: there were resolutions pending that would have forced him to either withdraw the troops or defy the Legislative branch (at which point they would have flayed him alive for daring to defy them).  That does not excuse his actions, but it does put them in a different light.  Needless to say, many of those who castigated him then (for putting troops in harms way) now shriek when a 'mere' 2500 casualties is reason to rethink Iraq.  *cough*DeLay*cough*

Events are rarely as clear as they seem in sound bites.

And before I forget...

Nixon cut and ran in 1972 from a place called Vietnam.  And Ronald Reagan cut and ran from Beiruit in 1982.  What makes their decisions different?  Where is the anger for these two incidents?

Is it 'cutting and running' to decide that a given policy has failed and move to save American lives and taxpayer money, rather than continue to blunder ahead and waste more or both?  Or is the admission of error so painful that it must be left for a successor, no matter what?

[kylie]

And by the way, if we ever go to war with Iran, Kerry has already said (on the record) that we must go to war with Iran if they get a nuke and we can't peacefully resolve it.  So, if that comes true, don't go saying that whoever is President has overstepped his authority.

We do not hand over our sovereignty and control to anyone else, not the UN, not the World Court, no one.  Over 225 years ago, our forefathers fought to give us our freedom and sovereignty.  We should honor it.

Really, I don't see it as a simple choice of Democrat or Republican and one of them must be right.  Big money structures political institutions that way, so that everyone can be wrong but both sides will take bribes.  People can both choose problematic routes on all sorts of things, and there are plenty of issues for each individual to weigh against others. Kerry saying one thing does not make Bush right.  Any individual has all sorts of reasons (some good, some bad) to change their tune, and plenty of politicians in both camps do it.  "Flip-flop" is no more useful than say, "war president" in telling us what someone really does and why.   

Legal is not the same as useful or right.  A Houseful of legislators saying one thing does not necessarily make it practical.  They can pass resolutions about North Korean horror and evil until the end of time.  But if they're concerned about consequences, they won't invade that country.  In this sense, I'm inclined to say too bad Saddam was nowhere close to having nukes.  It would have saved so much waste and hubris if the administration thought he really might use some.  Risk a nuclear attack on our troops, or upon the Saudi royals with all our support for that oh-so-democratic government?  I don't think so. 

We go to war with forces we _presume_ will fold.  Flowers in the streets of Baghdad, remember?  But use the least advantaged segments of our society for infantry, just in case that little business of attrition or urban combat arises.  The muja in their caves do not call us cowards for no good reason, while we bomb from high altitudes and bribe local thugs to (maybe) hunt for them.

I'm not saying the noble thing to do is get more boots on the ground.  I think it's better to stay out where we didn't have much historical interest aside from economic exploitation.  Arrogance and greed make targets for many miles.  Ask the WTC and Pentagon.

And our forefathers...  Were slave owners.  Who were much more cautious about foreign entanglements, in the days before air superiority and all-consuming transnational capital.




 

[Sugarman (hal)]

Really, I don't see it as a simple choice of Democrat or Republican and one of them must be right.  Big money structures political institutions that way, so that everyone can be wrong but both sides will take bribes.  People can both choose problematic routes on all sorts of things, and there are plenty of issues for each individual to weigh against others. Kerry saying one thing does not make Bush right.  Any individual has all sorts of reasons (some good, some bad) to change their tune, and plenty of politicians in both camps do it.  "Flip-flop" is no more useful than say, "war president" in telling us what someone really does and why.   

Legal is not the same as useful or right.  A Houseful of legislators saying one thing does not necessarily make it practical.  They can pass resolutions about North Korean horror and evil until the end of time.  But if they're concerned about consequences, they won't invade that country.  In this sense, I'm inclined to say too bad Saddam was nowhere close to having nukes.  It would have saved so much waste and hubris if the administration thought he really might use some.  Risk a nuclear attack on our troops, or upon the Saudi royals with all our support for that oh-so-democratic government?  I don't think so. 

We go to war with forces we _presume_ will fold.  Flowers in the streets of Baghdad, remember?  But use the least advantaged segments of our society for infantry, just in case that little business of attrition or urban combat arises.  The muja in their caves do not call us cowards for no good reason, while we bomb from high altitudes and bribe local thugs to (maybe) hunt for them.

I'm not saying the noble thing to do is get more boots on the ground.  I think it's better to stay out where we didn't have much historical interest aside from economic exploitation.  Arrogance and greed make targets for many miles.  Ask the WTC and Pentagon.

Thinking she is describing the US as a school-yard bully? We pick on a kid we thing we can push about, thinking we want risk much. But 2,600 lives lost later (and counting) are we so inclined to rule the yard still.

I'm old enough to remember marching with 300,000 other people  in SF trying to get LBJ and Nixon to feigin stop bullying.  55,000 lives lost we got out. And the lesson was unlearned.

[kylie]

Yes, I think of it more as a big, fat bully that isn't worried if a couple pounds get rubbed off in the scuffle.  And those pounds are frequently young, less educated, and not upwardly mobile pounds.  Also not to be photographed on the way to their final resting places. 

Vietnam took a good few years to wind down, was a new form of media event, and involved more young people who never desired to be in the military.  This, we are _led_ to believe, is just the 'business' of "national security."  Whatever you say, Mr. Cheney-Capone.

[robitusinz]

We do not hand over our sovereignty and control to anyone else, not the UN, not the World Court, no one.  Over 225 years ago, our forefathers fought to give us our freedom and sovereignty.  We should honor it.

I'm really tired of this uber American rhetoric bullshit.  C'mon, give me a fucking break already.  Be proud of your own accomplishments.  Don't spout off on shit done by people centuries before you, who were completely unrelated to you.  And no, I don't give a fuck if you can trace direct lineage to Benjamin Franklin.  The simple fact is that no one can precisely say what our forefathers were thinking, or what their intentions were when they made those "great" decisions that people say they made.  Not only that, but it's impossible for the modern man to adequately put the "forefathers" into context.  Like Kylie mentioned in her post, the forefathers were slave-owners without access to nukes and stealth bombers.

