One flaw in your analysis, Reagan didn't need to fire the first shot towards Iran. It was a case of respect. The Iranians knew that a Reagan led American wouldn't be as weak as a Carter led America. They folded. Please point out any similarities in the current situation in Iraq versus the 1979 situation in Iran. Pretty much apples to oranges. FYI, it was the policy of this country under President Clinton to effect regime change in Iraq. There have been numerous UN resolutions calling for it. The congress of the United States voted to go to war with Iraq. And now typically, some in this country have lost their resolve. Careful, but you're perilously close yourself. IMO.

 

I'm not going to defend Carter's every move with respect to the Iranian hostage crisis--that was not my intention. However, to imply that Carter lacked the cajones to deal with the Iranian problem as Bush did with Iraq implied that he should have taken more drastic military action such as an invasion or formal declaration of war. I was merely pointing out that while Carter may not have been as effective as he could have been given the very bad hand he was dealt, he did not make the grave mistake Bush did by starting an unwinnable war in the Middle East. Bush senior had the good sense not to press on toward Baghdad in 1991 and topple Saddam because he knew how it would end up. Colin Powell knew we were getting in over our heads when he cautioned about invading Iraq and then owning it. It sounds very John Wayne-esque to talk about resolve and taking out the "bad guys", but the past four years have shown that course to be folly.

 

On your second point, I don't believe the UN ever voted for regime change in Iraq. Check your facts. The Congress and the American people were fed cherry-picked intelligence that painted an extremely distorted view of reality. On this point, there is nothing to debate. The Downing Street memo ("intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" for regime change), the knowingly false assertion in the 2002 State of the Union speech that Iraq had pursued yellow cake uranium in Niger, and most recently, the revelation that layperson Doug Feith manufactured "alternative" intelligence views to support the Iraq invasion all paint a very clear picture of the deception that has been foisted on our country.

Back to Walker v. Bush; I would recommend reading "Fuzzy Math" by Paul Krugman. Pretty prophetic. An easy read for the economic/political lay person who can read, and doesn't mind going to a source other than the RNC mouthpieces on talk radio to get their marching orders.

I'm not going to defend Carter's every move with respect to the Iranian hostage crisis--that was not my intention. However, to imply that Carter lacked the cajones to deal with the Iranian problem as Bush did with Iraq implied that he should have taken more drastic military action such as an invasion or formal declaration of war. I was merely pointing out that while Carter may not have been as effective as he could have been given the very bad hand he was dealt, he did not make the grave mistake Bush did by starting an unwinnable war in the Middle East. Bush senior had the good sense not to press on toward Baghdad in 1991 and topple Saddam because he knew how it would end up. Colin Powell knew we were getting in over our heads when he cautioned about invading Iraq and then owning it. It sounds very John Wayne-esque to talk about resolve and taking out the "bad guys", but the past four years have shown that course to be folly.

 

On your second point, I don't believe the UN ever voted for regime change in Iraq. Check your facts. The Congress and the American people were fed cherry-picked intelligence that painted an extremely distorted view of reality. On this point, there is nothing to debate. The Downing Street memo ("intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" for regime change), the knowingly false assertion in the 2002 State of the Union speech that Iraq had pursued yellow cake uranium in Niger, and most recently, the revelation that layperson Doug Feith manufactured "alternative" intelligence views to support the Iraq invasion all paint a very clear picture of the deception that has been foisted on our country.

 

You need to do a fact check. The UN resolutions demand that Iraq disarm, they refused to allow verification. Case closed, Saddam must be removed. The rest of your paragragh reads like a left-wing blog. Please provide the quote from the state of the union speech that said "that Iraq had pursued yellow cake uranium". The actual text is that "British sources contend that..." They did and still stand behind that comment. In fact Joe Wilson's report supports the notion that Iraq was attempting to aquire uranium. If you would bother to read his report rather than his op-ed you may have a different

opinion of Mr. Wilson. I think everyone in politics believed that Iraq had WMDs long before President Bush invaded, check out the comments and votes of one Hillary Clinton on the matter.Regime change in Iraq was the stated policay of the Clinton administration. I support the President and I support the war. I am not one to bury my head in the sand and hope for the best like the previous president. I'd rather fight now and get it over with. Sorry, but we will just have to disagree.

You need to do a fact check. The UN resolutions demand that Iraq disarm, they refused to allow verification. Case closed, Saddam must be removed. The rest of your paragragh reads like a left-wing blog. Please provide the quote from the state of the union speech that said "that Iraq had pursued yellow cake uranium". The actual text is that "British sources contend that..." They did and still stand behind that comment. In fact Joe Wilson's report supports the notion that Iraq was attempting to aquire uranium. If you would bother to read his report rather than his op-ed you may have a different

opinion of Mr. Wilson. I think everyone in politics believed that Iraq had WMDs long before President Bush invaded, check out the comments and votes of one Hillary Clinton on the matter.Regime change in Iraq was the stated policay of the Clinton administration. I support the President and I support the war. I am not one to bury my head in the sand and hope for the best like the previous president. I'd rather fight now and get it over with. Sorry, but we will just have to disagree.

 

LSU, it sounds like you have developed a belief system that allows you to be OK with the war we started, but you simply have some facts wrong and apparently choose to ignore the others.

Back to Walker v. Bush; I would recommend reading "Fuzzy Math" by Paul Krugman. Pretty prophetic. An easy read for the economic/political lay person who can read, and doesn't mind going to a source other than the RNC mouthpieces on talk radio to get their marching orders.

