posted
Of course I can. But your concern is misplaced. That stuff has been blown all out of proportion by the media, and everyone sucks it up. That's what I meant when I said that liberalism, or as O'reilly more accurately puts it, "secular progressivism" is self-perpetuating. Those who buy into it belive it, and part of believing it means you must expand it. But there is so much wrong with it, whereas "conservativism" is really a matter of trying to maintain something that is probably already gone.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TL: Okay, ou know what, you're still not hearing me. I really tried, but I'm done with this. [/QB]
I think that the only way you would think that I was hearing you would be if I changed my mind and started agreeing with you, because you are so convinced that you are right that the only way I could possibly disagree with you would be if I wasn't listening to what you had to say. I encounter this mentality all the time (usually it's me).
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
And thats my advice to you. Look to yourself. We see the flaws in others so clearly while we are blind to the same in ourselves. Something about a log in the eye...
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
But yeah, these things can go on forever and it seems like nothing gets done. But I always try to take something away from it. I look to where my opinions have been tempered by an opposing viewpoint, strengthening my convictions. And I try to recognize where my convictions may have been shaken, even a little. That is usually an indication that there is weakness there that needs to be examined.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I actually disagree with Mr. Card in that I think if Republicans hold congress, the chances of electing a Republican President in 2008 go down drastically. There is the risk that a Democratic majority in Congress would hamper the war, but we don't actually know what will happen.
And I have faith that the America Lincoln fought to save can survive "defeat" abroad. I don't think that's what the Democrats have in mind, but we'll just have to wait and see.
P.S. I'll just elaborate that Lincoln's America is the land of opportunity thing, not so much that people can come here and get wealthy, but that no one in theory bound to their circumstances. I think "big government" interferes with this. I know that's a whole other ball of wax about welfare and neo-conservatism and so forth.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm going to dip my toe in this pool and say a few simple things and then get the heck out. LOL
1) If I'm picking sides in this enjoyable conversation, I'm with TL. 2) I said it in another post in another thread, but... It amazes me that people seem to forget that half this country isn't of the Republican "persuasion". 3) If I hear this argument that the media is left-ist anymore I'm going to puke. Most all talk radio is conservative. The only exeption to this in my area is Air America. TV is most certainly not conservative, ever watch FOX News? And the print media can't be considered either in my opinion. They were just as bad when Clinton was president. Its a push. 4) My problem with the war is how we got there. Admittedly, I'll say I don't know all the in's and out's, but as a common person here is how it appeared to me. I'm not kidding... 9/11 happens, terrible. We go to Afghanistan, ok makes sense. Iraq has nuclear weapons and are favor the terrorists. Ok, if you say so, show me. Bush shows us. We go to war. Oops, turns out I was wrong about that nuclear weapons thing. Sorry. And who remembers that Osama guy? And oh, don't concern yourself with that North Korea guy. We know he has nuclear weapons, but... 5) I share TL sentiments that if you don't favor the Republican view, somehow you are painted as unpatriotic. This irritates me so much I can't stand it. Since when did disagreeing with a president make you unpatriotic? And in case you've never experienced that, I hope you don't. To be told you are unpatriotic just because you think the President has done a terrible job in multiple areas is very very disheartening. 6) Finally, it is possible to be middle-of-the-road in some things. You don't have to be all Republican or all Democrat or even all Libertarian. Its easy to say you understand that, but its important to keep that in mind when you are debating someone with different views.
quote:Because my perception is (and mabe I haven't seen the whole picture yet) that there is a organized campaign by private companies friendly to the Bush administration to *silence* the other side of the argument.
It's a real stretch to call any of those companies "friendly to the Bush administration." Particularly Disney, seeing as how Eisner was solidly on the Democrat side of the aisle throughout his tenure.
That being said, the exact same thing goes on on the coasts if you attempt to say anything pro-Bush. Try living in New York City as a conservative for a week and see how many evil eyes you get.
Posts: 170 | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Basic summary of American politics in 2006:
All Americans agree that one party in power is malicious and one is incompetent. The country is bitterly divided over which is which.