You know what...I'd go so far as to say, "Fuck the forefathers".  Give praise to the mass of immigrants who flooded this country and actually stabilized it.  The Irish, the Italians, the Spanish, the Africans, the Germans, the Dutch, the Cubans (hey if the Ities get props for NY, we're taking props for Miami), the Mexicans, the Portoricans, the Polish...I mean, you want to assign praise, give it to the people who've provided the manpower, and subsequently the leaders who pushed this country beyond a clone of England to a healthy, thriving melting pot bursting with flavor.

Americans need to jump on ladders and see if they can see something beyond our borders.  It's time we started being citizens of the world, and not its usurping rulers.

[Zakharra]

 USA, lone superpower in military and economic reasons.

I'm really tired of this uber American rhetoric bullshit.  C'mon, give me a fucking break already.  Be proud of your own accomplishments.  Don't spout off on shit done by people centuries before you, who were completely unrelated to you.  And no, I don't give a fuck if you can trace direct lineage to Benjamin Franklin.  The simple fact is that no one can precisely say what our forefathers were thinking, or what their intentions were when they made those "great" decisions that people say they made.  Not only that, but it's impossible for the modern man to adequately put the "forefathers" into context.  Like Kylie mentioned in her post, the forefathers were slave-owners without access to nukes and stealth bombers.

Then what have other nations done to be proud of? I am proud of the US. It has done alot of good in it's history. I know that it's done evil too. But over all, it is a good nation and will do more good. We, as a nation, did not give up soveriegnty for other organizations to say wether we can or cannot go to war.

Which we did declare war. Twice in fact. Thry two resolutions that passed both Houses of Congress. The Constitution does not spell out a specific way that war has to be declared. Only that the Congress has to authorize action. Which it did.Twice. So it's a legal war. One that we do not need the UN's permission to begin again. Yes again, since the 1st Gulf war never really stopped. The open fighting ended with a cease fire. Since the cease fire terms were violated, open military action could be resumed at any time by any of the Colaition members.

Immigration is good, as long as it's legal.

Yes, I think of it more as a big, fat bully that isn't worried if a couple pounds get rubbed off in the scuffle.  And those pounds are frequently young, less educated, and not upwardly mobile pounds.  Also not to be photographed on the way to their final resting places.

Remember , it's an all volunteer military. Not a compulserary one.  Iraq is not Vietman, no matter how some people may wish it is. vietman had 55k dead in 10 years. Iraq is 3 years old and has 'only' 2500 dead. That's unheard of, to have that few of battlefield deaths in any war.

Iraq has a constitution, a duely elected government. It's military and security forces are growing by the day. Several insurgant groups are looking to lay down arms and join in peaceful discussion with the elected and legal Iraqi government.  There is a real chance that the Middle East can actually see a real change in how things are run. After thousands of years of dictatorships and kings, the people finally have a chance to determine their own destinies.

[Apple of Eris]

Illegal immigratio is good for the economy of the USA. In fact most of the inexpensive goods we have are because of cheap immigrant labor. I haven't heard a singl economist dispute that fact, and that is why the immigrant reform movement pretty much crashed and burned in the congress. there is simply too much money involvedto shake it up substantially without risking our economy.


GODDAMMIT!!
Argh!
I said I was NOT going to get involved in these political threads. *shakes head aand stalks off muttering about not being able to resist posting*

[Zakharra]

 that's why the politicals are not doing anything about illegal immigration. Most of the voting public is very much against illegal immigration. It's not as important to the economy as some say. The illegal labor force is about 5% of the entire US labor force. Not enough to have a large effect if the illegals are stopped.

If the Senate plan is ever enacted(which it won't be. Thank Goddess for that!), any effect that kicking the illegals out would still happen since the illegals would be waived of any crimminal doings and be made legal. Which means thety would haver to be paid minimum wage.  Which is higher than many are paid right now. 

[Apple of Eris]

ACtually a number of studies show that if illegal immigrants are removed from the workforce, many common goods will go up by 2-3 dollars, including things like milk and bread.

Illegl immigrants may be 5% of the workforce which seems small, but they make up a majority of some important staple industries, such as agriculture (esp as migrant workers).

Its interesting stuff, and as a member (sort of) of teh hospitality field, I'm all in favor of illegal immigrants. Sure, some are criminals, but so are some legal citizens, the vast majority are law abiding and simply looking for opportunity. And I say, welcome to the USA :)

Anyway, now I'm going to bed.
And I swear, no more political threads, I swear. really. Honest.

[kylie]

Honestly, Zak, I feel like you keep switching points of reference whenever you don't like one outcome. The issues are tied together, so that won't work.

First it's look, 17  broken UN resolutions.  Then it's oh but we don't need the UN anyway.  As Noam Chomsky once put it, if you're going to "be a Nazi" and trample the rest of the world regardless, then "at least have the decency" to say so at the start.

Then it's some 5% of the economy doesn't count.  Or maybe it does, and immigration is fine as long as it's legal.  But if it were all legal, they'd be making more money, and that 5% of the economy wouldn't be making the big capitalists so much money.  So perhaps the GNP would not be gaining that amount and the "economic superpower" slumps a tad.  At any rate, if you go with legalization, you may take a certain economic risk on the immigrants' (if not the collective) behalf. 

I don't believe whole nations or governments are good or evil.  Some policies seem to help or not only IF you've been taught that a certain cause is particularly good.  I think you'll have a difficult time convincing much of the Middle East that we're helpful.  I've seen films of multiple Baghdad people saying sure Saddam was cruel, but at least he didn't disrupt the national economy and steal oil. 

The militants are not conceding defeat.  They're saying either stay and cause a brutal scene like the globally-beloved Israelis, or get out and leave us be.  And the Bush administration has said repeatedly that they won't set a timetable, because when the American troops are gone people would still be there with other ideas.  Well, it looks to me like people are going to keep having other ideas no matter how many bullets and dollars we toss around.

In unconventional war, lots of common people think the rebels are honorable and the occupiers are not.  For example, the History Channel ran a show called Targeted: Osama which repeatedly mentioned that _many_ Saudis and Pashtuns support Osama.  Even a member of Pakistani intelligence, among our many complicated allies, sat up and said, are you kidding of course we wouldn't tell you where he is if we knew!  (Although, I sincerely doubt Bush wants Osama captured alive and talking.) 

