Are Republicans/Conservatives capable of questioning decisions to go to war?

[SpeedRacer 1]

This is not about Iraq specifically.

It seems to me that in general, Republicans/Conservatives have painted themselves into a corner regarding war.

So much emphasis is placed on support of our country in war, that it seems to me that Republicans/Conservatives might never be able to bring themselves to question our leaders' decisions to go to war under any circumstances, since criticisms of those decisions are always depicted (by Repubicans) as being unpatriotic.

I hope I am wrong about this.

But are there any circumstances under which a republican/conservative would say no to a decision to go to war?

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[Amazon 7]

I doubt it... since so many are raised on movies glorifying war... and since any movie with any sex it in is strictly forbidden.

Most have some psuedo-macho love affair with the value of war... yet so many never do more than pay lip service to serving anyone or anything other than themselves. Actually going to war is for those unfortunate sons and daughters of the poor... who cant afford to stay far away from anything so menial.

[Gawain 0]

Your viewpoint is understandable. However, it is off the mark. Out of all the "outright" wars in the 20th century through today, more democrats have committed the US to war (WWI - President Wilson, WWII - President Roosevelt, Korea - President Truman, Vietnam - President Kennedy/President Johnson).

The difference is that people are still debating whether the US should be at war at all in the current scheme of things. Repeatedly, the US has been under steady attack since the late 1970s. The reasons why do not matter as much as the fact itself. People are debating whether we should be at war, when, in fact, we have been at war consistently since WWII.

Is US foreign policy to blame? Maybe, in part, but the US history in the middle east (to point out the obvious hot-spot), or anywhere in the world, does not extend that far in the past. In fact, pro-active foreign policy in the region (or anywhere) didn't get underway until after WWII. Even then, it was framed around deterring the Soviet Union in the Cold War. The rest of the world was choosing sides, or having choices made for them.

Reaching further back into history, Northern Africa and the middle east were played as building blocks in older European power plays (when the UK was an Empire, France had colonies, etc). Iraq didn't exist in its current form until after WWI, and even then, the UK set it up as a kingdom under a League of Nations mandate.

Pick a state of relative stability, say, Morocco, they've only been independent for about 50 years. Their political reform just saw the light of day in 1997.

Iran is a rare exception in the region. They have never been anybody's "bitch". Their Persian history dates back thousands of years. Everyone is saber-rattling over Iran because of the nature of the government that has not eroded over the past 30 years.

How does this relate to your post? Debating the policy is not unpatriotic, debating whether to support the troops when they are outside the wire, in my view, can be interpreted that way (depending on the context of the debate).

The people will decide how they want the policies to evolve in the elections, that's what elections are for. The debate in Congress is serving only to sidestep a whole mess of other work they should be doing. In a way, if nothing gets done, then maybe we're better off. Putting strings on military is not the way to do it -- and that, is a franchise that the democratic party has a stronger share of.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[DZJ 0]

Quote

Your viewpoint is understandable. However, it is off the mark. Out of all the "outright" wars in the 20th century through today, more democrats have committed the US to war (WWI - President Wilson, WWII - President Roosevelt, Korea - President Truman, Vietnam - President Kennedy/President Johnson).

Isn't that a rather simple analysis? Surely you'd have to take the composition of Congress into account to describe any given war as Democrat or Republican?

[billvon 3,132]

>It seems to me that in general, Republicans/Conservatives have painted
>themselves into a corner regarding war.

I don't think that's true. Look at the polls out there - around a third of self-described republicans think the war can't be won, and less than half of the republicans out there think that Bush is doing a good job handling it.

OTOH, Bush supporters (who are definitely not the same as republicans) are having a harder time with things, because he has been showing zero attempts at compromise and is unwilling to heed any advice that conflicts with his desires. If your premise is "Bush is right" it's hard to take any other approach to the war other than it's good, it's going great, we're winning, just a few more months/years etc.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

Your viewpoint is understandable. However, it is off the mark. Out of all the "outright" wars in the 20th century through today, more democrats have committed the US to war (WWI - President Wilson, WWII - President Roosevelt, Korea - President Truman, Vietnam - President Kennedy/President Johnson).

