The unilateral responsibility of saving the world.

[human]

UncleVinny said:

CNN just reported a website called
www.sorryeverybody.com

that posts photos of poeple apologizing to the world for this war-dog president and his unfortunate election.
Trouble is the site is now swamped and hard to access, so I'll post my open letter here.

Open letter to our friends overseas;

Please don’t lose hope! We are not ALL war-mongers. Most intelligent Americans are opposed to war and imperialism. Please have patience with us; there is a strong peace movement in the US, and most of us mean no harm to the rest of the world.

Take a look at a map of the US, and you will see that most thinking people in the Northeast, Midwest, and West Coast support John Kerry. Those living in rural areas, people we call hill-billies, and the less educated have supported the trigger-happy Texan with residual alcoholic brain disease. Many others who can not or do not think for themselves have been duped into thinking that attacking Arab countries is somehow their religious responsibility. Again, most Americans with spiritual or true Christian values know that war and aggression is not justified. Please be assured that you have friends here in America, working to moderate and replace the current war machine which has temporarily taken over US politics.

The lack of historical knowledge always lead people to hallucinate politically, which you are doing even much better than Carter when he said I am insane, save me....

Killing tons of humans sounds more offensive to me, than killing their killers, but then how can we define human, and according to what?

His humanity or his belief?

Denial makes all things equal, isn't it?

[human]

Vagrant said:

There are many stupid people on the internet, Vinny

Don't worry too much, stupid people like you are the majority in the world today...


I personally call them the herd of denial;D

[UncleVinny]

Bush is a DANGEROUS madman.

What gives bush or ANYONE the right to decide the affairs of another country?
Especially if they do not pose an immediate threat to us?
What if Putin decided the US needs a regime change? It's a recipe for war and strife. Besides, if for some reason you suddently have an abiding love for Iraqis, there are ways to help them help themselves, to help them overthrow the dictator themselves, without sending Americans there.

For us to decide on regime change for others is kind of imperialistic. We are NOT "forced" to make those changes. It's an aggressive, pre-emptive war policy. Surely you can see why some more peace-loving members of our society feel that declaring war on another country is not the best course of action.

Are you able to comprehend the arrogance involved if I said to you "You know, pal, I know better what's good for you. I know better than you do what's good for you. Ohh, sure it helps me too, but trust me, my way is better than yours. Ignore that big fellow behind me with the baseball bat. Here, gimme your paycheck. Trust me."

What a joke that would be.
So how much MORE arrogant is it for Bush and his war-dogs to decide that for a nation of 27 million people? !!!
Astoundingly arrogant in my view.

[Ian]

You're absolutely correct Vinny. Thank God for Putin. If he ever decides he wants to meddle in the affairs of the United States, Bush's face will fall off in plenty of time for us to react.

Two words: Current Affairs

[TNRighty]

Vinny,

I happen to believe Bush is giving the Iraqis a chance to chose for themselves. What sort of decision-making capacity did they have under the rule of Saddam Hussein? Do you not believe regime change in Iraq is a good thing? I guess we just view this whole thing through completely different paradigms.

While we're on the subject of making decisions for people (as you claim Bush is doing), does the government not do just that with social security? They're telling us, "Hey, we know how to better spend your money than you do." I don't see how you can speak out against governments making choices for people yet still support something like social security or universal health care....

...Unless of course its not freedom you truly want, rather freedom from responsibility. Its pitiful, but too many people in this country who claim to desire freedom cut and run once that thing called personal responsibility rears its ugly little head. Its at that point that people start talking all sorts of garbage about "freedom from want" or "freedom from need", as if its the governments responsibility to provide them that.

People who ignore their end of the bargain in a free society tend to migrate toward government-provided security. In that case its not true freedom you desire, rather a benevolent dictator, a caretaker...may your chains rest lightly upon your chest.

Back to the Iraq thing. Peace is not defined simply by the absence of war. Sometimes war is necessary to achieve long term peace. If you think that somehow this war disturbed the "peaceful" society that existed in Iraq, you need to get a checkup from the neck up. Peace is achieved through freedom. Freedom is achieved through battle. Show me a free country in this world that has not had to fight for it. There will always be wars.

The world has never, nor shall it ever be without war, and thus it well never be without "activists" who think peace is achieved through smoking dope, holding hands, and waving signs. For those I say, go offer your hand and a doobie to Zarqawi or bin Laden. See ya on al-Jazeera minus your head. These people aren't "misunderstood". We understand them very well. They are cold-blooded killers who want to see the world governed by a radical Islamic theocracy that oppresses and abuses women, hates freedom and liberty with a passion, and generally wants to see death brought to as many Americans as possible. A US pull-out in Iraq is a victory for these thugs. Our best weapon in this war is not our missiles, our tanks, our planes, or our bombs. Our best weapon is freedom. Perhaps we should all reassociate ourselves with what that really means.