Then what have other nations done to be proud of?

They have maintained local social systems under frequently harsher environmental conditions.  Often they've managed quite happily with widespread rice farming or herding.  Meanwhile, the West concentrated power in the hands of a few industrialists, then went around the globe disrupting local markets.  Even China which the US likes to fear these days, has historically been content to stay on its own landmass and take symbolic gifts or hold skirmishes (Tibet being an exception).  While the US was actively colonizing a whole continent and not a few Pacific islands.  America could never take care of its own without stealing someone else's, from the very start.  I'm not proud of that.  Nor would I argue we're the only ones historically (we have Greco-Roman symbols in Washington buildings for a reason).  But I think it's honest and worthwhile to say so.   

[Brandon]

I often dont care to talk politics because of my views on organizations as a whole (that being that any organization run by mankind has the potential to be corrupt but doesnt neccasarily mean it is). However I consider myself an independant. I dont belive in everything any party does or says but I also belive in giving praise where praise is due. Instead I take what bits of information I can and choose what I think is best for our society overall. I know thats a very broad idea but theres no real way I can narrow it down without keeping the broadness and falling into a "your left wing, right wing, etc" category

[kylie]

That quote thing quite lost me.  I'm not sure I see the point in quoting a whole post, especially a long one.

But I'd like to think I said a little more in there than screaming, I am some "wing."  In My Haughty Opinion.

Of course, people will take things as people will.  *hmms*

[Brandon]

Sorry It acctually wasnt ment to be quoted at all, I just had a catastrophic mouse failure there. Still not sure what happened  ??? However I did modify it so that the post is how it was supposed to appear.

[kylie]

Ah ha.  Gotcha. 

I agree we have a tendency to rely too much on concepts and labels to get us by, as if they were black and white.

Just wish I didn't see so many convincing suggestions that the present administration tends to run pretty black.

[Zakharra]

 

First it's look, 17  broken UN resolutions.  Then it's oh but we don't need the UN anyway.  As Noam Chomsky once put it, if you're going to "be a Nazi" and trample the rest of the world regardless, then "at least have the decency" to say so at the start.

People have been saying that the Iraq war is illegal. I'm merely pointing out the legal reasons for not needing any UN permission to go to war.  There was no end to the 1st Gulf war. Just an end to the open conflict. That's all. Hells, we are still at war with N. Korea. The Korean War ended with a cease fire. Open combat could be started by either side at anytime and it would be legal.

Then it's some 5% of the economy doesn't count.  Or maybe it does, and immigration is fine as long as it's legal.  But if it were all legal, they'd be making more money, and that 5% of the economy wouldn't be making the big capitalists so much money.  So perhaps the GNP would not be gaining that amount and the "economic superpower" slumps a tad.  At any rate, if you go with legalization, you may take a certain economic risk on the immigrants' (if not the collective) behalf.

I just want legal immigration.

ACtually a number of studies show that if illegal immigrants are removed from the workforce, many common goods will go up by 2-3 dollars, including things like milk and bread.

Illegl immigrants may be 5% of the workforce which seems small, but they make up a majority of some important staple industries, such as agriculture (esp as migrant workers).

Its interesting stuff, and as a member (sort of) of teh hospitality field, I'm all in favor of illegal immigrants. Sure, some are criminals, but so are some legal citizens, the vast majority are law abiding and simply looking for opportunity. And I say, welcome to the USA Smiley

I find this disturbing in so many ways. Illegals are committing two crimes, one very serious. Tresspassing and identity theft. The last is the most serious. The illegals, namy of whom do not want to be citizens of the US, come here looking for work. Not because they feel a love of the US. They disrespect our laws by crossing the border and add the their crimes by staying.

I have seen statistics and illegals are not the majority in any industry. The largest one is agriculture and there they are only 24%. That's a minority.  So what if it raises prices for a time? The industries affected wll spend money in R&D and make ways to do their business cheaper. The same thing was said about the Simpson/Misoly(sp) Act(I think it was called) and the tomatoe growers. That if the act was passed and enacted, that the price of tomatoes would go up. What happened? Tomatoes are being picked by machines now. The industry adapted and survived.

I have said before that was annoys me about illegals is the ILlegal part. I do not care why they came here, or anything about that it's the fact that they came here illegaly that pisses sme off.

I don't believe whole nations or governments are good or evil.  Some policies seem to help or not only IF you've been taught that a certain cause is particularly good.  I think you'll have a difficult time convincing much of the Middle East that we're helpful.  I've seen films of multiple Baghdad people saying sure Saddam was cruel, but at least he didn't disrupt the national economy and steal oil.

The militants are not conceding defeat.  They're saying either stay and cause a brutal scene like the globally-beloved Israelis, or get out and leave us be.  And the Bush administration has said repeatedly that they won't set a timetable, because when the American troops are gone people would still be there with other ideas.  Well, it looks to me like people are going to keep having other ideas no matter how many bullets and dollars we toss around.

The Middle East has been run by dictators and theocrats for millenium. That's all that most people there know. We are trying to change that social dymanic. To give the people there a choice and improve their lives. To live without the fear that Saddam used to stay in power. 'Cross me and you die.' That was how he ruled.  Saddam controlled the Iraqi economy and the oil. It was run for his benefit. Not his people's.

They have maintained local social systems under frequently harsher environmental conditions.  Often they've managed quite happily with widespread rice farming or herding.  Meanwhile, the West concentrated power in the hands of a few industrialists, then went around the globe disrupting local markets.  Even China which the US likes to fear these days, has historically been content to stay on its own landmass and take symbolic gifts or hold skirmishes (Tibet being an exception).  While the US was actively colonizing a whole continent and not a few Pacific islands.  America could never take care of its own without stealing someone else's, from the very start.  I'm not proud of that.  Nor would I argue we're the only ones historically (we have Greco-Roman symbols in Washington buildings for a reason).  But I think it's honest and worthwhile to say so.