Posts: 170 | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd be very interested in a response from OSC (or anybody) on Lyrhawn's post last page before the bickerfest.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have to bypass the additional conversations, but thank you for accepting my statement instead of attacking it, which I will admit, I expected. I agree with some of your responding points, and we probably could not convince eachother. However, you do seem to be a intelligent person, and I apologoze for what I said, it was indeed juvenile. I should not have let my anger get a hold of me.
Posts: 883 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, neither should I. I find it is very easy to keep calm and not get upset online, and I find that it is easier to make good logical arguments online as well. It's in real life where it can be so difficult to keep my emotions in check and make strong arguments. Thats why I practice.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
i tend to think that the signing statements that Mr. Bush has made about the laws he signs is more of a threat than his homeland security and all other forms of "cencorship" or dilluting of freedoms that people may tend to believe in.
I am not neccisarily frightened by them in terms that he actually follows though with the statements because in several cases he obeys the law but has the statement to basically say he does not agree with it and has reservations. If he does act on some of them the public will not know until hes left office, by the nature of those statements. We may also never completely know. What worries me is that this would set a precedence and many more presidents will not only issue the statements but act on them, if not act on the ones that Bush has implemented since they seemingly do not dissapear after his term is up..
Posts: 467 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Reshpeckobiggle, I don't know if you have or not, but you might want to check out the other page (Books, Film, Food and Culture). You don't have to, but threads like this are usually a lot more common on that side.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I'm convinced. I wasn't before. It seems unlikely there'll be another SC appointment in the next 2 years (maybe in 6), and that's where most power resides now. I'd been convinced that for all the rhetoric, Democrats wouldn't really vote to invade Iraq, let a new government be set up, expose those who want to participate to public record, and then leave to let the new Iraqi democracy die, along with the families of those that risked trusting us. That's what pundits were saying: it's just not a possibility. But it has happened before.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would like to apologize to everyone who read this thread. Not my finest hour. I'm better than this. I'm sorry.
Moderators: Please forgive me for poofing my posts. I wrote some things that, upon reflection, I don't want my name on.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: I'd be very interested in a response from OSC (or anybody) on Lyrhawn's post last page before the bickerfest.
Me too. Judging from the fact that OSC commented in this thread way after my post, and chose not to respond to it, I'm guessing we're not going to get anything from him on it.
And other than that, the thread seems to be pretty much dead. Won't matter much in 48 hours anyway will it .
posted
I'd be interested in how you think a response from OSC would differ from his article. You basically disagreed with him in a well-thought fashion. But you didn't present anything new from OSC's perspective. His whole article was about how he thinks the war on terror is good and explaining why. You think it's a disaster, and you posted why.
I'm glad you did. It was a good read. But, really, what's there to say about it from OSC's perspective? You two fundamentally disagree about several premises upon which you base your conclusions, and neither one is in a position to prove your premises.
Your premise is that we can't accomplish anything additional in Iraq. His is that we can. It seems both sides have presented their case and not uncovered any area where further discussion would be fruitful.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I said I'd be interested in one, not that I demand one, or think he should definitely give one, or that he owes one, or that he's ducking away from a challenge.
I just said I'd be interested, and so I am.
What's wrong with that?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
TL I would’ve been interested in reading the argument in full, however, you seem to have really got Reshpeckobiggle going so I am guessing this was one fun forum Posts: 201 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I said I'd be interested in one, not that I demand one, or think he should definitely give one, or that he owes one, or that he's ducking away from a challenge.
And I said none of those things.
quote:I just said I'd be interested, and so I am.
What's wrong with that?
Why would you think I think there's something wrong with that? I certainly didn't say there's anything wrong with that.
I'd still be interested in how you think a response from OSC would differ from his article.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
OSC was just mentioned nationally by Neal Boortz the day before the election on talk radio.
Poor Neal said that he did not know who Orson Scott Card was (I emailed him to set that straight) but read from OSC's column and said how RIGHT this man is! Boortz is NOT full of compliments so it's a big thing when he gives one.
Of course all Hatrackers know OSC is great, but .... Posts: 16 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I said I'd be interested in one, not that I demand one, or think he should definitely give one, or that he owes one, or that he's ducking away from a challenge.
And I said none of those things.
quote:I just said I'd be interested, and so I am.