Isn't that a rather simple analysis? Surely you'd have to take the composition of Congress into account to describe any given war as Democrat or Republican?

Simple, yes -- still accurate though. I was using a broad brush to make a finer point later in my post. The Congressional make-up isn't as important though, since it is still the executive that determines and authorizes military action.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[SpeedRacer 1]

Your analysis went back before WWII. Many Republicans objected to our involvement in that war prior to Pearl Harbor. ]

But among Repbulicans, after WWII it seemed the "never say no to war" mentality settled in .

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Your analysis went back before WWII. Many Republicans objected to our involvement in that war prior to Pearl Harbor. ]

But among Repbulicans, after WWII it seemed the "never say no to war" mentality settled in .

Not necessarily. The paradigm of the two parties were very different then. One prime example, President Kennedy and his commitment to advisors in Vietnam and his mentality during the on-set of the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Particularly in the 50s and 60s, Democrats were ferocious anti-Communists. However, once President Johnson disgraced the party, the platform shifted, and the liberal mindset began to take hold. President Nixon won his re-election on the platform of ending the Vietnam War. In order to do it though, he took the leash off the Air Force and bombed Hanoi into utter submission.

Once President Carter took office, the transformation between the parties was complete. President Carter's foreign policy was that of "detente", which failed. President Reagan placed a cornerstone for the republican party. Today's modern movements within the republican party have drifted away from that cornerstone (those movements do not include President Bush in my opinion).

That's not to say that I think the party is cornered into "pro-war" all the time. I think the movements within the party are cornering it on other social issues.

The democratic party has painted itself into a corner of "anti-Bush" though. The focus is solely on the election of 2008 and they are hurting themselves by over politicizing the war.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Lucky... 0]

The term, "neo-con" carries the definition of a new breed of conservative. The Dems were in office when all wars of the 20th century were started, with the exception of the Gulf War, but WWI and WWII were quite justified, as compared to Korea and VN. But as Korea was ending, Eisenhower said for Americans be aware of teh Military Industrial Complex and this defines the neo-con. So now that neo-cons have elected to throw our debt to the ceiling to benefit corporations, perhaps these wars are some kind of justification to use these toys.

Point is, the new Dems don't get us into wars, the neo-cons do. Republicans used to be fiscally conservative, now they're the spenders. The Republicans used to be the moral monitors, now they're the sexual deviants as they would call them. Haggert calling for the heads of gays, Lott calling for Clinton's head, both in the acts of their crys while they were crying. We need to wind our clock and keep current with the times and the new Republican Party is bankrupt from all/most sides.

Quote

Repeatedly, the US has been under steady attack since the late 1970s.

Been under attack in venues where we are being imperialists, quite different than being attacked here on US soil. Don't think we are imperialists, go look up the definition.

Quote

Is US foreign policy to blame? Maybe, in part, but the US history in the middle east (to point out the obvious hot-spot), or anywhere in the world, does not extend that far in the past. In fact, pro-active foreign policy in the region (or anywhere) didn't get underway until after WWII. Even then, it was framed around deterring the Soviet Union in the Cold War. The rest of the world was choosing sides, or having choices made for them.

Helping Israel in the Palastinian war had zero to do with the USSR. See, you justify the acts with flawed reasoning. Furthermore, the USSR has never attacked us.

Quote

The people will decide how they want the policies to evolve in the elections, that's what elections are for.

And the people have spoken last Nov.... should exacerbate.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

However, once President Johnson disgraced the party, the platform shifted

YEah that whole Civil Rights thing was soooo disturbing to the Democrats in the south.... that is when the whole Dixiecrat wing of the party moved to the Republican party... they were not going to be in any party with them N&(()*(*(&S

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Not necessarily. The paradigm of the two parties were very different then. One prime example, President Kennedy and his commitment to advisors in Vietnam and his mentality during the on-set of the Cuban Missile Crisis.

This is a great, 'then-vs-now' arg, but the now is tha the R's are war crazy, likely to justify their throwing tons of cash at military cintractors so those pesky poor people won't get medical care.