England; colinized most of the globe. Creating an empire that truely spanned the entire planet. France; had lands in Africa and Indo-China. Germany; the same. Holland; the same. Belgium; had the Congo, run as a department for the king of Belgium. Spain controlled all of Central America and most of South America in fairly rutheless ways. Portugal; similar on a small er scale. Both of the later nations engaged in the cross Alantic slave trade up into the late (about) 1800's. Russia; conquored the lands around it ruthlessly.  China has been a very agressive nation before and is looking to be so again. Japan; very agressive colonization in WWII. Ruthelessly occupied Korea and most of China.

Most of the nations above were ruled for many years by kings. queens or oligarchies who controled things for their benefit. The US has done it's share of conquest, that is true. But we have also freed many nations. Of all of the nations we defeated in our history, how many have we given up voluntarrily? Mexico, Phillipeans(sp), Cuba. Most of Western Europe. I do not know the entire list, but we have helped many nations as well. We're not perfect, but we try and we do a damned good job at it. Sometimes that requires doing what others disprove of. Like Iraq. A war that France and Germany didn't want to have started for selfish reasons. To protect their economic reasons and because officials in thos nations were being bribed by Saddam to aid him and look the other way on certain things. Oil for Food program.

[Swedish Steel]

The Middle East has been run by dictators and theocrats for millenium. That's all that most people there know. We are trying to change that social dymanic. To give the people there a choice and improve their lives. To live without the fear that Saddam used to stay in power. 'Cross me and you die.' That was how he ruled.  Saddam controlled the Iraqi economy and the oil. It was run for his benefit. Not his people's.

So I can look forward to you bringing democracy to Saudiarabia next? Cool, that'll be something to watch.

[Elvi]

*coughs*
I seem to have forgotten, some one remind me?
Who helped Sadam into power?

[Apple of Eris]

If I were a woman in Iraq, I'd live with much more fear now than under Saddam. Especially since the collapse of that secular regieme, gangs of militist extremists threaten women for simply going unveiled.

Theres random kidnappings, shootings, uncertainty if utilities will continue to operate, and unstable government and police force.

I don't see things as having improved for the people of Iraq.

[Swedish Steel]

Right. And you also did a great job of bringing democracy to Chile by getting rid of that vile military dictator Allende and getting the democraticly elected Pinochet into power. Or wait...did I get that mixed up?

But back to the middle east. You also did a great job for democracy by getting rid of Iran's elected Prime Minister Muhammad Musaddiq in 53. I guess you are only safe as democraticly elected leader as long as you do what the US wants you to do.

[Apple of Eris]

You are only safe as a democratically elected offical if you are not a *gasp* socialist

[Elvi]

Or someone who wants to rule their own country, or dare to say "hang on why cant we use nuclear energy when you not only have that BUT still have weapons."

[Swedish Steel]

Better warn my PM then, though I doubt he deserves to call himself a socialist these days.

[Swedish Steel]

Or get the crazy idea that "Hey, all these foreign companies come here and drill our oil, how much of that money do we ever get to see? Shouldn't the oil wells belong to us, the people of Iran?". That's your ticket to a swift kick in the ass.

[kylie]

Re: Japan...  Japan was once by far the largest participant in multinational "peace" operations of its time: enforcement of the opium trade against the Chinese Boxer Rebellion.  And then, after years of draining Japanese silver through unequal (gunpoint) treaties, and as Japan carried on attempting to gain sovereignty in tune with the prior examples of Europe and America, the white powers that be limited the size of the Japanese navy (although they marginally helped the Allies in WWI) and changed the rules.  Realizing Japan was gaining power by seizing the sort of resource access that gave them power, they blockaded Japan from the oil market.  American diplomats were very aware that this would set up a US-Japan conflict. 

This is the same sort of thing Bush says today: no dictator should have control of too much oil (never mind that he's an Iraqi and the oil sits under their land - or that a line was drawn by Britain handing it to some neighbor), because after all oil 'is' _American_ national security to police.  The US is busy prying foreign control away from local industries, from cocoa beans up to oil and (now) nuclear science.  Many of the brutal leaders we claim to "free" people from gained power through popular, nationalistic responses to hopeless and demeaning economic situations that global powers set up (and responses to foreign invasions serving them).

China...  If you know more about the history of who originated the notion of a Chinese geographic sphere, I would be interested to hear that.  Granted the Han have done some nasty things around Mongolia, Xinjiang, and Tibet.   However, they had the naval capability to do a serious invasion of South Asia or Africa hundreds of years ago.  They considered themselves all high and mighty and civilized, yet the only global expedition they mounted was a demand that some African kingdom hand over "the Buddha's tooth."  After some time, they scrapped the navy for the most part.  For me, this simply doesn't compare to what the US, or some of the other empires you mention have done with their navies.  These have caused socioeconomic disruption across much wider swaths of the globe. 

[Zakharra]

 Fine then. If the US had not helped, the Europe would be saying 'Heil Hitler!" Russia might still be Communist, Japan would have murdered hundreds of millions of people in China and still be brutally holding most of the western Pacific. What the Japanese did to the people of the lands they occupied is atrocious. The Rape of Naking ring any bells?

In  geopolitical politics, you often have to mnake a choice of the lesser of two evils. Saddam was already in power when we backed him. At that time, it was better to back him than to see Iraq very likely overrun by a violent theocratic regime from Iran.

I'm not sure what happened in Chile. My history on that is sketchy at best.

If I were a woman in Iraq, I'd live with much more fear now than under Saddam. Especially since the collapse of that secular regieme, gangs of militist extremists threaten women for simply going unveiled.

Theres random kidnappings, shootings, uncertainty if utilities will continue to operate, and unstable government and police force.

I don't see things as having improved for the people of Iraq.

You would rather live under the threat of rape rooms? The kidnappings and murders that happened under  Saddam's rule? Would it be better if Saddam had been left in power? You can say that since we set Saddam up, we are not trying to fix the problem. The man is safer in jail or better yet, dead.

We are trying to change the Middle East for the better, which is something that (sorry, I'm really pissed off right now) NO  ONE ELSE, ESPECIALLY EUROPE!! IS WILLING TO DO. They'd rather let a murderous dictator stay in power so they can keep getting bennies.  At least we are TRYING! Are your nations? No.

