Yeah, THAT'S what we needed

You decide what you need, I'll decide what I need.

I think you're off the mark here. Most students of history see it like this:

P1: there was a depression
P2: FDR put programs into place to end the depression
P3: FDR put more programs into place to end the depression
P4: America got involved with WWII and began spending like mad

--------

C: WWII ended the depression, but FDR's programs helped people find a purpose and kept hope alive for 12 years.

Here's a nice list that shows some of the most important programs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_deal#M ... l_programs



*Calls Heritage Foundation*

Capitalist 101: Hello?
Me: Hi! Did the New Deal programs work?
Capitalist 101: No, because FDR didn't lower taxes.

*Click*

You think there's a reason people want Bush to call for "sacrfices"?
In 20 years people will be writing papers about how the Democratic congress enabled Reagan's "ending of the Cold War"

Haq -- are you some kind of Laissze-Fairian? I mean that shit's pretty well been proven to work; if by work you mean throw an economy into the toilet.

But, I don't know enough about economics in a macro sense to truly have an argument with you, so I'll just say that the winners write history, and if it weren't for MONSTERS like FDR and Truman, we'd be typing this little lesson in German.

AND, think about this: if FDR worsened or did nothing to end the Depression, but WWII ended it absolutely, then what about FDR's presciense in putting the infrastructures back in place to mobilize the war to end it? HMMM...

Oh, you mean this argument require nuance? I didn't realize that

[/pwned]

best post ever by Borg

Worse, inflation was orchestrated in order to wipe out the middle class, leaving everyone with no alternative but to let the state (the "nation" in national socialism) take over.

In a world where blind conjecture is nuance, I'm content to lose any argument that requires it.

That's cool. I take this to mean that you're posting an article by some UCLA professor stands as THE LAST word on the subject, and that my saying "things are usually grey, not black and white" means that I have somehow stumbled into territory that is not agreeable with what you are saying, so you will just stop arguing?

Actually, it isn't ridiculous at all. You do realize that the war in Iraq was to remove Saddam from power and initiate a democratic constitution in that country and the people that we are consistently coming into contact with in Iraq are not even primarily Iraqi's fighting us. It, in fact, has very little to do with Iraq anymore. There are certainly Iraqis that do not want us there, I am not arguing they all love us. However, the fighting that exists there today seemingly has very little to do with Iraq. So, essentially, we could be fighting these people in Iraq, in Iran, in Kuwait, in Afghanistan, or anywhere else. However, because a majority of our forces are in Iraq, that's where the enemy will seek us out. And believe me, despite your views on the Iraq war, those who are attacking the U.S. soldiers are our enemies. Not because we are in Iraq but because no matter where we would go these people would seek out ways to destroy us--hence the definition of an enemy.

The real issue is a struggle for power...not because Bush wants to make everyone a southwestern businessman-christian, but he is attempting to offer what he believes the people want there--democracy. Whether or not that is true, I cannot state. It is ideological imperialism. However, at least the motives behind our country are not so violent and power-seeking as those trying to gain control of Iraq. At least when Iraq sets up a democracy that isn't exactly how we would do it we don't go and torture and blow up and decapitate the leaders and put new ones in place. As silly as I think a lot of things this country does are, I can say that I am proud that we at least attempt to show concern for life in other parts of the world. I don't think any other country can boast quite the active role around the world. If anything, we are one of just a few countries that are actually doing their responsibility as a world power. We have a moral obligation to step in where we can and try to make the most well-advised, and ethical decisions for intervening. Unfortunately, the right decision is not always made. But at least we are trying.

EDIT: And we have a lot of soldiers in a lot of other parts of the world full-time getting shot at. Does that mean we are at war with them, too? Are you then saying that any time we have soldiers anywhere full-time besides in the states where they are getting shot at is a WAR and a losing battle at that? If not, what's the limit? 150,000 equals an unwinnable war. However, what abouty 3,000 soldiers? is that more manageable?

No, you can take it to mean I'm not going to accept something as a valid perspective just because it can be said. You can say FDR was prescient, but when you don't even offer any reason why we might think he forsaw that his programs would somehow lead to American victory in WW2, then I have no reason to give any credence to the claim, so I will not argue it.

Because NO ONE knew that Hitler might be an aggressor in 1932.

