"Cruz called on Obama to seek authorization from Congress should the air strikes continue, calling the rise of ISIS the "latest manifestation of the failures of the Obama-Clinton foreign policy"
It's so fun he conveniently snips off George H. W. Bush and Ronald Reagan, as if arming and training the guys who would form Al Qaeda, who then trained the guys now in ISIS have nothing to do with it. Or that invading Iraq, encouraging people to rise up against Saddam Hussein and seize democracy, and then abandoning them to be slaughtered didn't do anything either. In case that sounds like what we're doing now, that's also what we did in Bush Sr.'s time.
"Santorum said Obama should have used his "incredible powers of persuasion" to keep more troops in Iraq in 2011."
Oh yes, his incredibly powers of persuasion. Never mind the current Prime Minister is a stooge of Iran who shoved out all the Sunni and Kurdish senior government officials making a coalition government impossible, and has indicated that an extension of US troops in Iraq (Which was agreed on during W. Bush's presidency) would only be extended if US troops could be tried in Iraqi court rooms for crimes.
No, no. We just need to be more persuasive so that we can keep our troops on the ground and waste more time, blood, and money.
"One of the things that frustrates me, we've still not heard a coherent strategy when it comes to dealing with ISIS," he said. "I think [Obama] owes it to the American people, he owes it to our troops in uniform, to define what the strategic vision is, what the strategic plan is."
I think the vision is pretty clear. We're still leaving Iraq per our agreement. We'll provide limited support against ISIS, but as far as us driving the agenda in Iraq, that's over. Too bad, so sad, I'm sorry you don't *like* the vision. But it's pretty clear to me.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
The thing that frustrates me with republicans (and politicians in general) is the "It's good as long is it helps me, bad if it doesn't" mentality.
We saw it during the during the war in Iraq, where Democrats by and large voted for and urged us to overthrow Saddam, only to suddenly stop supporting it when the public grew tired of the war.
The pendulum has now swung in the other direction, with Republicans finding fault in everything Obama is trying to do.
When the President does nothing in Syria, republicans complain that the president is too soft. When the president bombs parts of Iraq, they clamor for more diplomacy.
The question for me isn't what to do now, I think Obama is doing exactly what he should be doing given the circumstances. Santorum is being an absolute idiot for saying Obama should have used his "powers of persuasion" to keep more troops. They didn't want us there anymore, so we left.
So why are the republicans going after Obama on foreign policy? Well, because it works, just how attacking the republicans worked in the democrat's favor in 2006 and 2008.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
First quote: Nah, the most amusing part is that he's relabeled it the Obama-Clinton plan. Someone's off and running
Second quote: Yeah, cause the guy who has moved loyalist troops into Baghdad to support his control after the legislature tried to oust him was going to listen to Obama any better than he listened to Bush.
Third quote: This one has something to it. Yeah, Obama's policy is pretty much hands off. The thing on Mt. Sinjar and with the Kurds is different, but by and large he's just letting things play out. No one seems to want to accept that as an option, but even I wouldn't mind if Obama explained his thoughts on the matter to at least turn this into a dialogue rather than have my ears bleed at more GOP hand wringing.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: We saw it during the during the war in Iraq, where Democrats by and large voted for and urged us to overthrow Saddam, only to suddenly stop supporting it when the public grew tired of the war.
Indeed.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: We saw it during the during the war in Iraq, where Democrats by and large voted for and urged us to overthrow Saddam, only to suddenly stop supporting it when the public grew tired of the war.
Indeed.
Small correction, "by and large" suggests a majority of Democratic support.
147 Democratic Congressmen and Senators voted against the authorization of force bill. 111 voted for it.
Democrats, by and large, opposed the measure from the start. Almost a dozen amendments proposed by Democrats to limit the scope of the authorization to either be bound by the UN or to have a fixed end date were all killed by majority GOP votes.
Yes, the supporting Democrats jumped ship pretty fast when things turned sour (I'd note that this turnaround happened before the majority of the US public turned against the war, and also note that a sizable number of people opposed this thing from the start, myself included). But let's not rewrite history to suggest Democrats were on board and then jumped ship to save face for political reasons. A lot of them lost their seats on those votes.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Point taken, I reserve my ire for those Democrats who actually voted for it, I shouldn't have taken Geraine's stats at face value.