 

Paul Krugman????? He's the flip side of the same coin. Talk about getting your marching orders, he must have breakfast with Dean every morning.

Paul Krugman????? He's the flip side of the same coin. Talk about getting your marching orders, he must have breakfast with Dean every morning.

 

Just curious - have you read the book? It probably wouldn't take long. Believe it or not; I often try to educate myself by examining both sides of an issue before I march.

Just curious - have you read the book? It probably wouldn't take long. Believe it or not; I often try to educate myself by examining both sides of an issue before I march.

 

 

No I haven't read the book. I also educate myself by examining both sides of an issue, I simply don't go to the outer reaches of either side for my information. He is as far out there as it gets and too often lets his political leanings interfere with sound economic thought.

Back to Walker v. Bush; I would recommend reading "Fuzzy Math" by Paul Krugman. Pretty prophetic. An easy read for the economic/political lay person who can read, and doesn't mind going to a source other than the RNC mouthpieces on talk radio to get their marching orders.

 

I havn't read that particular book but I can attest for mcpapa that Paul Krugman is no hack. Do I agree with him on everything? No. Is he often wildy one-sided? Yes. But the man knows economics and you can learn a lot from him.

I agree

 

I think that a whole lot of what is going on now in the Middle East can be placed squarely at the feet of Jimmy Carter.

 

 

How so? Never mind I read the other posts

LSU, it sounds like you have developed a belief system that allows you to be OK with the war we started, but you simply have some facts wrong and apparently choose to ignore the others.

I have the facts correct. I don't get my info from the news media. My retired status allows me plenty of time to check things out at the source. We just disagree, it isn't the first or last time.

The hatred of America actually started before Carter was in High School. Right after WWII was over a certain group of people, the League of Nations (soon to be the U.N.) spear headed by the United States decided they knew what was best for the Middle East...that land I believe was under the Turkish Empire at the time controlled by Muslims. The U.N. decided what land to seperate and to whom it would be given. In 1947 -48 the decree went out that the Jews would be given their land back and formed into a nation called Israel. The Middle East has hated us every since. The pain and suffering the U.S. expereinced on 9/11 is just the beginning of our troubles with Terrorist groups, as for the economy, this Administration is all for big businesses, we are swiftly spiraling downward and there is not much anyone can do about it. If Hilary gets elected then maybe her husband can bail America out once again as he did before. He cleaned up the first mess left by Bush Sr, and I am sure he can clean this one as well. This thing with Iraq has been going on for 40 years or longer just not out in the open. I just think that it is interesting that the person that bailed the U.S. out of the 70's oil crisis was Saddam. Now that this administration has his oil why dont they do the same.

I havn't read that particular book but I can attest for mcpapa that Paul Krugman is no hack. Do I agree with him on everything? No. Is he often wildy one-sided? Yes. But the man knows economics and you can learn a lot from him.

 

Never called him a hack, simply that he lets his political leanings drive his thoughts too often. Doesn't work well in economics and has left him with egg on his face more than a few times. And yes, there are economists on the right who do the same thing, and they are just as smart as Krugman and just as often wrong also.

To kinda bounce off Bubba's analysis, I think we can probably blame the European countries, the British in particular for hatred of the U.S. Many of these people weren't treated very nicely when they were European colonies. I'm sure that they don't see much difference between us and the English, much as we don't see much difference between different Arab groups.

 

Also, you have to keep in mind that many of these countries are very tribal and the tribe that you support today may not be in power tomorrow. And the tribe that you dissed has a long memory. Also, there's the problem of taking a nomadic people and handing them more cash than they know what to do with (oil). And finally, there's that culture clash between orthodox Muslims and the Great Satan.

 

In other words, we didn't have to do anything to draw the ire of the MidEast. The differences were already there and oil gives them the ability to make a statement.

To kinda bounce off Bubba's analysis, I think we can probably blame the European countries, the British in particular for hatred of the U.S. Many of these people weren't treated very nicely when they were European colonies. I'm sure that they don't see much difference between us and the English, much as we don't see much difference between different Arab groups.

 

Also, you have to keep in mind that many of these countries are very tribal and the tribe that you support today may not be in power tomorrow. And the tribe that you dissed has a long memory. Also, there's the problem of taking a nomadic people and handing them more cash than they know what to do with (oil). And finally, there's that culture clash between orthodox Muslims and the Great Satan.

 

In other words, we didn't have to do anything to draw the ire of the MidEast. The differences were already there and oil gives them the ability to make a statement.

 

Very True. If you teach a class on politics I want to be your under study. I enjoy your posts whether I agree with all of them or not, you are thinker.

To kinda bounce off Bubba's analysis, I think we can probably blame the European countries, the British in particular for hatred of the U.S. Many of these people weren't treated very nicely when they were European colonies. I'm sure that they don't see much difference between us and the English, much as we don't see much difference between different Arab groups.

 

Also, you have to keep in mind that many of these countries are very tribal and the tribe that you support today may not be in power tomorrow. And the tribe that you dissed has a long memory. Also, there's the problem of taking a nomadic people and handing them more cash than they know what to do with (oil). And finally, there's that culture clash between orthodox Muslims and the Great Satan.

 

In other words, we didn't have to do anything to draw the ire of the MidEast. The differences were already there and oil gives them the ability to make a statement.

 

Excellent points.