Quote

Particularly in the 50s and 60s, Democrats were ferocious anti-Communists. However, once President Johnson disgraced the party, the platform shifted, and the liberal mindset began to take hold.

I agree with that for the most part, but to define, "disgraced" I would add that as he fucked up VN, he also signed civil roghts legislation for blacks, which chased away the Yellow Dog Dems, who were largely racist. That was teh turn of the Dem Party.

Quote

President Nixon won his re-election on the platform of ending the Vietnam War. In order to do it though, he took the leash off the Air Force and bombed Hanoi into utter submission.

IOW's, lie. The Nixon reelection showed how really stupid the American voter was and the perhaps the Bush reelection could share that. Agnew stepped down for tax evasion and Watergate invest had just started when Nixon was reelected.

Quote

Once President Carter took office, the transformation between the parties was complete. President Carter's foreign policy was that of "detente", which failed.

Agree.

Quote

President Reagan placed a cornerstone for the republican party. Today's modern movements within the republican party have drifted away from that cornerstone (those movements do not include President Bush in my opinion).

Well what was Reagan's foreign policy? OK, it was a cornerstone, but what was it? Saying ti was a cornerstone fails to define it. See, this is what rubs me about the Reagan praise, people seem to think he some fucking hero for calling teh wall to be taken down, yet it fell 4 1/2 months into GHW's term. The fascist pig really just set teh cornerstone for extreme debt, and his successors have followed that.

Reagan set the stage for teh busting of unions, stripping of benefits and rights from workers, overspending to pretend that teh economy is great, and furthering the spread of the classes. He was truly one of the worst presidents, but that's only if you look at facts and data and forget he looked like grandpa Ronnie.

Quote

That's not to say that I think the party is cornered into "pro-war" all the time. I think the movements within the party are cornering it on other social issues.

I think they are.

Cornering what on which social issues and how? Highly ambiguous.

Quote

The democratic party has painted itself into a corner of "anti-Bush" though. The focus is solely on the election of 2008 and they are hurting themselves by over politicizing the war.

Come again? Anti-Bush is what 70%+ of what the country is about. Perhaps you missed the midterm election results. Yes, the focus is on the 08 election, do you have another focus they should be looking into? You act as if the war focus is just political...... maybe they actually want to end the war. Remember, the Dems are the party that ceased the rise in the debt and were going to turn the corner and lower it? Remember? Maybe stopping the spending of 2 B+ per week in Iraq is really neet place to start, as well as the ceasation of killing 1000's of our kids. Maybe the Dems have an alterior motive: to quit killing our kids and to stop the climb of the debt...... those Dems are always scheeming.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

However, once President Johnson disgraced the party, the platform shifted

YEah that whole Civil Rights thing was soooo disturbing to the Democrats in the south.... that is when the whole Dixiecrat wing of the party moved to the Republican party... they were not going to be in any party with them N&(()*(*(&S

Exactly what I said, the Yellow Dogs of the south hated blacks more that they hated big city repubs. LBJ was a trainwreck otherwise tho.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

Not necessarily. The paradigm of the two parties were very different then. One prime example, President Kennedy and his commitment to advisors in Vietnam and his mentality during the on-set of the Cuban Missile Crisis.

This is a great, 'then-vs-now' arg, but the now is tha the R's are war crazy, likely to justify their throwing tons of cash at military cintractors so those pesky poor people won't get medical care.

I wasn't saying that President Kennedy was "pro-war" per se. I was saying that the fundamental principles of the foreign policy of the President and the party at that time were not the "touchy-feely" that they're criticized of today.

Quote

Quote

Particularly in the 50s and 60s, Democrats were ferocious anti-Communists. However, once President Johnson disgraced the party, the platform shifted, and the liberal mindset began to take hold.

I agree with that for the most part, but to define, "disgraced" I would add that as he fucked up VN, he also signed civil roghts legislation for blacks, which chased away the Yellow Dog Dems, who were largely racist. That was teh turn of the Dem Party.

I was talking about foreign policy and prosecution of the war, not domestic policy. The disgrace I speak of is in President Johnson's incapability to run for re-election.

Quote

Quote

President Nixon won his re-election on the platform of ending the Vietnam War. In order to do it though, he took the leash off the Air Force and bombed Hanoi into utter submission.

