Liberal v. Conservative Policies

[Jimmy Choo]

To me however its risk vs. reward. Will there be higher risk going into N. Korea? Sure, there could be. But in my humble opinion I don't think Saddam would have used a nuke. He had more issues to worry about besides the US. But N. Korea is a different story. Should we go after the guy who we think would use a nuke if he had it or the wackjob who has his hands on nuclear materials and would use a nuke if he put it all together? I think its N. Korea, hands down.

[shinerbock]

Well my point is that I don't believe we can take the same type of action against N. Korea as we did against Iraq. It was clear to all parties that the United States could take down Saddam with minimal casualties, even unilaterally. I believe North Korea would be an entirely different story. We have very little reliable intelligence on North Korea, and regardless of intelligence lapses in Iraq, this is a completely different situation. Most analysts I've heard agree that strikes by the U.S. against North Korea would immediately result in strikes against Seoul. Thus, as our ally, before taking action we need ensure South Korea's safety. I think many people have gotten the impression that the American military may not be as strong as originally thought, but I am positive that is not the case. The situations we propose to address are simply different types of battle, and I don't mean the "war on terror." We simply are not fighting wars in the same manner which allowed us success in WWI and WWII. With the increase in technology, people have an expectation that wars are now to be fought in a precision style manner, which has advantages, but also lengthens war and lessens victory. We dropped thousands of bombs on Berlin and other German cities at the end of the European front during WWII. Similarly, we were forced to use the atomic bombs to bring Japan to its knees. Our society now, however, simply will not tolerate such high loss in civilian life. We could probably break North Korea by firing a thousand Tomahawks into cities, but we as a society are not willing to do that. However, with a situation like North Korea, if a nuclear strike on the U.S. is possible and threatened, I would hope the U.S. would devastate the country without regard for casualties. Protecting the United States is obviously the country's top priority, and it will probably become more important in coming years. I only hope we have a leader strong enough to face down the EU and UN, and do what America must to protect herself.

[Tom Earp]

Actually, I never understood the terms Republican or Democrate.

Liberal or Conservative.

Moderate is thrown in there to differienceate some types? Who are they?

So, will some of You Poly Scies. please feeel free to give Your defenition for all of Us?

Many big terms are thrown around and actually, they don't mean Crap!

My Idea, My Feelings, I feel, or what ever!

[shinerbock]

In my OPINION:
Liberal-Someone liberal on both social and economic issues
Conservative- Someone conservative on both social and economic issues

Democrat- liberal on social issues, but now attempts to tout themselves as conservative on economic issues. They are economically liberal in regards to social spending, but beginning with Clinton and now due to the spending of the Bush administration, they actively criticize the more liberal fiscal policy of the Republicans. Historically democrats favor spending more on education and other social programs, while spending less on the military. They also historically favor taxes which would support the broad range of the country, with the highest earners paying more, and supporting the middle and lower classes.

Republican- Socially conservative and generally economically conservative, with the exception of military spending. The definition has changed somewhat under Bush, with the administration spending extensively. However, much of that spending was due to the situation in Iraq, the war on terror, and the 9/11 attacks. Republicans generally favor lower taxes, and ones that are less progressive. Meaning that they feel that the wealthy should not be required to pay the share of the lower economic classes. Republicans are often reluctant to spend money for the social issues they may have contentions with. For example, they generally spend less on social programs, the environment, and public education.

[Tom Earp]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

In my OPINION:
Liberal-Someone liberal on both social and economic issues
Conservative- Someone conservative on both social and economic issues

Democrat- liberal on social issues, but now attempts to tout themselves as conservative on economic issues. They are economically liberal in regards to social spending, but beginning with Clinton and now due to the spending of the Bush administration, they actively criticize the more liberal fiscal policy of the Republicans. Historically democrats favor spending more on education and other social programs, while spending less on the military. They also historically favor taxes which would support the broad range of the country, with the highest earners paying more, and supporting the middle and lower classes.

Republican- Socially conservative and generally economically conservative, with the exception of military spending. The definition has changed somewhat under Bush, with the administration spending extensively. However, much of that spending was due to the situation in Iraq, the war on terror, and the 9/11 attacks. Republicans generally favor lower taxes, and ones that are less progressive. Meaning that they feel that the wealthy should not be required to pay the share of the lower economic classes. Republicans are often reluctant to spend money for the social issues they may have contentions with. For example, they generally spend less on social programs, the environment, and public education.

Hey ShinerBock, had to give Big Letters somewhere!

Thanks, while I have read it several times, I still dont know where I stand on Polotics.

I think all Poloticions are Wolfes in Sheep Clothing.

While G W as President has some good ideas, He has lost His way.

The way He as our Leader is facillitating, so is His Advisors and Congress.

As most of The Congress We know cannot hit therir ass with a Tennis Racket.

I am not reqally sure where to start, but I think His ideas are pure. I Hope!

[RACooper]

Originally Posted by ecupidelta

I just think its truely unfortunate that we have gotten ourselves so bogged down in Iraq b/c there are so many other issues that deserve our military attention. Quite frankly I would have felt better if we went after North Korea. That man is a fruitcake and if he gets his hands on a weapon, he WILL use it...

Now it just might be the jaded cynic in me... but North Korea could fight back, whereas Iraq could only put up token resistance.... and I happen to think that this little fact may have entered the political process of whom to attack in the "Axis of Evil" - but then again that just might be the cynic in me talking

[Jimmy Choo]

You could be right... N. Korea may put up some type of fight but..... this could also be the cynic in me as well but I just think that if we had left Iraq alone it would have crumbled on its own anyway. Saddam's sons would have eventually tried to kill him off and take control. The country still would have descended into chaos.

But like i said.... that's the cynic in me

[shinerbock]

I think the scenario you mentioned was highly unlikely.

[macallan25]

Originally Posted by ecupidelta

You could be right... N. Korea may put up some type of fight but..... this could also be the cynic in me as well but I just think that if we had left Iraq alone it would have crumbled on its own anyway. Saddam's sons would have eventually tried to kill him off and take control. The country still would have descended into chaos.

But like i said.... that's the cynic in me

I don't think that would have happened.

[Jimmy Choo]

Like I said... my opinion.... clearly one can tell I'm not a supporter of the war in Iraq to begin with.

[macallan25]

I just hope that you don't actually tell people that you think your situation would have happened.

[Drolefille]

There's a possibility that one of Saddam's sons would have tried to wrest power away from him, but weren't they pretty much given the run of things anyway? Palaces, women, money, etc?

why try to run the country when you can be lazy and not give a crap!

[shinerbock]

Well, and even in the unlikely situation they took power, whos to say the situation would improve. It would probably more likely stay the same or get worse.

[Drolefille]

It's kind of like asking "what will happen when Castro dies"

Who knows, depends on if there's a controlled change of power or not. and on 100 other variables.

[Tucker Carlson]

Originally Posted by RU OX Alum

Conservitives backed the German and Russian Empires (the Holy Alliance) and liberals wanted a republic.

Lets not forget that the liberals of that time also started the Communist movement in europe.