[UncleVinny]

There are approximately 100 million households in the US.
$220 billion for Iraq means that we've spent $2200 per household.

Bush now wants another $80 billion, another $800 per household.

NOT money well spent. It generates MORE hatred for the US, endless war, death, destruction. Get real! I don't see any "freedom" in Iraq. The citizens there are now saying they were "better off with Saddam." Amazing stupidity.

[TNRighty]

You failed to refute one single word I said. Oh well.

Please stop with that $2200 per household nonsense, as if somehow Bush has walked into every household in America and personally taken $2200 and put it in his war fund. Bush has not raised taxes on one single person in order to fund this war. Over the course of the last two years total government expenditure is approximately $6 TRILLION, of which about $200 billion (LESS THAN 3.5%!!!) has been spent in Iraq. I'll reiterate; during the duration of the war, war spending accounts for LESS THAN 3.5% of total government expenditure. On the other hand, over the same period of time, social security spending accounts for about 21% of government expenditure. Am I the only one who sees something terribly wrong with this?

Our government certainly has a spending problem, but Vinny please stop using defense spending to prop up your disagreement with the war. The facts don't support your claim. It makes you sound stupid. Its as blatantly and undeniably false as you telling me that 2 plus 2 equals 5.

[TNRighty]

Furthermore...I'm on a roll...

Democrats have implied that Bush has single-handedly led the United States into fiscal ruin. They believe that had Al Gore won in 2000, we wouldn't have such a large deficit.

Wrong and wrong. First of all, while the president does propose budgets, Congress approves and spends every penny. Second, George Bush is not responsible for the recession he inherited, nor is he responsible for the Islamic terror attack on 9/11 that started the war on terror. In both cases, those situations developed on Bill Clinton's watch. So it's important to put the blame where it lies. As for the war spending, hardly an economic problem (see previous post).

It's also important to note that as a percentage of GDP, the deficit is still not as large as it has been in the past. While it certainly is a problem, its not the "largest deficit ever," as the media wants you to believe. In case you didn't know, GDP (Gross Domestic Product), is the total value of goods and services produced in the United States in a given fiscal year. In 1946 the deficit was 7.2% of GDP, while today's deficit is about half that. Again, I don't deny that the deficit is a problem, but its hardly the record deficit the media claims.

As an aside, why do the Democrats refer to war spending as "deficit spending", yet never use that term to describe domestic welfare programs? If you are running a deficit, every penny spent is "deficit spending" by definition.

So do the president and the Congress bear responsibility for the overspending that leads to budget deficits? Absolutely. But here's where the difference lies. Democrats will jump up and down and scream about the deficit, but they never say what they'll do to REDUCE government spending. Their one and only solution to deficit spending is to INCREASE revenue, i.e., raise taxes. Democrats worship at the alter of high taxes. Whenever you hear a politician talking about the problems of the deficit, grab your wallet and run because it means one thing and one thing only: they want to raise your taxes to pay for their overspending.

Here's an analogy for you. Neither you nor I can demand our employer pay us more money when we hit a personal financial snag. "Hey boss, I'm having trouble making the car payment. You need to give me a raise." It doesn't work that way. Instead you change your spending habits, pass on the plasma TV, the dinners out, the designer clothing. That's how it works in the real world. Your boss has a budget, too. He can't stay in business if he's forced to support your reckless spending habits...which leads me to the other end of my analogy...

When it comes to the government, WE ARE THE BOSS!!! The government is supposed to work for us, yet we allow the government to raise our taxes in order to compensate for their spending problem. Its bassackwards.

Personal and government financial problems are not income problems, they're spending problems. Raising taxes is not the answer to our government's deficit. Its time we start being the boss again.

[Ian]

UncleVinny said:

NOT money well spent. It generates MORE hatred for the US, endless war, death, destruction. Get real! I don't see any "freedom" in Iraq. The citizens there are now saying they were "better off with Saddam." Amazing stupidity.

Percentage of eligible voters who cast ballots in the peaceful US election of '04: 51.3

Percentage of eligible Iraqi voters estimated to cast ballots in the "extremely dangerous" election of '05: at least 60%

January 30th will only tell us how successful this process will be, but if even the lowball estimate of 60% show up I would think that would exhibit an overwhelming embrace of the democratic process on the part of the Iraqi citizens, and the last thing hand-ringing, chicken little liberals like Barbra Boxer and Ted Kennedy want is for their cowardice NOT to impede the progress of liberty and democracy around the world.

What ever happens, I turn 18 so I'll lean back as I watch the returns with a stogie hanging from my mouth and a satisfied look upon my face.