I would note though that there are a number of notable names on that "for" list such as Clinton, Biden, Kerry, and Reid.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Good point.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: We saw it during the during the war in Iraq, where Democrats by and large voted for and urged us to overthrow Saddam, only to suddenly stop supporting it when the public grew tired of the war.
Indeed.
Small correction, "by and large" suggests a majority of Democratic support.
147 Democratic Congressmen and Senators voted against the authorization of force bill. 111 voted for it.
Democrats, by and large, opposed the measure from the start. Almost a dozen amendments proposed by Democrats to limit the scope of the authorization to either be bound by the UN or to have a fixed end date were all killed by majority GOP votes.
Yes, the supporting Democrats jumped ship pretty fast when things turned sour (I'd note that this turnaround happened before the majority of the US public turned against the war, and also note that a sizable number of people opposed this thing from the start, myself included). But let's not rewrite history to suggest Democrats were on board and then jumped ship to save face for political reasons. A lot of them lost their seats on those votes.
It is also to differentiate between the House and Senate. While there were 82 "Yeas" and 126 "Nays" among democrats in the house, the vote in the senate was 29 "yeas" to 21 "Nays", representing nearly 60%.
And Mucus is correct. Many high profile democrats argued for the war. Kerry, Clinton, Reid and others (Even Ted Kennedy) were quite outspoken with their support for the Iraqi war at the beginning.
Regardless as to what happened in the past, I think the President is taking the right approach with Iraq right now. I do think that the administration is underestimating ISIS, but I don't think sending troops in is the answer. Iraq has over 100,000 armed soldiers, and ISIS has between 5,000 and 10,000.
I think the best thing to do would be to continue targeted air strikes, and perhaps send non-combatants to advise and train the Iraqi soldiers. Strictly non-combat roles. We can provide a lot of strategic support without putting our people at risk.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I am not sure what you mean by "outspoken in their support for the war". If you mean that they voted for the resolution, sure. But most of them did it reluctantly.
Training which Iraqi soldiers? The ones that, after a decade of "training" either ran and abandoned their ordnance or were brutally massacred? What do you think we can train them to do that we couldn't in the past 10 years?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
From what I've been reading it sounds like their generals and officers changed out of their clothes, boarded a plane and left them. So their men panicked and followed suit.
Leaders can instill their men with confidence or fear. Unfortunately Iraq has no government to unite all the coalitions with a stake there, and the army is not properly lead.
These are not things the US can give Iraq.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: We saw it during the during the war in Iraq, where Democrats by and large voted for and urged us to overthrow Saddam, only to suddenly stop supporting it when the public grew tired of the war.
Indeed.
Small correction, "by and large" suggests a majority of Democratic support.
147 Democratic Congressmen and Senators voted against the authorization of force bill. 111 voted for it.
Democrats, by and large, opposed the measure from the start. Almost a dozen amendments proposed by Democrats to limit the scope of the authorization to either be bound by the UN or to have a fixed end date were all killed by majority GOP votes.
Yes, the supporting Democrats jumped ship pretty fast when things turned sour (I'd note that this turnaround happened before the majority of the US public turned against the war, and also note that a sizable number of people opposed this thing from the start, myself included). But let's not rewrite history to suggest Democrats were on board and then jumped ship to save face for political reasons. A lot of them lost their seats on those votes.
It is also to differentiate between the House and Senate. While there were 82 "Yeas" and 126 "Nays" among democrats in the house, the vote in the senate was 29 "yeas" to 21 "Nays", representing nearly 60%.
And Mucus is correct. Many high profile democrats argued for the war. Kerry, Clinton, Reid and others (Even Ted Kennedy) were quite outspoken with their support for the Iraqi war at the beginning.
Regardless as to what happened in the past, I think the President is taking the right approach with Iraq right now. I do think that the administration is underestimating ISIS, but I don't think sending troops in is the answer. Iraq has over 100,000 armed soldiers, and ISIS has between 5,000 and 10,000.
I think the best thing to do would be to continue targeted air strikes, and perhaps send non-combatants to advise and train the Iraqi soldiers. Strictly non-combat roles. We can provide a lot of strategic support without putting our people at risk.
You did not differentiate between the two. Not that I see what difference it makes to do so or how it helps your argument, but you still implied a majority of dems supported the war. This was not the case.
