I'm having a lot of fun on this debate!  There are so many things to talk about!

    First of all, disliking a strong federal government is not a knee-jerk Republican reaction (I'm not even Republican anyway).  It is a civic philosophy that States have rights that should not be usurped by one central power (Washington D.C.).  Consider the quote by Gerald Ford:  "The government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have."  When it comes to government corruption, it is easier to isolate a sickness if it is in your hometown than if it is spread throughout the entire country.  The federal government has it's place, like you said, in the control of interstate goods (and I used to be an interstate truck driver so I'm very familiar with this aspect) and sundry other things that affect us all.  I believe the federal government has severely overstepped it's bounds though. 

    And another specific example you gave of the government failing to help Louisiana when it came to the oil-- am I misinformed?  Aren't the oil rigs/wells controlled by private corporations?  What business is it of the government to be supplying them with tax payer funds?  I'd rather pay the oil companies for that directly, rather than go through the government middle-man.  Like all those cheesy direct-buy ads- you save when you cut out the middle-man.  But I think rm6 is totally right.  Prevention is the key, but governments as they are now are reactive, not proactive, which is a fundamental change we the people need to bring about through holding our government accountable.

    And rm6, this is a matter of believing big business is either inherently good or inherently evil.  There is obviously corruption in big business, just like there is corruption in small business, but business is what keeps our nation great.  I, for one, believe greatly in capitalism as the surest way to bring income into the country and thereby provide stability and an increase in the quality of life.  Would you prefer socialism?  And handing the "corrupt" businesses over to the government, which we have already established as corrupt and inept?  And as my husband says, capitalism taps into that questionable, but pervasive, human quality greed to advance our economy and society.  Socialism discourages growth by suppressing that greed and it leads to failure of the country as a whole (USSR).  The U.S. government does come into play in regulating business, and it is a concept like "checks and balances"; they oversee but do not overrule unless it is necessary.  We the consumers have the greatest power in determining what corporations do.

"How do you win an un-winnable war?"
The time for Patton-style invasion may have passed, but that doesn't mean it's time for a tail-between-the-legs retreat.  To leave now would mean chaos, not just for Iraq but for the entire Middle East.  The Middle East is a very important area, mainly due to our reliance on their oil, but also for other reasons.  Imagine a major attack on Israel... and imagine the similarities to WWI, with countries jumping into the fray based on alliances instead of direct involvement.  It is a scenario I consider nightmare-ish.  World peace is directly linked to peace in the Middle East. 

    Remember what we did after WWII in Germany and Japan?  We didn't invade (or bomb to smithereens, in the case of Japan) and then leave.  We stayed in those countries for years afterward in order to establish (or force, however you like it) a democratic government and capitalist economy that would work peacefully with the US.  Was it wrong to do that?  Do you like being allied with Germany and Japan, which are now among the most powerful countries in the world?

madkow-here's a link to help explain how important the New Orleans levees are to our entire country, not just the locals who live there:

http://www.time.com/time/ma...

"New Orleans is the busiest port in the U.S.; 20% of all U.S. exports, and 60% of our grain exports, pass through it. Offshore Louisiana oil and gas wells supply 20% of domestic oil production."

IOW, if you leave it up to the local residents to repair & maintain the levees, you risk the economy (exports & energy production) of the whole country. Does this sound rational to you?

Secondly, you can't possibly be serious when you compare our occupation of Japan & Germany after WWII to our occupation of Iraq. Those countries have a national identity & culture which was invaluable in helping to rebuild their countries after defeat. They embraced democracy, while being allowed to retain important features of their ruling culture (such as Japan's royal family remaining in residence.)

Iraq has no national identity, nor unifying culture. They haven't even been a country for a full century. They have used their elections to put people in power who have no allegiance to the United States, and as a result our administration is frustrated & likely to eliminate the Iraqis in power right now. De-Baathification left a huge void in Iraq which Dubya had no idea, nor any plan, to fill.

There's just no comparison between the two situations, I'm afraid.

