NationStates Jolt Archive

I basicall agree with Bob Barr in this post:
http://atlanta.creativeloafing.com/news_flankingaction.html


The GOP, like the Democratic party, is a coalition. I believe with the current policies of the Bush administration this will continue, until a fracture destroys it.

What does everyone else think?

:headbang:

I think you're right. I've often wondered how long the coalition between the social conservatives on the right wing and the libertarian fiscal conservatives would continue to work together, and I think we're starting to see some real cracks. There's obvious tension, and I think the moderates in the party are looking at the damage done by having right-wing nutjobs like Tom Delay and Rick Santorum in the leadership and are shaking their heads.

Problem is, the social conservatives have been providing the margin of victory in recent elections, and the moderates may want to be moderate, but they want to win as well, so I imagine they'll suck it up and keep going for a while yet, and more's the pity, because American conservatism isn't conservative anymore.

I basicall agree with Bob Barr in this post:
http://atlanta.creativeloafing.com/news_flankingaction.html


The GOP, like the Democratic party, is a coalition. I believe with the current policies of the Bush administration this will continue, until a fracture destroys it.

What does everyone else think?

:headbang:
Well I tend to agree with the reasoning of the article, especially this statement near the bottom:

Bush's problem is that true conservatives remember their history. They recall that in recent years when the nation enjoyed the fruits of actual conservative fiscal and security policies, a Democrat occupied the White House and Congress was controlled by a Republican majority that actually fought for a substantive conservative agenda.

History's a troublesome thing for presidents. Even though most voters don't take much of a historical perspective into the voting booth with them, true conservatives do.

It should be interesting?

...I think the moderates in the party are looking at the damage done by having right-wing nutjobs like Tom Delay and Rick Santorum in the leadership and are shaking their heads.

Sadly, Rick Santorum is from my home state...and as far as I know, he's running unopposed.

1. Had Afghanistan offered Bin Laden in return for proof that he was responsible for attacks, extraditing him freely for trial by the US. Would you still be for the war in Afghanistan?

2. Had Saddam Hussein offered complete withdraw from Kuwait in return for the UN to review the Arab-Israeli conflict, would you have been for the first Gulf War?

*If you answered "yes" to either of these, you are lying. There was no movement for war in Afghanistan prior to Sept. 11, there was no movement for war in Iraq prior to Kuwait invasion nor after until the United States declared it wrong. There was no push for an Iraqi war the second time until Bush said they were a threat. People bought the government propaganda in both cases and hopped on the bandwagon preaching songs of war. So why do you follow them now?
Both alternatives offered above seem like plausible and possible alternatives that should be considered right? Yah, but they never happened.
OR DID THEY?:

http://www.sfbg.com/gulfwar/022091.html

http://www.j-n-v.org/AW_briefings/ARROW_briefing004.htm

They were both alternatives to the war that the government and the media failed to report. Would the Taliban or Saddam have kept their word? We don't know because the United States refused to listen or try to deal, and instead rushed to war.


We allowed the Northern Alliance to regain control of Afghanistan. Here is a group of opium warlords who devastated that country through public rapings, assassinations, and civil war; violating every civil right known to man. They devastated that country for 20 years. And now the US allows them to regain control?

We now know Saddam had no WMD's nor was wanting any. What's that you say? He had intentions? I'm sorry to point this out, but he also had 3 billion dollars in American cash lying around his palaces. Anybody in the world could get an arsenal of WMD's for 50 million dollars. He didn't have them because he didn't need them, the UN was going to prevent any country from Iraqi invasion. Well, except for the US.



So he wasn't a threat. But he abused his people right? Another government assertion that you eat up. Unfortunately, there are civil rights abuses in Iran, North Korea, Sudan, Somalia, Tujikistan, Rwanda, and our own allies Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Israel, Indonesia, Afghanistan (now), and ourselves. Are you for invading all of them too, and re-invading Afghanistan?

So what justification was there then, Mr. Knowitall Voyuerism?
Let me spell it out for you: O-I-L and the ease of getting it. Iraq was an easy target that appeared to possess little resistance (at the time) of the bunch of countries that I mentioned. The US thought they could get away with such an invasion. However, the world saw through that. Now the world hates us, we have no allies but Britain and Australia (we will lose Britain in May, just watch). Poland has already said they will remove their troops next year, who is the only other country that supports our movement AND has troops deployed.

So where does this leave us?
Up shit creek if we don't get rid of Bush.....
I'm not endorsing Kerry, I hate him too. But at this point, we need to demonstrate to the world that we don't agree with what we did either, so Bush HAS to go. If he stays, it will be a statement to the world that the US supports this crap.
So please, just don't vote for Bush.

Nice rant. It's a shame I have to interject a bit of truth :p

http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/11/08/gen.envoys.amanpour/index.html

LONDON, England (CNN) -- On the streets and in corridors of power in the Muslim world, in the salons of Europe, people keep asking: Why has the United States never tried to talk to the Taliban about Osama Bin Laden? Where's the evidence against him? Why has the United States never presented it to the Taliban?

The answer is -- they did.