What's wrong with that?
Why would you think I think there's something wrong with that? I certainly didn't say there's anything wrong with that.
I'd still be interested in how you think a response from OSC would differ from his article.
Apologies then, I took your post for critical sarcasm just for the sake of being critical and sarcastic, rather than a serious question. As we all know, one of the most basic problems with a forum is people can't really judge tone very well.
Anyway, I have to say I'm curious as to how he seems to place little emphasis on the relationship between domestic and international issues, namely, the economy. Republicans keep cutting taxes like it's a magic wand that cures all problems, but has no idea or plan to fix trillions of dollars in national debt. Some debt is good for the country, but massive debt that costs us billions of dollars a year in interest? That's not good, it has to be paid for eventually.
The budget is a big issue. The Republicans refuse to PAY for the war that OSC insists is the best thing for our country. So I wonder what his position on taxes is? If we stay there, like he wants, we'll be there for another decade, assuming the Iraqis EVER get their act together with us there propping them up. And not only does he think we should stay there, he wants us to tangle with OTHER governments as well!
I am curious, as to what he thinks is going to happen in the near term that hasn't happened in the last few years, and why he thinks it will happen? What does he envision a long term American presence there is really going to accomplish? I'm sorry, but we can't afford a trillion dollars to stay there for a half decade even, to say nothing of how we'd afford to beat up on Iran, and whoever else he wants to take a swing at next.
Unless he supports massive tax increases to pay for this war, and for what we've already spent, and for massive cuts across the board to eliminate the deficit and start cutting the debt down. It boggles the mind that Republicans talk about cutting the DEFICIT in half in four years. The deficit. Since when is it a victory to ONLY be borrowing 250 billion dollars a year? ANY deficit spending at this point is a failure, not a success.
Really, NO ONE knows what the Democrats are going to do. If OSC claims he does, which he seems to be doing, then I'm nearly tempted to call him dishonest. Republicans can't have it both ways. They say "Democrats don't have a plan for Iraq and the war on terror." Then they say "Democrats will pull us out of Iraq on November 8th."
It's ridiculous. The Democratic leadership, and the majority of the party ARE NOT calling for an immediate withdrawel. They are talking about benchmarks, which the President himself, OSC's terror fighting hero apparently, has recently endorsed, though he claims they were always our plan, and that Democrats are liars.
I don't see where he thinks this is going to get us, even after reading his essay. I don't see evidence of a positive outcome for America. Ignore the rhetoric that comes from both sides and read the news that is coming out of the region. There's talk of ethnic cleansing, death squads, executions, kidnappings, torture, to say nothing of mass desertions from the Iraqi Army and Police forces. Muqtada Al-Sadr hates us, he doesn't want us there, and he controls thousands upon thousands of mujahadeen soldiers, armed militiamen, who do his bidding at will, and who can get the Prime Minister to bow to his will, and force a change in US security policy.
So I have to wonder what he seriously thinks is going to happen. Does he honestly think that another half decade of the US killing Iraqis over there is going to convince them all to play nicely together? I know he isn't that ignorant of history. Even the occupiers of Middle Eastern peoples in the past who were GOOD at occupation couldn't get these people to play well together, and we friggin SUCK at it.
We aren't fixing their problems, we're creating brand new ones for them. It's time to triage. Save the areas that we can, pull out of the rest, let them do what they are going to do, regardless of whether we are there or not, and then we need to turn our attention to home, and fix our OWN problems, instead of trying to fix theirs for them.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Anyway, I have to say I'm curious as to how he seems to place little emphasis on the relationship between domestic and international issues, namely, the economy. Republicans keep cutting taxes like it's a magic wand that cures all problems, but has no idea or plan to fix trillions of dollars in national debt. Some debt is good for the country, but massive debt that costs us billions of dollars a year in interest? That's not good, it has to be paid for eventually.
Actually the debt isnt severe at all. When you look at the buying power that the economy rakes in a a year we are well over making twice as much as we spend. It is by no means a good thing to have an out of control debt. But at this point the debt is a few trillion away from that mark. However, if it does reach that mark, i should expect government to cut social programs to pay for it instead of taxes, since the common person thinks taxes are too high.
quote:The budget is a big issue. The Republicans refuse to PAY for the war that OSC insists is the best thing for our country. So I wonder what his position on taxes is? If we stay there, like he wants, we'll be there for another decade, assuming the Iraqis EVER get their act together with us there propping them up. And not only does he think we should stay there, he wants us to tangle with OTHER governments as well!