I don't disagree with you that capitalism has made the US successful or that a healthy business atmosphere keeps the country stable, but letting that greed run rampant is dangerous, like I said before, look at how prescription medication prices are through the roof here. How about how Enron and other out-of-state electricity companies intentionally screwed California during the energy crisis, which all happened because the energy market here was deregulated. Any good economy has socialist tendencies and while we as consumers might wield the most power, we are also the least organized. We suffer from diffusion of responsiblity and apathy, which is why we need the government, which is supposed to act by the will of the people and in their best interest, to see to it that big business acts in the appropriate manner, not just in the way that maximizes profit.

I never advocated a "tail-between-the-legs" retreat, but what do we see now? Chaos in Iraq and the Middle East. Invading Iraq when we weren't yet done stabilizing Afghanistan, and then without the full might of the US was a pretty stupid move. Iraq didn't pose an immediate threat to the safety of the US. I can imagine a major attack on Israel, but then I think of the Six Day War and it reminds me that Israel can take care of itself. If they were attacked they would take care of business, unlike what the US has done. I think that the US did a little too much hoping and not enough forcing in Iraq and now it's pretty much too late to find a decent way out.

"World peace is directly linked to peace in the Middle East." World peace will never be achieved, period. All we have achieved by staying in Iraq is drawing the increased ire of the Muslim world, as well as many other people, including our allies. Do you see a stable government and thriving economy in Iraq within the next 10 or even 20 years? How many more trillions of dollars will it take? Oohchild is right, Iraqis don't have one unifying culture and they definitely haven't embraced democracy. Its been over five years and we have yet to see any real progress, so people at home start to wonder, why doesn't my government care about me enough to spend billions of dollars a month on my problems...

To start with drug companies:  They have such a high cost to produce medicine I don't blame them for charging an arm and a leg.  Research and Development, Testing and FDA approval, selling enough to cover those costs before they lose the property rights and their medicine is turned into generic medicine...  We also give a lot of free drugs to poor nations.  And the cost of getting FDA approval and going through the government processes and laws is a cost that gets passed along to the consumers of the drugs.  I'm not willing to pay 80% of my income in taxes so everyone else can have free OxyContin.

    And yes I do believe the government has it's place in business.  I'm not Ayn Rand.  And you forget- we the consumers are the government.  But it isn't wrong to give corporations a wide berth.  Maximizing profits is beneficial to us all.  It creates jobs, lowers the price of goods, makes our standard of living increase.  If that means that my computer is built in Malaysia by a person working for a dollar a day, so be it, as long as my products are safe (re: China).  If you want to talk about slavery, lets talk about true slavery in Thailand and Mauritania, not real workers earning real money. 

   In regards to Louisiana:  New Orleans is doomed.  The Mississippi is vital, and I won't dispute that.  So move the port up river, to where it isn't going to fall into the ocean every time a hurricane hits.  I don't have a good understanding of rivers- so realize I am showing my ignorance here.  But wouldn't it be better in the long run to permanently move the port to a place that is safer and not subject to frequent disasters?  Or move the imports/exports to other ports?  Yes it might cost more in shipping freight, but it will save us from having to rebuild... and rebuild... and rebuild... "because we NEED it".  The article was interesting, but I remain skeptical.  Newt Gingrich is not a civil engineer nor is he involved in national shipping logistics.  He is a politician.  New Orleans was nice, but do we really need to rebuild the Lower Ninth Ward when it has nothing to do with the port? Do I care if Bourbon Street becomes a source of enjoyment for underwater explorers rather than Mardi Gras partiers?  Not really.

    Again, I show my ignorance as I am not well versed on the history of Iraq.  I have been told that Iraq was "pasted together" after WWII mainly by the Brits.  So then the logical solution for a country with no national identity and no unifying culture is to split it up?  I'm fine with that.  Whatever it takes to keep the peace.  But, please, give me a viable solution for Iraq- I eagerly await it!  I have heard that the factions would like to stay together, as well as a majority of the Iraqi people.  Strength in numbers.  The United States is filled with different people who share a common vision and a common reliance upon each other.  Same goes for the UK.  Would you prefer we put the Baaths back in power because they "unified" Iraq?  I'm sure the Kurds would disagree, especially those we keep finding in mass graves.
    If there is a threat to us from the Muslim world, and we eliminate that threat, and it draws the ire of Muslims, so be it.  To not eliminate a threat would be foolish.  Was Iraq a threat to us?  Probably not.  But we're there and we need to see it through to a result that is beneficial to us.  And is it selfish to want things that benefit us?  Yes, Iraq is costly, and I would much rather that money be spent here.  I fully agree on that.