[Zakharra]

 I'm sorry about the above post. I could not take the bashing of the US. Everyone seems to be constantly bashing my nation, which I love. It gets disheartening when people can't see what good the US has done and is trying to do, and sometimes I blow up for a time.  :(

[kylie]

I'm sure you'll find plenty of people thankful for (rather belated) assistance against the Germans.  And many of the same people will think the US is now going down the wrong road.  Performing miracles yesterday does not give you a blank check for today.  If it did, that would be more like theocratic oligarchy.  Whatever the US did to Europe's satisfaction in WWII hardly excuses its treatment of the "underdeveloped" (and post-intervention, economically hobbled) world.  The Native Americans, Koreans and Filipinos (activist movements from both of those are still protesting general political meddling and specific massacres), Latin Americans from "big stick" Teddy onward, the Middle East lately, and more.

I think the government is _trying_ something in the Middle East that is mostly not what they say it is -- they're more concerned about oil and showing off bombers than human rights or WMD.  That makes a bad foundation for nation building, and people in the region can often see through it.  They've found regional governments from North Africa east ranting about democracy as a cover for rampant corruption and exploitation.  Armed movements historically began with such concerns.  The US  investment of capacity and  lives (2500+ of ours, but many times that number of "theirs")  is not worth the gamble to me.  Big business is a much more probable winner than average people.  Halliburton gets to drill and build and feed until the troops depart, if not later. 

To play the hypothetical history game a moment...  I doubt the Germans could have held the Eastern Front even if the US never landed in Normandy.  If I recall correctly, leaders at Yalta (1942 I believe?) were pretty clear that there was going to be a power vaccuum in Europe, and the Russians were already making a good start toward forcing a German retreat.  Russia lost a couple million lives and did most of the dirty work.  Give them some credit.  We didn't watch half of the US burn in that war, and come back kicking.  We got in on the ground when many cities west of Moscow (Russian and others, including German) were cratered wastelands.

Even had the Germans somehow ruled over then-devastated Europe, they had a tiny navy and the US had massive industrial capacity.  I bet the Nazis would have made an even easier Cold War opponent than the Russians.  The Russians' missiles could barely fly for the first few years, their showpiece air defense system was never up to speed, they had chronic economic problems, and the CIA was hounded by American conservatives to report that they were stronger than they were.  Quite similar to Bush and Rumsfeld talking Iraq all out of proportion.  The Germans could not have easily built and coordinated so much industrial strength as the Russians.  And they would have been struggling with guerrilla movements that the historical Soviets couldn't dream of before Afghanistan.   

The US...  It's more a love-hate thing, but it's "my" country too for the present.  And I'm fine with you having your opinion.  Although if you'll accept some acerbic humor: you might pay attention to travel advisories (really, not the most popular opinions globally).  That said, I think this war is particularly disastrous.  We're bumbling around like the Brits in the Age of Imperialism proper, claiming we can send a few soldiers with talk of our capital's glory and thereby "civilize" most everything from Afghanistan to India/Tibet.  Yet we have little real knowledge of the people and our military fires gay translators.  We're packing bigger guns than the past Brits (not to ignore those along for the present), but that only alienates people more when they see those guns used to profit spinmasters back in the West.

[Zakharra]

 The US record of human rights in the last century is as good or better than any other nation.  One of the reasons people think (badly or not) of the US is because we are #1 in the world today. The person/nation on top is always a target for envy, hate and such. We make mistakes, but over all, do more good than not.

All nations do things because they benefit them , with other reasons mixed in. Iraq would be an ignorable problem if not for the fact of the oil beneath the sands of the Middle East. That fact cannot be ignored. Oil is what fuels the world's economy So anything in that region has to be taken seriously.

The reasons, as I see them, for going into Iraq are manyfold. To remove Saddam and prevent him from becoming a bigger danger than he was. To free his people of him and give them a chance to change the path from tyrany and religious fanaticism to something more tolerant. To change the economic/social dynamic of the region. Which we can do if we succeed. The signs are there that there is a good chance of that happening.

Iraq has a elected government, it's military and security forces are growing by the day and the people are getting tired of being blown up by fellow muslims. The records that were found with  al Zakqeri(sp), the former head of Al-qaeda in Iraq, point to a dismal future for the terrorist network.

[Swedish Steel]

The US record of human rights in the last century is as good or better than any other nation.

No, it really isn't. If you really believe that you are kidding yourself.

[kylie]

Iraq would be an ignorable problem if not for the fact of the oil beneath the sands of the Middle East. That fact cannot be ignored. Oil is what fuels the world's economy

I think you said it all right there.  The US government is talking as if its own economic plan is all that should matter to the whole world.  I'm sorry Zak, but we are not the whole world, and our economy would not be their economy if we would get our soldiers and missiles out of the picture.  That is otherwise known as being an arrogant, thieving bully.  And all the flimsy excuses about supposed nation building are secondary. 

We wouldn't be trying to build a veneer of civil society if we didn't think we could profit from the rigged economy we're trying to put in place underneath it.  "We" meaning big business-turned policy, far more than the average American.  But we're not fooling people.  They've seen authoritarian leaders imitate us all over the region, before we even got there to give it a go ourselves.  They fought their own people for doing it, and they'll fight us all the more.

Personally, I don't drive, I take mass transit, I have lived in countries where millions of people do very well with mass transit.  Among them, Japan revamped its economy to reduce reliance on Middle Eastern oil significantly after the 1970's, and they didn't see a need to invade anyone for that.   I would also understand if we had to pay more for angora sweaters and coffee for that matter (to name just a couple things)...  And I think the Bushes have defined national interest in a faulty way.  A way that is going to haunt us for years and years, and probably inspire many more men (or women, increasingly in the Mideast) to come around blowing up things.

[MadPanda]

I'm sorry about the above post. I could not take the bashing of the US. Everyone seems to be constantly bashing my nation, which I love. It gets disheartening when people can't see what good the US has done and is trying to do, and sometimes I blow up for a time.  :(

Get used to it.  We have a PR issue that isn't getting any better. The good we do does not and cannot excuse away the evils that sometimes occur.  We can strive to do better, but the first step is always in admitting the error and acting to correct it.  Instead, we try to pretend that there has been no mistake, demonize those with the courage to question, and blame it all on people we don't like...or on those who dared to criticize our folly.