IOW's, lie. The Nixon reelection showed how really stupid the American voter was and the perhaps the Bush reelection could share that. Agnew stepped down for tax evasion and Watergate invest had just started when Nixon was reelected.

My point was that President Nixon made a point about ensuring that politicians didn't micromanage the war the way President Johnson did.

Quote

Quote

President Reagan placed a cornerstone for the republican party. Today's modern movements within the republican party have drifted away from that cornerstone (those movements do not include President Bush in my opinion).

Well what was Reagan's foreign policy? OK, it was a cornerstone, but what was it? Saying ti was a cornerstone fails to define it.

It could be summed up as "peace through strength". It was the opposite of "detente". It was a far more proactive involvement in combating communism throughout the world.

Quote

...but that's only if you look at facts and data and forget he looked like grandpa Ronnie.

You're overlooking quite a bit also, and you're bridging too many other issues. I'm speaking directly to the mindset of how the political parties have changed their stances in deciding when to go to war. These decisions stem from foreign policy. I'm not debating domestic achievements here.

Quote

Cornering what on which social issues and how? Highly ambiguous.

That's because that's not what the topic of this thread is about. I'm trying not to pursue any tangents, as the original question was quite interesting.

Quote

Quote

The democratic party has painted itself into a corner of "anti-Bush" though. The focus is solely on the election of 2008 and they are hurting themselves by over politicizing the war.

Come again? Anti-Bush is what 70%+ of what the country is about. Perhaps you missed the midterm election results. Yes, the focus is on the 08 election, do you have another focus they should be looking into? You act as if the war focus is just political...... maybe they actually want to end the war. Remember, the Dems are the party that ceased the rise in the debt and were going to turn the corner and lower it? Remember? Maybe stopping the spending of 2 B+ per week in Iraq is really neet place to start, as well as the ceasation of killing 1000's of our kids. Maybe the Dems have an alterior motive: to quit killing our kids and to stop the climb of the debt...... those Dems are always scheeming.

You have just epitomized what I was just talking about.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[billvon 3,132]

>The democratic party has painted itself into a corner of "anti-Bush"
>though. The focus is solely on the election of 2008 and they are hurting
>themselves by over politicizing the war.

No more so than the republicans are "pro-Bush." Many republicans are against the war, and democrats are for improving conditions for vets.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

>The democratic party has painted itself into a corner of "anti-Bush"
>though. The focus is solely on the election of 2008 and they are hurting
>themselves by over politicizing the war.

No more so than the republicans are "pro-Bush." Many republicans are against the war, and democrats are for improving conditions for vets.

You know how many democrats I met while in the hospital? If interest is a measure of showing up and actually looking around, then I could point out that the opposite of what you say is true.

One prime example, Sen. Hagel from Nebraska. Against the war, but still showing up at WRAMC to see the soldiers. That alone lends him a bit more credibility, even if I don't agree with him.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Lucky... 0]

ME: This is a great, 'then-vs-now' arg, but the now is that the R's are war crazy, likely to justify their throwing tons of cash at military contractors so those pesky poor people won't get medical care.

YOU: I wasn't saying that President Kennedy was "pro-war" per se. I was saying that the fundamental principles of the foreign policy of the President and the party at that time were not the "touchy-feely" that they're criticized of today.

And I’m not disagreeing with you, I’m saying that for you to use 40-50 year old mentalities as being contemporary shows desperation to defend the atrocities of YOUR party under current times. The R’s of that day were conservative in traditional terms, the R’s of today (neo-cons) are neither traditional R’s or D’s, they’re just out there is some neo-fascist / neo-corporatist quest to shift off all gov assets to corps. Can you disprove that assertion? Would you like more support?
_______________________________________________
ME: I agree with that for the most part, but to define, "disgraced" I would add that as he fucked up VN, he also signed civil rights legislation for blacks, which chased away the Yellow Dog Dems, who were largely racist. That was the turn of the Dem Party.

YOU: I was talking about foreign policy and prosecution of the war, not domestic policy. The disgrace I speak of is in President Johnson's incapability to run for re-election.