Well the war isnt really financially hurting us. And i think his point about engaging Iran is that if we back out of Iraq and Afghanastan we will have to deal with governments who will put up major problems down the line. At the moment however, we can neutralise these nations effectively and easily if we maintain our foothold.
quote:I am curious, as to what he thinks is going to happen in the near term that hasn't happened in the last few years, and why he thinks it will happen? What does he envision a long term American presence there is really going to accomplish? I'm sorry, but we can't afford a trillion dollars to stay there for a half decade even, to say nothing of how we'd afford to beat up on Iran, and whoever else he wants to take a swing at next.
Unless he supports massive tax increases to pay for this war, and for what we've already spent, and for massive cuts across the board to eliminate the deficit and start cutting the debt down. It boggles the mind that Republicans talk about cutting the DEFICIT in half in four years. The deficit. Since when is it a victory to ONLY be borrowing 250 billion dollars a year? ANY deficit spending at this point is a failure, not a success.
you act as if we are spiraling into a fiscal black hole with the national debt. The defence and army budget isnt big enough to be non-payable. And at the rate of our GDP expansion we will be fine financially spending over a trillion dollars in the next ten years.
I personally dont agree with deficite spending to the excess taht the government does. But at this point in time the national debt isnt really hurting the economy.
quote:Really, NO ONE knows what the Democrats are going to do. If OSC claims he does, which he seems to be doing, then I'm nearly tempted to call him dishonest. Republicans can't have it both ways. They say "Democrats don't have a plan for Iraq and the war on terror." Then they say "Democrats will pull us out of Iraq on November 8th."
It's ridiculous. The Democratic leadership, and the majority of the party ARE NOT calling for an immediate withdrawel. They are talking about benchmarks, which the President himself, OSC's terror fighting hero apparently, has recently endorsed, though he claims they were always our plan, and that Democrats are liars.
every democratic campaigne ive seen and heard so far is how the war is a mistake and how they will fight president bush to get us out of the war.
quote:I don't see where he thinks this is going to get us, even after reading his essay. I don't see evidence of a positive outcome for America. Ignore the rhetoric that comes from both sides and read the news that is coming out of the region. There's talk of ethnic cleansing, death squads, executions, kidnappings, torture, to say nothing of mass desertions from the Iraqi Army and Police forces. Muqtada Al-Sadr hates us, he doesn't want us there, and he controls thousands upon thousands of mujahadeen soldiers, armed militiamen, who do his bidding at will, and who can get the Prime Minister to bow to his will, and force a change in US security policy.
Having people like that seems more of a reason to stay in iraq. The news likes to report all the negative things in iraq, death sells. I know and have talked to many soldiers who are there/have come back. Theres a lot of iraqi's that do want us there. Theres no reason to abandon them just to be killed.
Posts: 467 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think OSC reasoning is flawed. He does not use facts in his arguments and is downright condesceding to people who disagree with our "Strategy in Iraq". Suffice it to say, there is too much fear mongering going around. If we let fear drive our policy, then the terrorism has worked. If people had a longer view on things, they would be worried about global warming or running out of oil, however, I digress.
OSC quote "And since the Democratic Party seems hellbent on losing it -- and in the most damaging possible way -- I have no choice but to advocate that my party be kept from getting its hands on the reins of national power"
This quote recalls to mind Letterman's repartee to O'Reilly. "You are putting words in my mouth just like you are putting artificial facts in your head". Nowhere in the Democratic platform is their position to lose Iraq.
This is what the Democrats will do. They will question Bush and hold him accountable for the progress in Iraq. Someone has to look at the facts and reassess our strategy. Over the last 3 years it has not been the Republicans. McCain even gave Bush the ability to define torture. They give Bush everything he wants. They make him do nothing. I mean McCain backed down on torture, truly the Darth Vader mask has just gone down on his head.