The only systems in which blind and unquestioning loyalty to the state are virtues were on the other side in this little thing called the Cold War.  You might remember hearing about that.

[Zakharra]

  Yes. I remember the Cold War with the Soviet Union.  And the infatuation the mainstream(thankfully not anymore) media has with the communist nation and it's leaders. The US(as the media saw it) could and should never have risked provocking the USSR in anyway. Like Star Wars/missle defense. Reagan calling them the 'Evil Empire' scared them. From their point of view, the USSR should have been allowed to do whatever it wanted and the US let it.

The Cold War was a mainly black and white issue. The modern world isn't as black and white.

I think you said it all right there.  The US government is talking as if its own economic plan is all that should matter to the whole world.  I'm sorry Zak, but we are not the whole world, and our economy would not be their economy if we would get our soldiers and missiles out of the picture.  That is otherwise known as being an arrogant, thieving bully.  And all the flimsy excuses about supposed nation building are secondary.

We wouldn't be trying to build a veneer of civil society if we didn't think we could profit from the rigged economy we're trying to put in place underneath it.  "We" meaning big business-turned policy, far more than the average American.  But we're not fooling people.  They've seen authoritarian leaders imitate us all over the region, before we even got there to give it a go ourselves.  They fought their own people for doing it, and they'll fight us all the more.

We are trying. I wish that we could ignore the oil below the sands of the Middle east, but that's an impossibility. Oil, for good or ill, is what drives and fuels the world economy.  I'm hoping that what the US is doing can truely change the dynamic of that region.

Get used to it.  We have a PR issue that isn't getting any better. The good we do does not and cannot excuse away the evils that sometimes occur.  We can strive to do better, but the first step is always in admitting the error and acting to correct it.  Instead, we try to pretend that there has been no mistake, demonize those with the courage to question, and blame it all on people we don't like...or on those who dared to criticize our folly.

I'd like to put forth a theory.. What if the critics are wrong and we are right? I think alot of the world's problem with the US is that it cannot control the US. The US is too powerful and does not think of what the 'world' wants or thinks is best. The world, goes after it's own interests, in many ways that show the fractured powers behind the world. IE. the various nations using what means they can to better themselves, not the world.

Personally, I don't drive, I take mass transit, I have lived in countries where millions of people do very well with mass transit.  Among them, Japan revamped its economy to reduce reliance on Middle Eastern oil significantly after the 1970's, and they didn't see a need to invade anyone for that.   I would also understand if we had to pay more for angora sweaters and coffee for that matter (to name just a couple things)...  And I think the Bushes have defined national interest in a faulty way.  A way that is going to haunt us for years and years, and probably inspire many more men (or women, increasingly in the Mideast) to come around blowing up things.

Unfortunately mass transit is simply not feasable for the entire US. The nation is too big and the population far to spread out for that to work economically. That only works in cities that are a tiny portion of the land mass.

In these times, national security is tied to a well working economy. Damage the economy and everything starts to fall apart.

[MadPanda]

The world ISN'T black and white: you got that exactly right.  Which means that treating doubt and honest questions as borderline treason as too many people are wont to do is A Bad Move.  Alas, that's what the Beloved Leader likes.  And that's what the Beloved Leader does.  And that's why old friends and allies don't like us so much anymore.  Actions speak louder than words...

If we're going to act like a rogue state, and talk like a rogue state, no matter how 'right' we want to be, other nations might just treat us like one.

The Europeans called us a 'hyperpower' when Clinton was in office...when we weren't so likely to go off half-cocked on poor data and supposition.  They have even more reasons to be wary of us now.  What's it worth to rebuild that alliance?  Or are we just going to go unilateral?

[Swedish Steel]

The Cold War was a mainly black and white issue.

Riiight. Wait, no it wasn't. The USSR were never as evil as you painted them out to be, and you never were close to being as good as you thought you were. Reagan called the Soviets the evil empire, while at the same time funding the Contras slaughter of innocents in Nicaragua. I guess they should have expected that, how dared the people of Nicaragua rise up and dispose of the US backed dictator? Somoza was a buddy, damn it!

[MadPanda]

Wasn't black and white at all, except in terms of US versus THEM.  It was easy to pretend, though...and comforting.

We have done a lot of good.  Sometimes we've even done a lot of good on purpose.  But we've also been ham-handed and klutzy, often downright hypocritical, and frequently failed to live up to our own promises to ourselves and others.  There is room for improvement.

Unfortunately, pointing this out all too often means getting labelled 'disloyal' or 'American-hating'.

[Zakharra]

  The USSR was not a good nation  by any means. It fit the definition of evil very well. They took over the lands they conquered in Europe and tried to expand their political views worldwide. Views that seem good, but ended up in hundrteds of millions of people being made into virtual prisoners or slaves of the nation. Total governmental control over everything. All in the name of the communist ethos.

If we're going to act like a rogue state, and talk like a rogue state, no matter how 'right' we want to be, other nations might just treat us like one.

We seem to be one to others because we are doing what is/or seems to be good for us. Not them. We don't answer to them.

The Europeans called us a 'hyperpower' when Clinton was in office...when we weren't so likely to go off half-cocked on poor data and supposition.  They have even more reasons to be wary of us now.  What's it worth to rebuild that alliance?  Or are we just going to go unilateral?

The US was and still is the lone Superpower. That makes people nervous.  And the Europeans liked Clinton because he was a liberal like them (using US terms of the word liberal). He likes and prefers a more European style of things. His wife has advocated that and showed us what she means when she tried to inflict Hillary Care on us. Not even the Democrates wanted to have anything to do with it. Nationallizing 1/7 of the US economy..  another note is what the Kyoto Accords failed by a huge margin in Congress. Both Democrates and Republicans voted against it.

You say we went off half cocked?  At the time, the Frence, British, Russian, Jodanian and other intelligence services said that Saddam HAD WMDs. Saddam was running a huge bluff and it worked for many years, until we called it. His own generals thought that he had WMDs until he had to tell them a few months before the war that it was all a lie. AT THE TIME, it was thought he had them. In intelligence work, you don't wait until you have 100% proof before you act. You have to act on scanty information sometimes.