Just like Truman dropped that bomb because the Japs would "never surrender"



So, to sum up:
FDR
1) Worsened the Great Derpression
2) Saddled the Post war economy with too many entitlements, ensuring that our economy would be overly burdened and nigh uncompetitive in the world economy after WW2
3) WW2's massive mobilzation happened because of an unforeseen miracle that God ordained upon us
4) Hope is an invalid campaign or historical imperative, though Kennedy, LBJ, Carter, Reagan, and Clinton all ran and won on basically just that.

americans did NOT get behind the war in iraq out of some loving "concern for other parts of the world." if it was sold on the premise of bringing democracy to the oppressed iraqis, we wouldn't be in iraq right now. it was sold on iraq being a grave, nuke-havin', big scary turrorist threat, which was, if not an out and out lie, not true at all. and there are countries that are way worse than iraq in terms of human rights violations--because our forces are committed there, we don't even have the option of doing anything about the sudan (although it's debateable whether the american public would even be behind that in a world without the iraq war) even spreading democracy was the real motive of the bush administration, they didn't share that with the rest of us.
there's a bit of a difference between countries where we have soldiers full time (i.e. japan, germany) and countries where our soldiers are being shot at and killed every day. the idea that we have soldiers in any other part of the world getting shot at and killed at anywhere approaching the rate they are in iraq is pure fantasy.

You know, you're probably right. I'm realizing that I'm not really arguing any of this because I believe it, but because I don't like you, which is really the worst reason to get into a political debate. Apologies all around, return to your regularly scheduled programming.

I found this thread very informative.

Laissze-Fairian.

That's THE BEST reason to get into a debate.

Thanks for admitting you don't like me, that only strengthens my resolve.

Your resolve to do what?

The new obner names didn't really get me in the holiday spirit, but the fighting and name calling is reminding me of spending time with my family for the holidays. Now it feels like the Christmans season.

Annoy the fuck out of you with my inane postings. And always being

1) Right
2) Smarter than you

3) And taller, too.

My List:
1. Jefferson, Louisiana Purchase and Lewis & Clark exposition were huge.
2. Lincoln
3. Truman, The Marshall Plan is primarily responsible for the creation of NATO, His Fair Deal program basically established a limited welfare state in this country. We probably would have socialized medicine if it wasn't for the Red scare.
4. Eisenhower: While I am not a fan of his involvement in establishing covert CIA operations, he did establish the Interstate Highway system and sent troops into Little Rock.
5. James Monroe, The Monroe Doctrine, plus being almost unanimously elected is a pretty big deal.

My biggest disagreement with a lot of what you post is that I think you admire political success more than policy success.

I did not mean to imply that the idea of pushing for democracy was the sole reason for going into iraq. I simply mean that the general attitude of the american government after going into war and such is that we spend loads of money on rebuilding them after the fact and we generally like to see peaceful nations exist. I was not trying to imply that that was the reason for going to war. It's just a general characteristic of this country in terms of going to war and rebuilding. we are more friendly and concerned for life than those we are fighting...

Also, it wasn't just the u.s. that thought there were WMD's in Iraq. Every intelligence source indicated that...foreign and domestic...and almost every country agreed that they probably did have wmd's. However, only a handful of them wanted to try and do something about it. Because the UN is a far cry from useful and it is virtually useless without american money. so as far as I am concerned, the UN can bitch an moan all they want. They never do anything. they are the least proactive organization in the world today. I could get more action out of my dead grandmother than the UN. All that to say, just because the UN opposses something does not mean that that is anywhere near the reality of the situation or the right thing to do.

Also, just about anywhere we have an embassy in Africa is under attack, not occassionally, but every day. One of my friends served in some country on the west coast of africa...I can't even remember which one now...and i watched video of an almost daily routine of them getting their flack jackets on and preparing to be attacked. It's not a major attack, no, but it is an attack and it is daily. less people means less casualties...however, more people in one area does not necessarily mean that the threat of dying in combat in any one of those african countries is less likely.

My problem is that people assume that we went into Iraq to liberate the people there simply because the Bush Administration said so (years later). Until I see evidence that there won't be a corporate takeover of the oil supply and until we remove US military bases, it's basically a pseudo-occupation. The insurgents, with foreign fighters making up a small percentage of the insurgency, keep attacking, but a US withdrawal would cut out a major part of the rationale for an insurgency. You might say, "If it's that simple, why doesn't the Bush administration do it?" Again, the only reason I can think of is that they want the oil and the land for bases, and they aren't going to get it if they withdraw from the region.

Any idea that we went in there to disarm Saddam is a fantasy at this point. I mean, the administration even failed to guard the supposed WMD sites, so if anything the weapons were looted and now in the hands of people even crazier than Saddam. The sad part is that any weapons he had were supplied to him in the 80s by the country that just attacked him.

Actually, a majority of the insurgents are foreign. that is why they are termed insurgent. And, although it is true that attacks on U.S. soldiers would decline with a withdrawal, the vacuum that exists in Iraq right now would get filled by the insurgents and then a worse situation would exist than before. Pulling out now is like taking someone off life-support without even trying to revive them. We are not invading anything. We are maintaining borders and trying to keep the bad from infiltrating. It's dangerous and very tough military objectives to maintain, but I do not beleive that withdrawing now would serve any great purpose for the other people there.