War in Vietnam, war in Iraq, war on poverty, war on drugs

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am not a libertarian or anarcho-capitalist

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are.

Have a look around on my new blog: http://thefreedomchannel.blogspot.com/ .

[/ QUOTE ]
Libertarians and ACs are too extreme. I think the govenment is doing way too much, but I think it would be better if it was more like what it did 50 or 75 years ago, not trying to solve every problem in the US and the world.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am not a libertarian or anarcho-capitalist

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are.

Have a look around on my new blog: http://thefreedomchannel.blogspot.com/ .

[/ QUOTE ]

Libertarians and ACs are too extreme.

[/ QUOTE ]

Too extreme what and why.


[ QUOTE ]
I think the govenment is doing way too much

[/ QUOTE ]

What is too much.


[ QUOTE ]
but I think it would be better if it was more like what it did 50 or 75 years ago, not trying to solve every problem in the US and the world.

[/ QUOTE ]

What problems should government solve?

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
Hey, all we need to do to solve all these problems is to declare a war on violence. If we are ruthless enough i think we can win that one.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't wait for the War on War.

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am not a libertarian or anarcho-capitalist

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are.

Have a look around on my new blog: http://thefreedomchannel.blogspot.com/ .

[/ QUOTE ]

Libertarians and ACs are too extreme.

[/ QUOTE ]

Too extreme what and why.


[ QUOTE ]
I think the govenment is doing way too much

[/ QUOTE ]

What is too much.


[ QUOTE ]
but I think it would be better if it was more like what it did 50 or 75 years ago, not trying to solve every problem in the US and the world.

[/ QUOTE ]

What problems should government solve?

[/ QUOTE ]
Government regulation, workmens compensation, and child labor laws are OK with me. Even social security and unemployment compesation, atleast as originally conceived. I think a fairly large and strong military is good and bases abroad are OK, but I am not crazy about all the interventions abroad, particularly with no obvious threats like before from the Soviet Union or the Axis. National Parks and environmental regulation are OK too.

What we had in the 19th century was anarcho capitalism and it provoked a socialist reaction. I don't advocate going back to that.

I just think the government is trying to solve problems that are impossible to solve. The government is naturally bureaucratic and corrupt. Getting involved in all these things usually creates a giant mess.

I object more to what happened under Lyndon Johnson than FDR or Lincoln. War on poverty, war in Vietnam. Look at waht medicare and medicade have doen to the hospital industry. They can charge anythin as long as the govenment is paying.

I really think there has been an approach in the last 40 years of trying to solve any problem, and it just creates much bigger problems.

The government in the 60s and 70s tried to way overreach itself. The same thing happened with the US Supreme Court, which made all sorts of legislation for the US and states based on what they thought was right, rather than interpreting the Constitution, laws, and precedents.

[AScorz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Thats what we do. When theres a problem we declare war on it, we don't do anything about it. We Just declare war on it. Throw alittle money in around the elections. The drug laws are a joke. Poverty isn't rampit. I'm not saying it dosen't exist, but we got rid of the soup kitchens a long time ago. The war on terror has been good and bad. Iraq is being fought poorly because of P.C., and other political crap. We need to march, and kick em all out. Republican, Democrate, Liberal, or Conservative. None have our interest at heart.

[/ QUOTE ]
War on terror and war on crime are other examples. War on anything means big boondoggle wasting tons of resources with mostly destructive results.

Real wars are the same thing. Never ending, no results, lots of casualties are destruction to country where war is.

As for Iraq, we could be harsher, but there are already complaints about civilian casualties and interogation methods. I think it is awfully difficult to subdue a middle eastern country without being awfully ruthless. However, the US can't operate like Saddam Hussein, and if the US took a harsher approach, the bad publicity in the mideast and Europe would be worse.

There was controversy about not taking a stronger approach is Vietnam also. However, the whole nature of these conflicts is likely to produce an endless quagmire. The same is true for domestic wars in drugs, crime, poverty, and terror. They are completely unwinnable by their very nature.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a way to win a war, we did it in WW1 and WW2. WW3, which we are in now, is being fought mostly to passive. Iraq is key to America's survival.