Another OSC quote "But let's accept the fairy tale that this war has been badly run."
Look, lots of conservatives like Bill Kristol, Andrew Sullivan, and , oh yeah, 5 RETIRED SENIOR GENERALS have called for Rumsfield's resignation. However, they are probably playing with their flying ponies and chocolate bunnies in fairyland. Come on OSC, you lose credibility when you ignore the facts.
Here is my one pet peeve with those who think Bush is God for doing the "Stay the Course" thing because Iraq is so damn important. If it is so important, then double the size of the army. Secure areas and build them up instead of playing "Whack a Mole" like McCain has criticized.
Play to win and not to lose. Colin Powell told him he needed more troops. Another General told him this at the outset of the war. That General was fired. You think any other General is going to voice his opinion now?
Saying the Iraq strategy is flawed is not Monday night quarterbacking. This is Bush's willful refusal to listen to advice that goes counter to what he wants to hear. His Father did not go into Iraq. Going into Iraq and making a big mess is not a surprise. Anyone remember Powell's Pottery Barn remark? You break it, you bought it.
Iraq was not this bad 3 years ago. My view is that it was a fallacy to think you can have a Democracy with 3 groups of people who HATE each other violently. This war was winnable at the outset if we had settled for stability, but right now, I think what is required to win is more than Bush is willing to spend. He would have to admit that he was wrong and he had squandered 3 years and 2800 men because he did not have enough guts to put enough people to win the war at the beginning.
Bush is the one who lives in a fairy tale. His policy is based on wishful thinking. Phrases like "Mission Accomplished" or "The insurgency is in its last throes" show an incredible disconnect with reality.
I prefer to vote based on facts vs unsubstantiated fears of if we give up Iraq, then Taiwan will be lost to China.
My feeling is that Iraq, like Vietnam, will not be a domino effect, either way. Democracy would not spread to Iran if there was Democracy in Iraq.
My feeling is that Al Qaeda has wanted to attack the US, but has not been able to for the last 3 years. Leaving Iraq or staying in Iraq will have no impact on Al Qaeda's desire or ability to kill us. Right now Al Qaeda is probably swimming in as much money and recruits as they have ever had due to this Iraq war.
Getting out of Iraq will let us focus on important things like North Korea with Nukes or Iran with Nukes. (Can you blame them? Seriously, if you were Iraq or North Korea and you had people like OSC calling for the US to do a first strike on them to knock out their oil supply and plunge the world into recession, you would want nukes too).
To sum up, republicans have failed us. They only want to have power so that they have power. With 6 years of absolute power, the republicans have done nothing.
We will not win Iraq with a "Stay the Course" strategy. Things are getting worse. On the domestic side, Republicans spend money and drive the deficit up. They are too corporate friendly. Do nothing about important domestic matters like immigration or social security. They don't work with the democrats. They keep in power by making lies and creating strawmen to keep the populous fearful. Gay marriage, run for the hills! I mean please, American's are dying and you waste time and effort on that.
They do not try to stop global warming or try to rid us of this dependence on oil.
If you care about our children, vote Democrat.
Anyway, I'm sure I have not changed anyone's mind, but I'm glad to have the forum to vent.
Posts: 3 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
LOL, thanks. I grew up reading OSC, at least the sci fi stuff. Was there ever a sequel to the sentient slave Monkey book? I think it was called Lovelock.
Posts: 3 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now OSC is being read aloud - in lengthy passages from his article on Rush Limbaugh! Talk about national exposure!
Maybe it's time for OSC to run for president. Perhaps many of you Hatrackers who don't seem to know who really wants you dead (hint it is NOT Bush) might support OSC!!!
Posts: 874 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ercoll: LOL, thanks. I grew up reading OSC, at least the sci fi stuff. Was there ever a sequel to the sentient slave Monkey book? I think it was called Lovelock.
Unfortunately not yet. I've been waiting very patiently for a sequel to Lovelock for a long time. From what I understand, it's not out of the question, but it needs to wait until both Card and Kidd both have the time to work on it. I'll continue to wait patiently Posts: 124 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
In the last days of campaigning, I was thinking "Are the Democrats willing to lose a war to win an election?" I think they were willing to tell people that to win. Fortunately, few campaign promises are kept, and criticizing as the resistant minority is much easier than actually leading. But we'll see.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ooh...Dems take the House. Is it too early to say THERE GOES THE NEIGHBORHOOD? I hope so.