Why was he incapable? You assume he was too ashamed to run for reelection? OK. When you use the term, “disgraced” you open the door for all things. Furthermore, when we have a draft to fight a foreign so-called war, the issue becomes quite domestic.
______________________________________________
ME: IOW's, lie. The Nixon reelection showed how really stupid the American voter was and the perhaps the Bush reelection could share that. Agnew stepped down for tax evasion and Watergate invest had just started when Nixon was reelected.

YOU: My point was that President Nixon made a point about ensuring that politicians didn't micromanage the war the way President Johnson did.

Well you wrote: President Nixon won his re-election on the platform of ending the Vietnam War. In order to do it though, he took the leash off the Air Force and bombed Hanoi into utter submission.

So claiming to end the war meant to inflict the largest # of casualties of the VN war….OK. Perhaps the voters understood that to mean a pullout. Perhaps the voters got what they deserved since they reelected such a blatant crook. I think the reason Nixon was reelected was the stinging from LBJ’s civil rights legislation still burning the racist south.
________________________________________________
ME: Well what was Reagan's foreign policy? OK, it was a cornerstone, but what was it? Saying it was a cornerstone fails to define it.

YOU: It could be summed up as "peace through strength". It was the opposite of "detente". It was a far more proactive involvement in combating communism throughout the world.

That’s funny, I entered the Air Force in April 80 and in basic the slogans on the wall read, “Peace is our Profession,” so we followed it up with, “But war is our hobby.” So I think this mentality was already there before Reagan. There is no president who is a bigger credit whore than Reagan, yet people never want to talk about the debt being FUCKING TRIPPLED under our diaper-wearing president. Be sure to avoid that issue as always.

As for combating Communism, what’s wrong with Communism? I personally don’t like it, but one of our biggest traders and holder of 1T of US debt is the most Communistic nation in the world. This fear of Communism is as pathetic as the war on drugs and all the other paranoia-based wars from that era. How about the war on labor? Looks like the party of maggots won that one, huh? They just didn’t call it as such as the “Clems” of the world are need for the R’s to continue their war on everything.
_________________________________________________
ME: ...but that's only if you look at facts and data and forget he looked like grandpa Ronnie.

YOU: You're overlooking quite a bit also, and you're bridging too many other issues. I'm speaking directly to the mindset of how the political parties have changed their stances in deciding when to go to war. These decisions stem from foreign policy. I'm not debating domestic achievements here.

Let’s post all that statement: He was truly one of the worst presidents,..

Talk about microcosms. You made global statements, but when it comes to addressing the replies to them you run. So let’s talk Fascist Ronnie and foreign policy. Trade arms for hostages, lie to the public you knew about it, then be well insulated so you can defer all to stupid Ollie. Yea, Reagan foreign policy in only rivaled by Reaganomics. OOPS, there I go again, bringing in other aspects of your imperialist, Fascist president. Just ignore them as you will.
______________________________________________
ME: Cornering what on which social issues and how? Highly ambiguous.

YOU: That's because that's not what the topic of this thread is about. I'm trying not to pursue any tangents, as the original question was quite interesting.

This thread is about conservatives being able to talk about issues without running from them or tap dancing. Here, I’ll remind you of the first assertion: This is not about Iraq specifically.

Now run like the wind. Or bring in the social issue to which YOU referred.
_______________________________________________
ME: Come again? Anti-Bush is what 70%+ of what the country is about. Perhaps you missed the midterm election results. Yes, the focus is on the 08 election, do you have another focus they should be looking into? You act as if the war focus is just political...... maybe they actually want to end the war. Remember, the Dems are the party that ceased the rise in the debt and were going to turn the corner and lower it? Remember? Maybe stopping the spending of 2 B+ per week in Iraq is really neat place to start, as well as the cessation of killing 1000's of our kids. Maybe the Dems have an ulterior motive: to quit killing our kids and to stop the climb of the debt...... those Dems are always scheming.

YOU: You have just epitomized what I was just talking about.

You have just again one-linered your way out of addressing another issue. Address these issues or keep-a-runnin.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Why was he incapable? You assume he was too ashamed to run for reelection? OK. When you use the term, “disgraced” you open the door for all things. Furthermore, when we have a draft to fight a foreign so-called war, the issue becomes quite domestic.

