View Single Post
Old 09-14-2003, 08:14 AM   #61 (permalink)
rgr22j
Crazy
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Tophat665


<b>rgr22j</b>
<i>Also, considering the popularity of the liberation of Iraq, Dean's anti-war views do solidly put him in the "liberal" and not "moderate" camp.</i>

I don't think so. Popularity of a position does not make ones position in the political spectrum. If that calculus were right, then Pat Buchanan would be to the left of Jerry Brown instead of to the right of Mussolini.
I'm sorry? I'm afraid I don't quite follow you. In a democracy, typically the most popular position is considered the "moderate" one, with extremists on either side. For example, 70% of Americans oppose abortion, except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother. On each side, you have your extremists: on the left, abortion in all cases (on demand), and on the right, abortion in no cases (even to save the life of the mother).

As a whole, America may be well to the right of say, Europe, but we are talking about the context of the American population. If we have no statistics on the popularity of opinions on certain issues, how are we to decide what is moderate and what is not? It is not as simple as taking half of two extreme doctrines, because the breakdown of the popularity of those positions is required to differentiate between a "moderate" Vermonter and a "moderate" Texan, or a moderate American and a moderate Frenchman. Moderate clearly refers to distinctly different positions, which we can only derive by knowing the popularity of those positions in the context of the population.

Dean's position is so virulently anti-war, more so than his colleagues, and he has gained considerable political traction as a result. In this case, Dean is clearly a liberal.


Quote:
Originally posted by Tophat665
He got his stance on Iraq just right: It was a dumbass war, started by a dumbass, for dumbass reasons. However, now that we are there, it is actually easier and more cost effective (prvided you make Haliburton compete their f*cking contracts) to stay the course and try to do right by it. We've got buddies that'll help us out with this if we're willing to eat a little crow, and all the next President hast to do to get that help is say what amounts to "My predecessor was a jackass, and we have no buisness being there. Give us a hand getting out and you won't have another Taliban on your south porch."
His stance on Iraq is wrong; it was a just liberation, started by an effective, straight-spoken leader, for just reasons. You are also wrong about the effectiveness of the Halliburton contract. The Halliburton contract in Iraq (to its KBR subsidiary) was awarded under the auspices of the Army Logistics Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCAP) program. This is how it works: every few years, the Army receives bids for emergency services work. Rather than hold a bidding process for emergency work (like reconstructing oilfields), which could take weeks, the Army allocates a block contract for all emergency services. If anything needs to be done quickly, the Army calls up the company, which is responsible for a wide range of emergency work. You can think of it an emergency Wal-Mart.

Rather than tie up soldiers doing work they are not trained for, the Pentagon has trained civilian specialists on call that can do the job more effectively, more quickly, and at a lower cost. This contract is a COMPETITIVE process, with contracts awarded for several years. Halliburton first won LOGCAP in 1992 (as Clinton was entering office), and lost it in 1997. During this time Halliburton performed emergency work in Bosnia. In 1997, based on Halliburton's record in Bosnia, the Clinton Defense Department chose to keep it on to complete work in Bosnia. In 1999 (under Clinton) and 2001 (under Bush), Halliburton competed and won the contract, and thus was the point of contact for emergency work for the Bush administration in Iraq. No scandal, no impropriety, just standard operating procedure.

Also, if our "buddies" had been willing to eat a little crow, the top UN official in Iraq would not have been killed in a terrorist attack. In fact, if our "buddies" had been willing to eat a little crow and join us in the just liberation of Iraq in the first place, we might have had more soldiers and civilians on the group reconstructing Iraq in the first place.

-- Alvin

EDIT: Grammar errors. Apologies, English is not the language we normally speak at home!
rgr22j is offline  
 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360