Hey madkow, I really like the way you admit to not knowing everything, & I hope this discussion will help you research a bit to understand more about the world we live in. Kudos to you!

As far as New Orleans' port & the importance to our economy, just think back to the weeks & months after Katrina. What happened to gasoline prices? Also, rebuilding communities like the Ninth Ward is important because where else will the dock workers live?

Like it or not, our country is unified under a federal government that makes the whole much stronger than the separate parts. Think about moving to another state and worrying if the water will be as clean as where you're from. Or traveling across California on a nicely maintain road, only to hit potholes & rocks chipping your windshield once a border is crossed to another state.

There are no good solutions for Iraq, madkow. Sometimes situations are just that bad. I don't know what happened to traditional conservative thinking, which once realized that invading Iraq (to liberate it) would result in a quagmire. Cheney knew this after Bush the First declined to take out Saddam. Somewhere along the line, wires got crossed & Iraq became the target. Whatever the US does, there will be death & there will be ethnic murder & millions of people will be forced from their homes.

I'm to the point where now, every young man & woman who dies over there will have paid their country the ultimate price in order to change nothing. Americans, Brits, Iraqis; the nationality doesn't matter. All of those young people have every right to live long lives. Our presence isn't helping at all, it's just recruiting more Islamic terrorists. It's nothing but young men (& some women) bent on killing more young people, who then go on to want revenge & kill more young people. Lets stop the cycle soon.

I DO now think that Bush has taken leave of his senses. He is closely
getting into the Jimmy Carter category! He ignores the wishes of the
majority of the American People, the Congress, the Supreme Court and is
stuck in a time warp of Iraq for the past 5 years. I say this as a
registered Republican! He only has 18 more months to go and he will be
history. The NEW President (whoever it is) will end the war just as Nixon
did with Vietnam when he took over from Lyndon Johnson. Iraq will continue
to have its tribal factions war with each other as they have for centuries
and all the killing and maiming will continue as it did before we ever got
there...and our military presence shall not have made ONE DAMN bit of
difference.

This is my opinion, for what it's worth.

Jim Richards

    Don't get me wrong- I never said that it is bad to have a federal government.  Without it, we'd be right back at the failure of the Articles of the Confederation, total government ineptness, and such historic occurrences as Shay's Rebellion.  And as for hitting potholes and rocks when you cross a state border... have you ever driven in Louisiana (even pre-Katrina), Missouri, Mississippi, Arkansas, or Michigan?  The roads are atrocious- and they are federally funded (perhaps with some state funding too).  And with clean water, that's what the EPA is for, which is federal and I have no objection to it.  But what business is it of the federal government to tell us how to control every aspect of our lives?  Too much centralized power is too vulnerable to corruption and abuse of that power.  Not to seem too paranoid here, but if we go much further it will seem downright Orwellian.

    Yes, dock workers need somewhere to live, but perhaps I am wrong in thinking that the 469,032 residents of New Orleans pre-Katrina were not all dock workers?  From the information I can find, it appears that the Long Beach/Los Angeles port complex employs 4,000 dock workers.  So if we take that number, from a larger port, and multiply it by 2.59 (which is the average household size according to the 2000 US Census) we get a population of 10,360.  Obviously add in the people needed to supply that population with goods and services... and I still don't think we come near 469,032.  And I think that those dock workers and their dependents could find more suitable land to build on than in a bowl below sea level.

    And again, in Iraq, you lament the situation, the pointless deaths, and the hit to our reputation.  And you say there are no good solutions.  But you do not suggest any solution that would solve even some of the problems.  What it is going to be?  "Stay the course", "Cut and run", "Scheduled withdrawal"?  (I apologize profusely for the cliches... I despise them too.)  Hanging our heads and saying that a situation is beyond helping (or even attempting to help) is gross negligence on the part of us all.  One thing I can say about Bush is that even though HE messed up BIG TIME, at least he is trying to fix it, as are many of those figures who run these sorts of things (wars, I mean).  And hopefully they do everything within their power to minimize the death of the innocent.