Personally I don't think he's doing the right thing. We should be more involved with setting up the Kurds as an independent state. I see no reason to strong arm them into staying tied to a failed state in Iraq when they're already mostly independent in everything but name.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
How likely is this to piss off the Turks and how much do we care?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
They've shifted in recent months. Lots of rumors that Erbil and Ankara are actually growing closer and that the Turks might even support statehood in the near future. Oil lines now go from Kurdish territory through turkey. And I think they want to make the Kurds controlling the PKK part of the deal so they can get that monkey off their backs. And I think with Isis and the mess in Syria, the Turks actually see the Kurds as a more reliable neighbor they'd rather deal with. They'd be a useful buffer. Plus both are us allies.
I think if we attempted to broker a deal between them with us support, maybe even some US basing rights in Kurdistan to support both them and turkey, we could probably do it within a few years and not only not piss off the Turks, but have them as willing partners. Things have shifted that much in the last year.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
That would be good. Better at least.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Re: voting "reluctantly" for war
Geraine I think is headed in a different direction.
But from my perspective, ultimately, when you vote for war, the real consequences of that decision far outweigh how weepy you might have been when voting.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
I also think its fair to say that as representatives of their constituents when their constituents no longer support the war they should reflect the will of their constituents who duly elected them to represent their voice no?
That and by and large the full scope of the nearly complete fabrication of the justification for war I think very few mainstream democrats would have believed.
As for the military situation on the ground, aside from ISIS allegedly finally getting cores on most of the middle east (goddamn waste of admin points! I joke, King of Men will get the reference..) I've heard that since the mass executions of surrendering Iraqi troops the backbone to fight has somewhat improved; which correlates with the historical trend with that regard. Nothing tends to stiffen ones resolve than knowing that if you surrender you're dead anyways, except now its going to be messier.
The Iraqi political situation is heading for and I quote a Chinese proverb, 'interesting times', apparently Maliki is refusing to step down? Shit's gonna get real really fast but he needs to go if the nation is getting any hope to unify against the opposition forces.
While counter factuals be flimsy things I've heard it mentioned that it may be likely that the entire Arab Spring would not have happened, and thus the subsequent radicalization and militantism wouldn't have happened without the Iraq War to train a considerable number of fighters in how to fight an insurgency. Its interesting to think about.
I personally think ISIS will buckle once serious opposition on the ground confronts them so lets hope its sooner I guess than later; but ISIS is pretty much damning proof of the failure of the Bush Administration's foreign policy; disengagement with limited support is all the US can responsibly concede to; although it would be wonderfully ironic if US troops did return to help out and were legit treated as liberators as a historical F-U to the Bush-Cheney years.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Elison - Maliki stepped down earlier today.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar: I also think its fair to say that as representatives of their constituents when their constituents no longer support the war they should reflect the will of their constituents who duly elected them to represent their voice no?
That and by and large the full scope of the nearly complete fabrication of the justification for war I think very few mainstream democrats would have believed.
As for the military situation on the ground, aside from ISIS allegedly finally getting cores on most of the middle east (goddamn waste of admin points! I joke, King of Men will get the reference..) I've heard that since the mass executions of surrendering Iraqi troops the backbone to fight has somewhat improved; which correlates with the historical trend with that regard. Nothing tends to stiffen ones resolve than knowing that if you surrender you're dead anyways, except now its going to be messier.
The Iraqi political situation is heading for and I quote a Chinese proverb, 'interesting times', apparently Maliki is refusing to step down? Shit's gonna get real really fast but he needs to go if the nation is getting any hope to unify against the opposition forces.
While counter factuals be flimsy things I've heard it mentioned that it may be likely that the entire Arab Spring would not have happened, and thus the subsequent radicalization and militantism wouldn't have happened without the Iraq War to train a considerable number of fighters in how to fight an insurgency. Its interesting to think about.
I personally think ISIS will buckle once serious opposition on the ground confronts them so lets hope its sooner I guess than later; but ISIS is pretty much damning proof of the failure of the Bush Administration's foreign policy; disengagement with limited support is all the US can responsibly concede to; although it would be wonderfully ironic if US troops did return to help out and were legit treated as liberators as a historical F-U to the Bush-Cheney years.
are you attempting to emulate a particular writer or poster? are you field testing a kind of written tone, or what exactly is up with this?
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
I just assumed it was more or less plagiarized. This is actually something I suspect for quite a few of his posts, at least the ones with large, incongruous blocks of badly spliced text. Not that it's impossible to write that way (perhaps he's editing himself), just... odd.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
he has been caught plagiarizing on numerous occasions so i wouldn't rule it out but i don't think that's the most likely reason?