It was under President Johnson's doctrine that US involvement in Vietnam rose from SF advisors to nearly 500,000 troops. That many American troops is more than enough to take down any country in the world at that time (except the USSR and China). Johnson did not allow the military to operate as such, and as casualties mounted, he could not politically save his Presidency. He disgraced his office by cutting the military short.

Quote

ME: IOW's, lie. The Nixon reelection showed how really stupid the American voter was and the perhaps the Bush reelection could share that. Agnew stepped down for tax evasion and Watergate invest had just started when Nixon was reelected.

YOU: My point was that President Nixon made a point about ensuring that politicians didn't micromanage the war the way President Johnson did.

Well you wrote: President Nixon won his re-election on the platform of ending the Vietnam War. In order to do it though, he took the leash off the Air Force and bombed Hanoi into utter submission.

So claiming to end the war meant to inflict the largest # of casualties of the VN war….OK. Perhaps the voters understood that to mean a pullout. Perhaps the voters got what they deserved since they reelected such a blatant crook. I think the reason Nixon was reelected was the stinging from LBJ’s civil rights legislation still burning the racist south.

That was the only way to get the North to return to the Paris peace talks. President Johnson was not willing to let the military do it's job. President Nixon wrote in a memo to Sec State Kissinger, "I have that will in spades."

Unfortunately, the war had become so politicized at that point, that even though that North Vietnam was for the first time, a beaten nation, the US pretty much could only force the "vietnamization" of southern efforts and leave the door open on the way out.

Quote

YOU: It could be summed up as "peace through strength". It was the opposite of "detente". It was a far more proactive involvement in combating communism throughout the world.

That’s funny, I entered the Air Force in April 80 and in basic the slogans on the wall read, “Peace is our Profession,” so we followed it up with, “But war is our hobby.” So I think this mentality was already there before Reagan.

Maybe in the military, but not with the CinC. I'm sure you understand the contrast I'm drawing there.

Quote

There is no president who is a bigger credit whore than Reagan, yet people never want to talk about the debt being FUCKING TRIPPLED under our diaper-wearing president. Be sure to avoid that issue as always.

I'll happily debate President Reagan's overall legacy with you in a separate thread.

Quote

As for combating Communism, what’s wrong with Communism?

Ask a friend that used to live in East Germany or a Cuban fresh off the boat in Miami. Or a survivor of Tiananmen Square.

Quote

I personally don’t like it, but one of our biggest traders and holder of 1T of US debt is the most Communistic nation in the world.

Believe me, I am not in favor of that situation. The leverage is a two way street though. Of the $1Tr~ in exports China has, a full 22% goes to the US. In contrast, about 15% of US imports come from China.

Quote

This thread is about conservatives being able to talk about issues without running from them or tap dancing. Here, I’ll remind you of the first assertion: This is not about Iraq specifically.

The thread is about: "Are Republicans/Conservatives capable of questioning decisions to go to war?"

I am not disputing that there are other factors worth discussing, whether we agree or not. I'm trying to compartmentalize benchmarks in history in an effort to answer the original question, and parallel that with how foreign policy, intertwined with political parties over the past 100 years. My point being that it wasn't quite as black and white as the OP noted.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

The thread is about: "Are Republicans/Conservatives capable of questioning decisions to go to war?"

And the first statement in the first post reads: This is not about Iraq specifically.

If you wanna run from issues, run, be free.

Quote

Believe me, I am not in favor of that situation. The leverage is a two way street though. Of the $1Tr~ in exports China has, a full 22% goes to the US. In contrast, about 15% of US imports come from China.

I'm sorry, perhps ypou don't understand the difference between debt, deficit and trade deficit. I wrote this: I personally don’t like it, but one of our biggest traders and holder of 1T of US debt is the most Communistic nation in the world.