Pooka, I am inclined to believe your POV, that few campaign promises are kept, and that we won't immediately withdraw from Iraq. That would be so incredibly stupid at this point. But I'm a little nervous today. And I usually vote for the Democrats, too.
Posts: 1006 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
The Democrats have taken the House, and the Senate remains in question.
I am hopeful.
Whether one believes the war in Iraq is, was, or will be a good idea, the prevailing attitude of the Republican-run government was antithetical to disucssion as to whether any change in policy was a good idea. The prevailing attitude was that any suggestion that things were going other than swimmingly was harmful to our nation and our soldiers and tantamount to treason. An attitude that I'm sorry to say is all too present in certain editorial pieces.
The "best-run war ever" has experienced tens of thousands of civilian casualties. Thousands of battlefield injuries that would have been fatal even twenty years ago, but for our improving medical technology. Enough "boots on the ground" to provide many targets of opportunity, but too few to protect oil pipelines, existing munitions, or permeable borders. Less than two hundred explosives disarming experts, versus thousands of bombs. The rationale for invasion and occupation has fluctuated, and the cost on every front has escalated.
To withdraw from Iraq almost certainly means civil war. But it has never been realistically posited that withdrawing from Iraq however many years in the future will not mean civil war. Whenever we withdraw, some will spin that as a victory for the insurgents. Some will think that a victory for the terrorists. But unless and until we do withdraw, there will be those who question whether the democracy in Iraq- that noble body presently on questionable grounds with torture and death squads- is a reality or an American puppet.
We have no hope to change that reality with the present strategy, with the present thinking.
The American public has clearly stated that they would appreciate a change of thinking.
Will things change for the better or the worse? Time will tell. But perhaps the Democrats deserve a chance to find out. Many of their detractors have opined that the desire to see the powers that be fail has been a strong influence in causing any failures the nation has experienced. If they truly believe that, it would behoove them to hope that things will work out for the best, rather than immediately engage in what to their own thinking amounts to an act of sabatoge.
And if no mushroom cloud materializes, I wonder if those detractors will have the grace to admit they were wrong.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No one is pulling out of Iraq, regardless of whether the Democrats win the Senate too. There isn't enough support for that, no matter what Republican spin you hear. And regardless, that decision will ultimately be on the President. Until there is a Democrat in the White House no one needs to worry about getting out of Iraq.
What this does mean in my opinion is some accountability by government to show what we are doing there, how realistic it is, and what the long-term plan to exit is. If anything, that is what the public has demanded by voting the way it has.
Republican run government hasn't done a good enough job apparently so the public has spoken. I have no idea what the correct answer is. I don't trust Bush on foreign policy, and I like his domestic policies even less. Perhaps this change will cause an evening of the playing field. I can only hope anyway.
Posts: 176 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can we go ahead and identify those who said that if Democrats win Congress, there will be a nuclear explosion? (If that's what you're saying.)
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now hold on Will. You know your side isn't allowed to ask pointed questions about the other side's more absurd talking points. It only works one way. Shame on you Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Republicans were corrupt and did not do their job on oversite for this war. They lost because the only thing they could sell was fear and America was not buying this time around. If the Republicans were competent and went in with enough troops or increased troop levels years ago, then they would still be in charge.
What was the Republican plan? Iraq is getting worse each day. The current Iraqi government is corrupt and worthless. The miltias have more power than they do. Waiting for the Iraqi government to solve the problem is crazy. They have had the time and money, but Iraq has shown no ability to provide security on their own.
You either have to have a plan for victory or get our troops out. The Republicans had 3 years to put a plan together and it was not working.
The Democratic victories allowed Bush to finally get rid of Rumsfeld and get some new perspective on this war. There is a committee being run by James Baker ( an advisor to Bush Senior) in which the war will be assessed objectively by people who were not responsible for starting the war. From this committee, there will be recommendations on how to move forward based on facts and reality.