Solutions...(1) Break the country up into 3 ethnic states which solves ethnic disputes of power and might lead to stability faster(2) Leave immediately and let them figure it out on their own which eliminates furthur US war casualties and endless money wasting (3) Continue the occupation and attempts to set up a stable govenment while trying to please everyone and not get killed in the process which, while having the least probability of success, is the most rewarding (4) Order a full occcupation of the country, announce Iraq as a territory of the US, declare martial law and get rid of all dissenters using any means necessary, which would give us the oil we are so dependant upon, while offering an island of stability as the country would be governed by the US in the interest of the US (5) allow the Saudis to take control of the country, which would relieve the US of the responsibility of such a huge mess....

Thank you very much for offering solutions!  Now that we have moved past the "woe is me" we can get into the real problem solving!

    I think the biggest problem here is the simple fact that the Middle East was left in disarray by foreign powers, just like Israel (abandoned by the British) and all of Africa (hopelessly locked in post-Imperialism).  It was wrong to force borders where they made no sense and groups together that wanted nothing to do with each other.  It's like forcing a woman to wear a corset- it causes her body to be misshapen and makes her unhealthy.  But what's done is done, and we need to work with what we have.

    I'm most inclined to accept #4- not as a permanent solution though.  I believe the Iraqi people do have a sense of identity now and would like a future that is more certain.  Yes, oochild, I do think it is valid to compare Iraq to post WWII Germany and Japan.  We crippled two countries and through occupation raised them up to be formidable world powers.  I would love to see that happen in Iraq.  We just need to push aside this fear of irritating the Muslim world and finish what we began.

It never ceases to amaze me when people who have no idea about a certain culture are convinced they know how to handle said culture.

"Irritating the Muslim world" is one of the most uninformed utterings I've heard in a long time. Put the shoe on the other foot for a moment, madkow: imagine a Muslim country invades us in order to rid us of our leading tyrant, George W. Bush. Do you really believe we would just roll over & allow martial law, in order to make us a Muslim territory? C'mon, gimme a break!

As I said before, we need to get out of Iraq & stop these young people from dying, and the sooner the better.

One other point about Germany & Japan, madkow. Not only did they have the national identity & unity necessary for rebuilding after WWII (which Iraq doesn't have), they both declared war on the US (which, again, Iraq did not.) A better analogy for you to use would be France's rule of Algiers, if you really want to know how to handle a Muslim occupation.

Yes madkow, I'd love to see the successes of Germany and Japan be repeated in Iraq, but I also love to stay in touch with reality. The Iraqis really don't have a national identity because of the ethnic factions that are endlessly fighting for power, the greatest source of unity they have shown was after the Iraqi soccer team's victory. There are more people there interested in killing Americans than building a successful nation. While this atmosphere prevails, there cannot be significant progress.

The real sin is that JimR is correct.  The next president will have to clean up little Bush's mess but in the meantime - our kids are dieing.  We all know that we are moving toward leaving - so every day Bush keeps up his war games is a crime. 

To clarify for everyone we haven't lost the war in-fact when you move into a country take over its capital and hang the former president one can say the war is won.  Its the occupation that we are loosing, we should have just let cards fall where they may and not be in the middle.  Every time someone says we are loosing the war it weakens us and strengthens our enemies. We have won the war its the occupation we are loosing.  GET U.S. OUT of the middle of Iraq.  If we leave the middle east all together another country will come in and blockade access to oil and then all those soccer moms in SUVs, and big oil companies wouldn't be very happy.  Its a big picture thing.  Either we occupy and control the flow of mideast oil or China or Russia does. O ya i cant stand Bush and our system is completley broken and unfixable without throwing out the entire current government. 

    Oohchild, I am researching the French occupation of Algeria.  It isn't something I have learned about yet, but I will learn what I can about it as quickly as possible.  From what I have read so far, Algeria was occupied by the Berbers and the Arabs (who ruled over the Berbers).  The French invaded because of financial dealings gone awry.  And then they turned it into a colony and subsidized settlement by European farmers.  This is a quote from a French soldier, Lieutenant-Colonel de Montagnac: "This is how, my dear friend, we must do war against Arabs: kill all men over the age of fifteen, take all their women and children, charged the buildings with them [i.e. probable allusion to military brothels], send them to the Marquesas Islands or elsewhere. In one word, annihilate all that will not crawl beneath our feet like dogs."  Do you really think that this is what Bush is doing?  So far in my research, I fail to see the similarities.  Or are you saying that this is what you would like to see happen.  You were vague.