I wasn't talking trade deficit, I was talking about the holder of debt. This article states why China holds our debt, not because we are such a good investment, but so they can keep our dollar artificially high, the Yen low, henc ethr goods are a better gargain. When they are ready to pull the plug and go on their own, or when we won;t be their political puppet, they can sell back their debt and kill the dollar.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2006/12/post_1.html

________________________________________________________________________

Our view on national fiscal security: Look who owns U.S. debt now
Other nations hold a record 52% of it, leaving U.S. economy vulnerable.
For most of U.S. history, the national debt was something that America owed itself. What was borrowed by the government was lent by its people. The liabilities of one were the assets of the other.

But that has changed as the federal government has increasingly looked abroad to finance its prodigious borrowing. Foreigners now hold a record 52% of the government's $4 trillion in outside debt, up from a quarter in 1995.

Later this month, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke will go to China to ask the Chinese whether they could see their way clear to buy fewer IOUs and more iPods, Boeing jets and such.

There is nothing inherently wrong with foreigners owning American debt. In fact, these and other investments pouring into the USA help keep interest rates relatively low and the dollar relatively strong. To some degree, these investments reflect confidence in the American economy. But the very things that make this infusion of cash attractive also spell trouble.

The growing reliance on foreigners, in many cases foreign central banks, reflects a nation digging itself further into debt and denial.

Perhaps the best comparison is the many credit card offers that come in the mail each month. In the short run, by making borrowing so easy, they can prop up living standards. In the long run, the bills come due.

The foreign money is no different:


It postpones the day of reckoning, allowing U.S. policymakers to act like bankrupt shopaholics, running up debt to pay for tax cuts and new programs while leaving it to another generation to repay.

It props up the nation's other deficit — its chronic trade deficit. The purchase of treasury bills is part of a broader trend of foreigners recycling their dollars back to the United States to invest in everything from government debt to the home mortgages, instead of using them to buy more American goods and services.

It makes the U.S. economy hostage to the whims of foreign investors, including governments. Eventually, they could decide they have better places to invest than in U.S. debt securities. This might be a gradual decision. Or it might not be. If the latter, it would cause a surge in interest rates (because the Treasury would have to offer more enticing terms to attract buyers) and trigger a recession.
Many developing nations buy treasury bills not because they are deemed to be the best investment, but to support their own monetary polices. The Chinese, for instance, do so as part of a strategy to keep their currency artificially low against the dollar. This holds down the cost of Chinese goods, helping the Chinese economy but making U.S. goods less competitive.

The problem needs to be attacked from a number of fronts. The government needs to borrow less. And foreign holders of all of these IOUs need to realize that a gradual diversification of their portfolios would be in everyone's interest.

If that happened, maybe our products, rather than our debts, would be our leading exports. Wouldn't that be nice?

_____________________________________________________________________


SO, WHO IS IT THAT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR OUR DEBT?

[Royd 0]

Quote

YEah that whole Civil Rights thing was soooo disturbing to the Democrats in the south.... that is when the whole Dixiecrat wing of the party moved to the Republican party... they were not going to be in any party with them N&(()*(*(&S

Maybe you should do the math. Who has had more people of African decent or other minorities in high offices in his cabinet? Bush or Clinton? Don't give me the token black BS.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

YEah that whole Civil Rights thing was soooo disturbing to the Democrats in the south.... that is when the whole Dixiecrat wing of the party moved to the Republican party... they were not going to be in any party with them N&(()*(*(&S

Maybe you should do the math. Who has had more people of African decent or other minorities in high offices in his cabinet? Bush or Clinton? Don't give me the token black BS.

Yea, hiring a few racial minorities in 2004 is the same thing as signing legislation, very controvercial leg at the time that extends civil rights to minorities.

I'm not saying Bush had more minorities in his cabinet than Clinton, but she was talking LBJ anyway. Does Bush have more minorities than LBJ did? Of course, the 60's were far different than now, but your measuring stick that Bush had more minorities than Clinton is ridiculous.

Shall we take the recent U of M law school case where the more conservatve, both Repub-appointed justices dissented?

Point she was making was about how LBJ chased away the Yellow Dog Dems when he signed civil rights legislation, which led to this onslaught of neo-con fascist garbage that we have had ever since, minus Clinton. Since LBJ's legislation, the only Dems elected were from the deep south, Carter and Clinton. This is why Obama won't be elected.