It is a long shot, but hopefully in that committe there is a young military genius who is thinking: "What would Ender do?" :}
Posts: 3 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by striplingrz: No one is pulling out of Iraq, regardless of whether the Democrats win the Senate too. There isn't enough support for that, no matter what Republican spin you hear. And regardless, that decision will ultimately be on the President. Until there is a Democrat in the White House no one needs to worry about getting out of Iraq.
What this does mean in my opinion is some accountability by government to show what we are doing there, how realistic it is, and what the long-term plan to exit is. If anything, that is what the public has demanded by voting the way it has.
Republican run government hasn't done a good enough job apparently so the public has spoken. I have no idea what the correct answer is. I don't trust Bush on foreign policy, and I like his domestic policies even less. Perhaps this change will cause an evening of the playing field. I can only hope anyway.
Maybe we'll finally see a decent battle between the Congress and the President on who controls the military and who gets this nation into a war.
The President as Commander in Chief is in charge of the military during a war effort, and he can unilaterally send troops wherever he wants, whenever he wants, for whatever reason really, but whether or not those troops STAY there is the decision of the Congress.
Here's a question: Who is the more irresponsible, the President who sends troops into harm's way, knowing that the Congress won't approve of the action, or the Congress who doesn't back the President's ill thought out plans?
CONGRESS decides whether or not to fund a war effort. CONGRESS decides how big or small the military is. CONGRESS decides when this nation is and isn't at war. CONGRESS decides when we bring troops home, and when we send them away, over the long term.
The thing I'm most afraid of from the Democrats is that they will defund new military weapon systems. I know that right now, Congress okayed the building of several new Naval war vessels from a couple different ship builders, just to keep them in business. Not buying new ships, and cancelling orders leaves these people with no reason to research and develop systems that benefit our nation. The F-22, arguably the most advanced, and best air to air superiority fighter in the world has already been slashed a couple times, and that was with a Republican Congress. I don't think we need a half trillion dollar military budget, but I do support an ever evolving, ever advancing and strengthening military force.
New Democrats are more in favor of military procurement I think, and hope, but we'll see.
But what I think we have coming up in a few months is a showdown over who controls our military. And I think the law is going to side with Congress. This is exactly the reason the War Powers Resolution was passed, giving Congress more clear control over things. And I think the Constitution backs that up too.
quote:CONGRESS decides whether or not to fund a war effort. CONGRESS decides how big or small the military is. CONGRESS decides when this nation is and isn't at war. CONGRESS decides when we bring troops home, and when we send them away, over the long term.
Of these things you say Congress decides, it can only invoke the power of the purse - and only in a preventative fashion by refusing to appropriate money for Iraqi operations - without Bush's consent. They can't revoke the authorization for the use of force. They can't order the president to bring the troops home.
Essentially, all they can do is cut off the money - likely to the entire federal government, because if Bush chooses to contest them, he won't sign appropriation bills that don't contain funds for Iraqi operations. That would be political suicide and they know it.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
When did we go to assuming that the Democrats are the PULL OUT OF IRAQ NOW party? It's like that was their campaign promise or something.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: “I think it’s time to bring our troops back home,” Dodd said. “There’s not an army big enough or a treasury deep enough” to “police a civil war” without Iraqis taking the lead roles, and they won’t step up to the plate unless the U.S. pulls out, he said.
quote: Arizona Democratic Party Says, "Mr. President, bring our troops home
Rep. Lynne Woolsey
quote: The war has been a debacle. How many mistakes do we need? Let's bring our troops home now
A simple google search displays scores more. It was definately a campaign pillar for many candidates.
The really ironic thing is that some of the best quotes have had the information removed from the candidate's page, the only way to see them was to go to the Google cached version.
It's funny from this perspective:
Day before election: Vote for Democrats, we'll bring our troops home!
Day after election: Well, we never said we'd bring them home now. The situation in Iraq is complex, etc etc.
So to answer your question Samprimary, the Democrats advertised themselves as the 'bring the troops home now' (commonly called cut and run) party before the election-that's where we got the impression from. Their commericals and sound blurbs implied one thing, but if you dug a bit deeper, their detailed positions on Iraq weren't terribly different from many of the Republicans they were running against.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
.![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