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
Again with the charicaturization, but no, I did not plagiarize any of the above post, or anything ever on this site. You seem to referring to the times I would quote or otherwise paraphrase Zero Punctuation; so you seem to confuse plagiarism with shout outs.
#DogBreath: I write that way as a way of specifically writing on forums as means to be courteous, as it lets people respond to me by quoting the specific block of text as opposed to having to dissect a paragraph.
Like that. If every block has its own tone that is probably because my mood and thinking process differs between blocks.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar: Again with the charicaturization
I don't think anything Sam or I wrote could be described as caricaturization. Perhaps you meant exaggeration?
quote:but no, I did not plagiarize any of the above post, or anything ever on this site. You seem to referring to the times I would quote or otherwise paraphrase Zero Punctuation; so you seem to confuse plagiarism with shout outs.
I think you're the one who has confused the two. A shout out is a brief reference to another (famous) work, and is done either for comedy, or as a way of paying homage to the source material. A great example would be in the recent Planet of the Apes movie, a gorilla picks up a oil barrel and lobs it at a human.
Plagiarism is quoting or paraphrasing someone else's work without attribution, and without making it clear you're quoting them.
quote:#DogBreath: I write that way as a way of specifically writing on forums as means to be courteous, as it lets people respond to me by quoting the specific block of text as opposed to having to dissect a paragraph.
This entire sentence is an example of what I'm talking about. "I write that way as a way of specifically writing..." Your natural writing style is often convolution to the point of being nearly unintelligible. Which is not to say I believe you're incapable of writing well. But when I read your posts and the grammar, tone, and quality all change dramatically - not only between posts, but sometimes between paragraphs - I can't help but suspect plagiarism.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Is it that you are trying to post in an 'intellectual' fashion? The more erudite you try to make your posts, the more your language gets broken up into jarringly fragmented, broken and bizarre syntax. That's why I ask if there's any particular person or writing style you are trying to copy.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
#Sam: trying to eruditize you're speech while trying you start poorly giving "shout outs" to other peoples ideas/articles and like Yoda you begin to sound when paraphrasing. Really, inasmuch as this truly is a function of a truly stylistically strange form of writing style, or I don't know a hasty attempt at putting you're own phrasing on someone's else ideas.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
that was almost spot on; all your missing and needed was a few other stylistic aping flairs and it would be fairly close on; on the whole it is a not bad thing to be able to do that by and on the large I think few people would concede, no?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: that was almost spot on; all your missing and needed was a few other stylistic aping flairs and it would be fairly close on; on the whole it is a not bad thing to be able to do that by and on the large I think few people would concede, no?
It's like watching someone do political commentary with mad libs.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Sometimes I feel like a lot of political commentary does use mad libs.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Sometimes I feel like a lot of political commentary does use mad libs.
Only the list of nouns, verbs, adverbs, adjectives, etc are like four words long each.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Criticism can be constructive. I'm not sure evidence-free accusations of plagiarism and mockery are that sort of criticism.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
It was an explanation, not an accusation. I don't really care if Blayne is writing everything himself or copying another person's work, especially regarding the subject being discussed. I merely presented it as a possible explanation for his bizarre change in writing style. It's also what I assume about most of what he writes when it seems incongruous or unusual. Sort of a "once a cheater" type assumption. I certainly don't post in most of those threads accusing him of plagiarizing. In fact, I mostly leave him alone.
As far as mockery - meh. I made fun of someone's unusual syntax in a pretty light hearted and friendly manner. If it makes Blayne realize just how frustrating it can be to try and decipher his posts, then maybe it'll do some good. It's in response to his claim that he writes that way to be "courteous." I don't really feel that qualifies as mockery, or if it does, it's pretty low key.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: Criticism can be constructive. I'm not sure evidence-free accusations of plagiarism and mockery are that sort of criticism.
the plagiarism issue is mostly beside the point, but that he's done it before here isn't an evidence-free accusation. the record's right here on the site.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: Criticism can be constructive. I'm not sure evidence-free accusations of plagiarism and mockery are that sort of criticism.
I wasn't trying to be constructive.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: Criticism can be constructive. I'm not sure evidence-free accusations of plagiarism and mockery are that sort of criticism.
I wasn't trying to be constructive.
You're at your best when you are. Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: Criticism can be constructive. I'm not sure evidence-free accusations of plagiarism and mockery are that sort of criticism.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)