[AScorz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hey, all we need to do to solve all these problems is to declare a war on violence. If we are ruthless enough i think we can win that one.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't wait for the War on War.

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[New001]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Thats what we do. When theres a problem we declare war on it, we don't do anything about it. We Just declare war on it. Throw alittle money in around the elections. The drug laws are a joke. Poverty isn't rampit. I'm not saying it dosen't exist, but we got rid of the soup kitchens a long time ago. The war on terror has been good and bad. Iraq is being fought poorly because of P.C., and other political crap. We need to march, and kick em all out. Republican, Democrate, Liberal, or Conservative. None have our interest at heart.

[/ QUOTE ]
War on terror and war on crime are other examples. War on anything means big boondoggle wasting tons of resources with mostly destructive results.

Real wars are the same thing. Never ending, no results, lots of casualties are destruction to country where war is.

As for Iraq, we could be harsher, but there are already complaints about civilian casualties and interogation methods. I think it is awfully difficult to subdue a middle eastern country without being awfully ruthless. However, the US can't operate like Saddam Hussein, and if the US took a harsher approach, the bad publicity in the mideast and Europe would be worse.

There was controversy about not taking a stronger approach is Vietnam also. However, the whole nature of these conflicts is likely to produce an endless quagmire. The same is true for domestic wars in drugs, crime, poverty, and terror. They are completely unwinnable by their very nature.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a way to win a war, we did it in WW1 and WW2. WW3, which we are in now, is being fought mostly to passive. Iraq is key to America's survival.

[/ QUOTE ]
Who truly came out ahead after World War I? I'm not entirely sure, and maybe it's best in its own thread, but I don't think I'd put anyone in Europe or the USA on that list...

Obviously this is considering long-term affects rather than just surrender papers.

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Thats what we do. When theres a problem we declare war on it, we don't do anything about it. We Just declare war on it. Throw alittle money in around the elections. The drug laws are a joke. Poverty isn't rampit. I'm not saying it dosen't exist, but we got rid of the soup kitchens a long time ago. The war on terror has been good and bad. Iraq is being fought poorly because of P.C., and other political crap. We need to march, and kick em all out. Republican, Democrate, Liberal, or Conservative. None have our interest at heart.

[/ QUOTE ]
War on terror and war on crime are other examples. War on anything means big boondoggle wasting tons of resources with mostly destructive results.

Real wars are the same thing. Never ending, no results, lots of casualties are destruction to country where war is.

As for Iraq, we could be harsher, but there are already complaints about civilian casualties and interogation methods. I think it is awfully difficult to subdue a middle eastern country without being awfully ruthless. However, the US can't operate like Saddam Hussein, and if the US took a harsher approach, the bad publicity in the mideast and Europe would be worse.

There was controversy about not taking a stronger approach is Vietnam also. However, the whole nature of these conflicts is likely to produce an endless quagmire. The same is true for domestic wars in drugs, crime, poverty, and terror. They are completely unwinnable by their very nature.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a way to win a war, we did it in WW1 and WW2. WW3, which we are in now, is being fought mostly to passive. Iraq is key to America's survival.

[/ QUOTE ]
So how do we win a war against an insurgency as we did WWI and WW2? How do you advocate taking a less PC approach? Do you advocate not taking prisoners or toturing prisoners? Should the US be even less concerned about civilian casualties? If you take a less PC approach how will that play with the US people and US traditions, how will it be recieved by the Iraqi people, in the rest of the mideast, and in the world?

How do we win the war? What will be the result? Is it possible for the US to win the war and withdraw our troops? What kind of government will be in place?

Should we have fought the Vietnam war like WWI and WW2? How could we have won that war?

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hey, all we need to do to solve all these problems is to declare a war on violence. If we are ruthless enough i think we can win that one.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't wait for the War on War.

[/ QUOTE ]
The term war implies great expenditures, coersion, killing and injuring people, damaging things, establishment of power. The terms war on poverty, drugs, crime, and terror are actually a very accurate analogy, because these wars involve all the same results as a real war.

[canis582]

The war on Drugs and the war on poverty are good if you want to be a government employee counting pot plants or feeding winos.

Foriegn wars are nice if you are a well connected contractor.