Gingrich at Republican Fundraiser Says Obama’s ‘Already Failed’

Fine, but it costs a lot of money and it is not directly related to national security. Saddam was not another Hitler and did not have the capacity to become another Hitler.

I'm trying to follow your argument to its logical conclusion. You must support teaching Pakistan a lesson, it is the nation that gives quarter to bin Laden and denies our right to pursue him.

N Korea was acting up all during Bush's time in office. You said having someone who would act on his threats would squash that type of activity. What you said and what happened seem to be at odds.

You said our leaders don't care about oil and that OPEC controls the price of oil. It seems to me that Saddam's actions would cause prices to go up, and Saddam's actions wouldn't have been controlled by OPEC. It is hard for me to believe oil didn't play a role in deciding to go to war, especially considering Saddam's argument for invading Kuwait in the first place. Wasn't that over some kind of accusations over devious drilling practices?

Saddam rampaging in the middle east would have made oil prices unstable which would have had an adverse effect on the American economy. Not to mention the effect it would have on large American oil companies. Also take into account the lack of action on our part in other places in the world where unsavory things take place. It seems oil probably played a role. Am I wrong about this?

Are you not aware that you are making an argument made popular by self proclaimed "neo-conservatives"?

 

probably not, but he might have been pretty damn terrible if we had let him keep the oil riches of kuwait. and he had some minor similarities to hitler, in that he enjoyed the occasional mass gassing of ethnic groups he wasnt fond of.

that makes sense. if pakistan's government is actually doing that, and continuing to provide a haven for terrorists, and their government policy is that they are not toubled by terrorists like bin laden and they do not intend to help at all, then perhaps a regime change is in order. but as of right now we are ostensibly friendly with the leadership there. but if things go sour, i am not opposed to invading and forcing pakistan to basically reboot their whole system.

bush never said he would do much of anything. he shouldnt have. again, what did you expect him to do?

i expect bush will follow through when he makes speciic threats, which he did not do, and should not have done with north korea. what about bush's north korea policy was not perfect?

correct. when people bitch about oil prices they are simply moronic lunatics that need to learn how free enterprise works. you either buy things or you dont. you do not whine about the prices. prices should have nothing to do with politics.

saddam simply wanted to enrich himself by taking kuwait and having more oil to sell. so he claimed kuwait was actually part of what is "really" iraq and took it over. i dunno what you mean about saddmas actions causing an increase in oil prices, nor do i think it matters at all what oil costs.

1. high oil prices is a long term good thing for america because it pushes investment into whatever will ultimately replace oil. (and again, the environment, if you care about that sort of thing)

2. again, oil was important not because we need it to be cheap , but because whoever has it can get really rich. we do not need saddam to get any richer or more powerful than he was. his taking of kuwait would mean he would be more rich and more powerful.

sometimes i agreee with red. sometimes i agree with noam chomsky. sometimes i agree with southern baptists. i almost always agree with american atheists. sometimes i agree with jesse jackson. sometimes i agree with robert mapplethorpe.

i am for an aggressive policy with regard to terrorism and rogue murderous dictators. if you want to call that stance "neo-con", yunno, go for it. i think the labels can lead to misunderstandings.

 

we already did. you said you cant pass judgment on baracks loony spending yet because it hasnt happened enough yet. presumably you do not know if massive spending is a good idea and have no philosophy on the size of government or how much they should tax/spend or create deficits.

we both know the plan. you wait until the barack plans are around a while, then the polls come out and you are told what to think.

as of now you dont know if you favor baracks spending, becaue you havent been told your position yet. as of now you have to get by without comment on deficits because "i don't know their methodology".

right now it is too early for you to tell but as you say "the situation may change". that is correct. the public perception polls will come out and then you will know what red thinks about crazy spending.

"But I don't have to defend something I've never advocated. " - red55

"then what do you advocate?" - the rest of the universe

 

I have seen no indication of this. :hihi:

GASP! Sometimes I agree with martin... :insane: :wink:

 

If I'm crying Chicken Little then so is the bipartisan CBO since I'm only pointing out their projections. Projections that you have conveniently chose to not challenge. Projections that completely contradict any rational thinkers definition of proper balance.

Do you feel confident that the CBO's massive deficit projections have been over stated? Are you confident that the deficit situation will improve by the end of Obama's term? If yes to either of these questions then why? If you don't want to discuss this then fine but I would think that a "proper balance" advocate would like to discuss the merits of these projections.

 

but bush was a big spender, not a proper economic conservative. if you want to give the other side a chance, you should favor an economic conservative. besides, it is odd that an adult would not have an actual philosophy about what works, and instead would just want to give everyone a chance to enact their plan.

that dude, and most other readers i suspect, simply is frustrated with your lack of any sort of real philosophy.

true, although we do still take our proper roles on that one when the topic expands. i like to claim that you are clearly atheist, but you dont like the way that sounds too extreme so you claim agnosticism. at that point i ask if you are "agnostic" with respect to poseidon.

i believe you voted for ron paul? so did i.

those are some pretty specific questions. i am not optimistic about your chances to get answers.