If you want to get right down to it, the CIA then was run by a Clinton appointee. You could say that he screwed over his new boss.... purposefully.

[MadPanda]

So rather than admit error, it's all the other guy's fault.  How typical.

[Swedish Steel]

And I'm cynical enough to think they all had a pretty good idea there were no WMD, those were just a smoke screen. Why else would Bush deny Hans Blix those extra weeks he wanted? Because if the weapon inspectors had reported they found no WMDs and there most likely weren't any, there would be a hell of a lot harder to start the war.

[Zakharra]

 I don;t see it as an error, when I look at what was known at the time. Then, not now, but then. Hindsight is always 20/20. Did you then at that time believe that Saddam had WMD? I did. Many in the intelligence agencies did. I think that the CIA head did believe that. Unless you think he willingly lied to the President about it.

[Swedish Steel]

I think Bush and his people drew the conclusions they wanted. The reports from the people on the ground, the weapons inspectors, said that there weren't any WMDs.
The head of the CIA lying? Wouldn't suprise me one bit, but he most likely got strong hints from the White House what they wanted wanted to hear, and he set out to find the material that proved that point of view and conveniently ignored the rest.

[RogueJedi]

Jeez, outright slander of people you have never met.  I, for one, don't know what the CIA director had found to cause him to say that Iraq had WMD.  However, I do know that even Clinton and Kerry were saying that they thought Iraq had WMDs.  That is fact.  So, just because one has a problem with the current leader of the US you are attacking it.

You know, no leader from any country or time has been so outstanding.  Liberals here think of FDR as the Second Coming.  What did he do?  He actually baited a war, broke neutrality acts, and persecuted people far worse than we have ever since.  Now, he did this with support from most Americans, including both parties at the time.

But think about this.  FDR ordered Japanese-Americans, CITIZENS, into what amounted to concentration camps.  To be honest, I find that more reprehensible than what has happened recently, but that is me.  We have people captured in war zones (where MOST of the Guantanomo prisoners were captured) who were actively fighting against us.  Then, we do have some that we hold on shakier ground, which I disagree with.  But fighters being held?  They are not even allowed the Geneva Convention protections, mainly because the Geneva convention does NOT protect terrorists.  Yet, everyone is appalled that we are not giving them more rights in prison.

World War 2 was a necessary war.  So is this one.  Bad things happen in wars.  But, I still believe we committed more human rights violations in WW2 regarding Japanese-American citizens than we have at any other time in the last hundred years.  So, think about that before calling Bush or Cheney slanderous names for your own reasons, whatever they are.

[Zakharra]

 Thanks Rogue Jedi, those are good points. FDR did far worse than Bush has, so did Lincoln. Who suspended habius corpus, arrested and jailed reporters, politicians and peeople suspected of aiding the south. He siezed control of a state's government by Federal fiat(Maryland), and imposed a brutal war of attritian against the south.

Bush has done far less than that. Nixon was an ok President, he got the Vietnam war in a bad light. Maybe by that time it was unwinnable  and leaving was the only real option. I don't know. I do know that he did mess up later in the Watergate hotel thing. A damned stupid move. A scandle that the media loves and still does to this day. A scandle that they are trying to recreate with Bush.

Everything with the current President is a scandle, even if it's fake. How many 'scandles' have there been with Bush? I don't know for sure, but it's a hell of alot. The media hates this President very much and is willing to do anything, including lie, to get him out of office.  The Democrate party officials and politicians too.

O ne point Rogue Jedi  brings up is that Bush was saying the same thing that Clinton was in '98. Clinton was willing to start moving troops to Kuwait for military action against Iraq. He was (apparently) wiling to resume military action against Saddam. Yet this fact is either forgotten or ignored because I have heard and had this quoted to me, 'Everyone knew that he(Clinton) would not have gone to war'. Maybe so, maybe not.

Remember Clinton bombed Kosovo from 15,000 feet. Which killed hundred if not thousands of civilians. He sent troops over, saying that they would be there only a year. That was about 10 years ago and they are still there.

The prisoners in Gitmo are not covered under the Geneva Conventions. They were caught on the battle field, which is indicative about their thinking and actions.   

[kylie]

I still believe we committed more human rights violations in WW2 regarding Japanese-American citizens than we have at any other time in the last hundred years.  So, think about that before calling Bush or Cheney slanderous names for your own reasons, whatever they are.

It sounds to me like you consider leaders' violations against their own citizens worse than whatever they might do to citizens of other countries.  Perhaps you're more concerned about 'betrayal' than any concept of universalized human rights? 

Yes, the US deprived Japanese-Americans of property and imprisoned many under difficult conditions for a few years.  Not good.  However, as far as I know we did not sponsor a guerrilla movement to terrorize them as we have to manipulate various Latin American states.  We did not kill hundreds of thousands of them by firebombing and nuclear attack as we did with Japan.  Nor did we bomb them more conventionally and place economic sanctions for a decade or more as we have in Iraq. 

[kylie]

I, for one, don't know what the CIA director had found to cause him to say that Iraq had WMD.  However, I do know that even Clinton and Kerry were saying that they thought Iraq had WMDs.  That is fact.  So, just because one has a problem with the current leader of the US you are attacking it.

If you can manipulate the intelligence reports, you can fool people.  People who would not sign up if they had not been lied to.  If you haven't been following the news, that is a large reason for the particular outrage associated with Bush. 

Some intelligence officials such as Richard Clarke (who did resign) have openly complained that Bush personally demanded 9-11 be pinned on Iraq.  Rumsfeld set up his own little office in the Pentagon to make Iraq look nastier than it proved to be, and nastier than Middle East experts in the CIA ever imagined.  Again, a replay of the Cold War when a special office with conservative ties was set up to "disclose" the Soviet threat which CIA area specialists did not believe existed.  As I recall, Bush reportedly sent even Tenet back to work with orders to bring different results.  Now, we can say Tenet was culpable if he joined in.  Fine.  But that doesn't deal with the misdirected Crusade from the top.

There have been multiple reports on these things.  But as MadPanda keeps noting, the first reaction of the administration is to either slander the source, or scream how unpatriotic.  There are also activist film projects such as Bush's Brain tracking the pattern of disclaiming and mudslinging via Karl Rove, Texan politics, etc.

