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....

    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.

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

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.

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.

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...

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'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?

Oohchild - most excellent points.  In agreement over here.

There seems to be another "knee-jerk" reaction occuring here, and it's the Federal Government is Always Bad mantra voiced by so many conservatives.

It's seems so simple to place the failure of the levees on Louisiana, and to assert that the levees only affect the locals. But here's the reality: a huge amount of our country's oil goes through that part of the country. That makes federal involvement crucial to our economy.

I'd like everyone who thinks they could get along quite nicely without our federal systems of support to really think about how they benefit, everyday, from clean water & interstate commerce & food inspections & dozens of other areas that shouldn't vary from state to state, in a country as great as ours.

Maybe our federal government has been failing us because those in power (the Republicans) don't want it to work. If you appoint incompetent & uncaring leaders to various government agencies (like Brownie & Gonzo), of course those departments will fail. Then if you're someone like Dubya, all you have to do is point to these government agencies and say, "See? I told you your tax dollars are being wasted! Big government is baaad!"

Another example of governing through fear. Meh.

My opinion: History will judge the Bush administration the most enept and corrupt America has ever experienced. A man that has claimed he needs no advisor but God has to be suspect at least. And then to use this as a pretext for making wars to further an agenda of corruption further enriching the wealthy rather than putting the interests of America ahead of other nations should speak for itself. But the corruption in Congress is no less. For example, why should Bush together with Congress be talking about "national security" all the while evidencing more concern with securing the borders of other nations like Iraq and Afghanistan than our own borders if not for slave labor? The hypocrisy of things like this means following the money every time.

madkow2747: "If they're not doing their job of winning the war, then they should be replaced.  Would you expect to keep your job when you are incapable of succeeding?" How do you win an un-winnable war? There is no real organized resistance, the time for a "Patton-style" invasion has long since past. As for torture, I'm not going to say that I support it, but when the insurgents are kidnapping and beheading innocents on video, I think it's time we start playing by their rules.

As for jump-starting the growth of big business, do we really want to put our faith in such corrupt institutions? I certainly don't because the lust for money inevitably gets in the way of the best interest of the consumer. In the ideal economy, putting more money in the hands of big business would always lead to better products and service, but do we see this? I don't think so, I think we either see corporations milking consumers of every last penny for life's necessities (drug companies for example) or we see them taking advantage of the less fortunate to offer the lowest prices, thereby  forcing competiton out of the market and increasing revenue (Wal-Mart for example).

Do you really think that the government (state or federal) will spend money on projects that make improvements that only might be needed? No way, the government only acts ex post facto, when it is too late...and I thought an ounce of prevention was worth a pound of cure...

Thanks for the comments on this site. I enjoy reading what others say. Its very interesting and informative.

It's perfectly acceptable to disagree with me :)  I'm just trying to inject some deeper thought into the conversation, rather than the typical "I hate Bush" knee-jerk reaction.  And I always appreciate a well-thought-out debate, even if it means playing a little devil's advocate!

With regards to the cut funding to Louisiana:  I do not believe in a large federal government.  I believe that the states should have much more say in how their state is governed and how their money is spent.  In my humble opinion, I think the federal government should keep to things that involve us all, like the interstate freeway system, and, yes, even military and the conducting of war.  But Louisiana should deal with it's own levees.  California should deal with it's own aqueducts and levees.  All the states should tax their own citizens to pay for public services within it's own state, not beg the grossly enlarged federal government for funding.  The government should be a balance between state and federal rights, and the federal has ballooned way out of proportion.  That would cut our federal taxes and put the accountability for our tax dollars closer to home.

You're very right on torture.  It doesn't always give us reliable information and it is barbaric.  But the question still stands: how do you get intelligence?  And I'm not sure if the witchhunt/Inquisition example is an entirely accurate simile.  There is a big difference between "Tell us you are a witch or we will kill you" and "Tell us where the next terrorist attack will be or we will dunk your head underwater a lot."  That isn't to make light of torture, I hope you understand.  But as shows my ignorance, I really am not certain of all the torture methods that were employed by agents of the United States, so I feel I cannot make a fair judgement on whether they were "cruel" or not.  I always remember that the media is wont to exaggerate things...

I still think tax cuts were a wonderful step in the right direction.  It was meant to jump-start the growth of big business, which would create jobs, increase spending power of the average consumer, and in general spur on economic growth.  Ideally, I think the tax system should be completely overhauled.  This is an idea I could really get behind: http://www.pbs.org/newshour...
But like I said earlier, the tax cuts were part of a theory that has the best intentions.  I'm actually amazed it was even passed, seeing as how Congress, in all it's infinite glory, can't stop spending our money either.  Thank God for accountability to the constituents, although this ability of the voters to hold our politicians accountable is sorely underused.

Iraq issues I won't even bother to argue, because I think it's pointless by now.  It's a cluster****.  I say, just put in some generals, go in Patton-style, and send the terrorist hold-outs running.  Iraq will probably never be stable because it seems that the several groups there (Shiite, Sunni, and Kurd, if I remember right) are so diametrically opposed that they will never agree.  And in that part of the world, a disagreement leads to guns and IEDs and the slaughter of men, women and children.  The only reason it was "stable" under Saddam was because he ruled like a mini-Stalin.  And I think we can all agree that Stalin was bad, very bad.

I for one think this President is doing an amazing job. I love how so many people think they know everything when it comes to the war, but have you been there? Have you seen first hand what is going on there? I have a family member that has been there 4 times and would go again. Of course you guys don't see the soldiers handing out food and taking care of civilians.  My family member is very proud to have served under this Commander in Chief. He won't be saying the same thing if another Clinton gets elected again. Serving 8 years under the 1st Clinton was bad enough.