    "Imagine a Muslim country invades us in order to rid us of our leading tyrant, George W. Bush" 
George Bush a tyrant?  Hardly.  He was elected by the people... and re-elected by the people.  Definition of tyrant: n. any person in a position of authority who exercises power oppressively or despotically.  I certainly didn't elect a despot. (Well, I didn't re-elect a despot.  I wasn't old enough to vote in his first election.)  And after his bungles and fiascoes, Bush doesn't carry much power anymore anyway- at least, not with the American people.  He is already a lame duck.

    "Do you really believe we would just roll over & allow martial law, in order to make us a Muslim territory?" 
Of course not.  But are we trying to make them a Christian (or insert any other religion) territory?  Do we give a *hoot* about changing their religion in any way?  A conversion to democracy from totalitarianism is what we are aiming for.  And I, for one, would not want to be under a dictator and would welcome democracy.  That is the challenge to the Iraqi people.
    It is not our goal to rule over Iraq.  It is our goal to have a self-ruled, democratic Iraqi government that is sympathetic to United States interests in the region.  That was precisely what my comparison to Germany and Japan was all about.

    "There are more people there interested in killing Americans than building a successful nation. While this atmosphere prevails, there cannot be significant progress."  I disagree.  I think there are a few people interested in killing Americans, as well as their own people, and they terrorize the majority that want peace and prosperity.  Thus why we are trying to root out those few and allow the majority of good, decent Iraqi people to progress toward life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, to quote our founding fathers.

    And, to perhaps the most sensitive and emotional issue, the soldiers.  Soldiers fight and some soldiers die.  This statement is not intended to minimize their contributions and their lives, but rather a statement of fact.  A young man or young woman who enlists is grossly naive if they expect to never risk their life.  And do they not realize that their purpose is to follow the orders of the Commander in Chief?  Those men and women that enlisted and insist on not serving because they deem the war morally offensive are- forgive my bluntness- stupid.  Did they think the life of a soldier is picking daisies and frolicking through the green grass?  They are people, yes, but they are also the tools of war for the American people, and it is within our right to use them to that purpose.  (Ah, but I can hear the emotional outcry already...)

Well madkow, you've got a lot of info there. Some of it is pretty good, but much of what you've written isn't the reality of the situation, I'm afraid.

First, have you seen the increase in young men being detained in Iraq? This is exactly what happened when we first entered the Iraqi countryside four years ago, & it was a fiasco. In fact, you should read the book Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq for a detailed discussion about how to handle an insurgency. In short, the occupying force never wins the strategic goal of security/political stability by detaining thousands of people in grand, sweeping round-ups. Many military commanders pointed to the French/Algerian conflict early on in our occupation, when these sweeps first occurred, but were ignored. Seems they're being ignored again.

Second, the hypothetical I laid out about our invasion over Bush's leadership wasn't meant to be taken literally. I assumed you'd understand I was taking the point of view of the invaders, who would inevitably justify their actions by pointing to Bush's vile tyranny. Just as we did in invading Iraq. Sorry you didn't follow my hyperbole.

Third, the goal of Islamic extremists is to rule the world, including the US, as a Muslim theocracy. And who's to say that American democracy is a good match with Muslim theology? When you look at successful Muslim countries like Indonesia, the one factor they share is, again, a national unity & culture. Here's a question for you: how exactly can democracy overcome the sectarian & fundamental differences of the Iraqi Sunnis, various Shia sects, & the Kurds? While many of our founding fathers were deist in principle, there was still an under-riding current of Christian unity when they developed our republic. There was a general tolerance of religion among that group of men. Where's the corresponding unity, or even tolerance, in Iraq?

Finally, the strawman you created around the soldiers serving in Iraq really insults those serving our country right now. I think the troops realize they are doing their duty by putting their lives on the line every day. Those of us who want them home know they're doing a damn fine job at providing security, as well as just staying alive, day after day. We just want them home soon, so they don't have to risk their lives as part of their daily jobs. I don't think anyone believes the military is a tip-toe through the tulips, as you assert.