[Moondazed]

You say we went off half cocked?  At the time, the Frence, British, Russian, Jodanian and other intelligence services said that Saddam HAD WMDs. Saddam was running a huge bluff and it worked for many years, until we called it. His own generals thought that he had WMDs until he had to tell them a few months before the war that it was all a lie. AT THE TIME, it was thought he had them. In intelligence work, you don't wait until you have 100% proof before you act. You have to act on scanty information sometimes.

Seems to me that ANY proof would be good.  Hearsay would never have counted if it had been about something that didn't involve their livelihood... oil.

[Zakharra]

Seems to me that ANY proof would be good.  Hearsay would never have counted if it had been about something that didn't involve their livelihood... oil.

That's not always possible to get that. Interlligence is alot of guessing and partial proof. If you wait until you have irrefutable proof, then it is likely too late. To what you replied to, they HAD proof. The French, British, Russian, Jordanian and other agencies had enough to convince them that Saddam did have the WMDs.

I think that that that time, it was believed by most people in the know that Saddam did have them.  The main reason that France, Germany, Russia objected to the US attacking is because that we would ruin their schemes with Saddam. The Oil for Food program was used by Saddam to bribe many European officials to let him bypass the embargo on his nation.

Some intelligence officials such as Richard Clarke (who did resign) have openly complained that Bush personally demanded 9-11 be pinned on Iraq.  Rumsfeld set up his own little office in the Pentagon to make Iraq look nastier than it proved to be, and nastier than Middle East experts in the CIA ever imagined.

A man that has a personal axe to grind with the President.

Again, what was said differently by the President that was not said in '98 by Clinton? Why was Clinton believed and Bush not?

[Swedish Steel]

I think that that that time, it was believed by most people in the know that Saddam did have them.  The main reason that France, Germany, Russia objected to the US attacking is because that we would ruin their schemes with Saddam. The Oil for Food program was used by Saddam to bribe many European officials to let him bypass the embargo on his nation.

That's the sort of arrogance I've come to expect from the Bush supporters. They don't agree with you? Then they are either evil/corrupt/comunist/stupid, or all of the above. Were you one of those people that started calling it freedom fries instead of french fries? That one really sent the Europeans to the floor laughing, let me tell you.

[Sugarman (hal)]

Thanks Rogue Jedi, those are good points. FDR did far worse than Bush has, so did Lincoln. Who suspended habius corpus, arrested and jailed reporters, politicians and peeople suspected of aiding the south. He siezed control of a state's government by Federal fiat(Maryland), and imposed a brutal war of attritian against the south.

Bush has done far less than that. Nixon was an ok President, he got the Vietnam war in a bad light. Maybe by that time it was unwinnable  and leaving was the only real option. I don't know. I do know that he did mess up later in the Watergate hotel thing. A damned stupid move. A scandle that the media loves and still does to this day. A scandle that they are trying to recreate with Bush.

Everything with the current President is a scandle, even if it's fake. How many 'scandles' have there been with Bush? I don't know for sure, but it's a hell of alot. The media hates this President very much and is willing to do anything, including lie, to get him out of office.  The Democrate party officials and politicians too.

O ne point Rogue Jedi  brings up is that Bush was saying the same thing that Clinton was in '98. Clinton was willing to start moving troops to Kuwait for military action against Iraq. He was (apparently) wiling to resume military action against Saddam. Yet this fact is either forgotten or ignored because I have heard and had this quoted to me, 'Everyone knew that he(Clinton) would not have gone to war'. Maybe so, maybe not.

Remember Clinton bombed Kosovo from 15,000 feet. Which killed hundred if not thousands of civilians. He sent troops over, saying that they would be there only a year. That was about 10 years ago and they are still there.

The prisoners in Gitmo are not covered under the Geneva Conventions. They were caught on the battle field, which is indicative about their thinking and actions.   

Don't say all this too loudly. My dear departed grandmother will raise from her grave and hunt the "H" out of you ;D And as the owner of a skid-row hotel who could out cuss and out drink any five bums, you don't want to have her hear you bad mouth her FDR.

[Zakharra]

 The corruption of the Oil for Food program is true and the list of officials that have evidence that they were bribed. Including Kophie Anon's(sp) son. Three of the seven members of the US Sec Council were bought. That's proven. There was no way that France, Germany, and Russia were going to authorize war. not that any authorization was needed.

As much as the WMD angle has been played, it was one of several reasons. Any of which were sufficient to resume military action. Remember, the war had not ended. It was still going on.

About the fries thing, I never did that. I thought it rather stupid to change the name of them.

Bush has done alot that I dislike, so I'm not a total Bush supporter. I do support some things he does, but not all by a large margin.

[Elvi]

*Fights with hands to keep them away from keyboard, then turns to word program to write out 10,000 times "Must not read Political clap trap, must not subject self to reading propagander that people choose to believe, must not make comments upon others political points of view" .....*

[Sugarman (hal)]

*Fights with hands to keep them away from keyboard, then turns to word program to write out 10,000 times "Must not read Political clap trap, must not subject self to reading propagander that people choose to believe, must not make comments upon others political points of view" .....*

a excellent LOL

[Swedish Steel]

Yes, well, I tend to agree. I can feel my blood preasure spiking everytime I look in one these threads. I swear, that vein in my forehead is starting to look obscene. :)

[National Acrobat]

But that's good. What would suck is people who look at these threads and don't feel something.

[Zakharra]

 I think in these threads, we will have to agree to disagree. We each see things different and have our own stubborn opinions of other things and events. wether thru national pride/patriotism, personal experiance  or beliefs, we all have one thing in common(two actually). We live on this planet, and we like coming to Elliquiy!  :P

[Elvi]

Well thats only one that applies to me Zakharra.......*grins*

[robitusinz]

Good debate.  This thread went on a good distance.  It was an enjoyable read.

I think in the end, it's hard to be specific on where one lies on the political spectrum.  All of us have things that we care about deeply, and we can stand on these things in different ways.  Just because you fall in line with the left on one point doesn't force you stand in a similar fashion on some other issue.