Who are you voting for? Read this first!

This is a specious argument... one could say the same thing about the other extremes, the laissez-faire/anarcho-capitalists capitalism experiment. There are not absolute morale truths in the extremes (referencing virtue ethics and the golden mean).

 

The Bush administration failed in its response to Katrina because of a failure to be decisive and the failure to provide leadership. This in part reflected the administration's philosophy on the role of government. It took days before the president invoked the powers and authorities of the National Response Plan and as the Commander in Chief he failed to decisively direct the military components of response. To his credit, Bush learned quite a bit from his failure just as he learned quite a bit from his failures in Iraq.

 

Personally, I would ardently assert that the Bush administration had insufficient justification in overthrowing Saddam. In invading and occupying Iraq, Bush departed from accepted conservative policies of interfering militarily in the internal affairs of other nations. Not to mention "nation building" which he and the Republican party had explicitly debunked in the run up of the 2000 elections.

Was Saddam a horrid person? Yes. Did he lead a nasty regime? Yes. Did women have more liberties? Yes. Could one freely drink beer and spirits? Yes. Were there religious freedoms? Yes. Was radical Shia Islam kept in check? Yes.

Genocide is an ongoing atrocity in many countries and regions of the world. We use this atrocity as an excuse to become involved in the affairs of others when we choose to do so, not as a matter of policy.

 

Actually for Katrina it is the local (city/state) job to respond and THEN ask for federal assistance if they need it. I wasn't the feds job to jump in from the get go.

 

Most of you need to read a little something about GeoPolitics. This administration already acknowledged the real reason why they went into Iraq, ....it was Strategic. The problem is no one was listening when Ms. Rice said it.

If you have any time, try reading....The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives.

iF YOU WERE TO READ THIS BOOK, you will find that it was wrote and published in 1997. What should stand out in your mind while you read is the fact that many of the thoughtS in the book have been acted on after the fact.........since in fact, to a great extent MANY OF THE EVENTS THAT HAVE TAKEN PLACE SINCE THIS BOOK BEING PUBLISHED HAVE COME TO PASS.

What I am trying to say is that very few of you have much of a clue about anything dealing with matters so far above your pay grade, that you are in effect the blind leading the blind.

Not that I know anything, but......I really do not understand how the vast majority of people can not understand that throughout the last 7000 years of history, those in power will do anything to remain in power. This would include conspiring/colluding in order to remain in power.

people often make fun of those who believe in conspiring thoeries, and yes many do need to be made fun of. However, was the Christ<<<just as an example>>> not conspired against?

Research........Project Echelon........this program has been in place since at least the early 90's.

So in conclusion, I would take an educated guess and say, as far as Iraq is concerned, they needed a pretext in order to obtain the strategic goal of placing forward bases in central Asia.......hence the reason 9/11 had to happen. The idea that no one in our goverment knew of or had any sort of prior knowledge should be silly to even consider.

The rest is up to you to fill in the blanks..


Now many of you will want to break down my arguement, but really, do yourself a favor and read a little more.

 

I won't even comment on your little Katrina rant but this is crap. We went to Iraq for a reason and the sole reason was not to overthrow Saddam. Why not help out Tibet or Rawanda (sp? don't care) if we wanted to be O so righteous and help someone in need? Have you been to Iraq? We did such a great job in liberation man they LOVE us over there now. Talk about Imperial expansion...

That argument you just posted is stupid and an old one for the Bush party. If people still believe that, they are morons. Sure we got the "bad guy" and it was a great secondary mission success. But that is NOT the reason we went into Iraq. I guess whatever the government feeds some people they just chew on and like it. That is why this country will never get over the whole Dem and Repub bullcrap. Open your goddamn eyes.

As a side note I am not a loyal little Democract/liberal or a Repub/Righty, I try to keep my views open and true and I must say, Bush did some ****y stuff and it shows on all accounts. Most countries hate us and our financial situation meets his qualifications. The guy did run what was it again? 6 businesses into the ground? ****, why not a country now.

 

appointing someone to lead your emergency management agency without ANY experience in emergency management wasn't very smart either. Not that any head of FEMA could have really been prepared for Katrina, but the first two weeks were mismanaged. And on a disaster that big, FEMA should have realized city and state governments were going to need Federal assistance from the start. Chertoff would have known that, having an emergency response background.

 

That is true for lesser emergencies, but not so for large scale disastors especially when there are multi-state effects. For example, contrast the two approaches taken
* August 30, 2005 — Secretary Michael Chertoff invoked the National Response Plan the day after Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast on the morning of August 29, 2005. By so doing, the Secretary assumed the leadership role triggered by the law to bear primary responsibility to manage said crisis. The invocation occurred due to the inability of local and state government to handle the situation.
* September 22, 2005 — In advance of the landfall of Hurricane Rita, Chertoff declared the storm an incident of national significance and put preparations in place in the gulf region of Texas.

Ordinarily, only the Governor can initiate a request for a Presidential emergency or
major disaster declaration. In extraordinary circumstances, the President may
unilaterally make such a declaration. It is normal, and prudent, for the executive branch to initiate actions in anticipation of catastrophic events such as Katrina.

 

The statement above is a logical and rhetorical extremism. One could also conjecture, "Do you mean there is not one radical right terrorist in the USA?" One only needs to recall Oklahoma City. Prior to the invasion of Iraq most of the Islamic terrorists that wished to do harm to the USA were from Saudi Arabia and trained in Afghanistan.

Pre- and post-Iraq, where are most of the radical madrassas and their sources of funding? Ditto for radical Wahhabism?

 

Holy sh1t, 20 pages!!!!!!! That is a long thread. Maybe some kind of record? What are we talking about?