posted
I call them all sorts of things everyday when I'm driving and they're being themselves, dagnabbit.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not saying that to be nasty, by the way. I'm interested in what examples you have of things which you would be willing to die for but not kill for.
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I used the Orwellian reference because the current Administration has a habit of deliberately using language that is misleading when naming things. Their terminology is NOT accidental, it is well thought out.
For instance, the Bush Administration's air pollution plan, euphemistically called the "Clear Skies Initiative," actually shredded Clean Air Act protections. I could come up with other examples, but you can look them up if you are interested. The bottom line is that the use of language to mask the actual content of their programs IS Orwellian.
As for the numbers of 'insurgents/resisters/whatever, I came across this article today:
quote:Possibly 100 Different Rebel Groups in Iraq
The insurgency consists not of a few groups but of dozens, possibly as many as 100. And it is not, as often depicted, a coherent organization whose members dutifully carry out orders from above but a far-flung collection of smaller groups that often act on their own or come together for a single attack, the officials say. ... continued ... New York Times Article
quote:I used the Orwellian reference because the current Administration has a habit of deliberately using language that is misleading when naming things. Their terminology is NOT accidental, it is well thought out.
Fair enough, but do you admit that both sides are using misleading language to further their goals?
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If by "both sides" you mean Democrats and Republicans, I don't think it's even. Bush uses for more misleading language than the Democrats do. Republicans are masters of spin. They get people to not vote for Democrats claiming they vote for tax increases, when in actuality they are voting against tax cuts. Mathamatically that isn't a tax increase, it's keeping the status quo, but people don't know that, because they aren't given the details, just the Republicans smear whitewash.
Sure, Democrats do it too, but they aren't anywhere near as good at it, and they don't even try as often as the right does.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Coming from the other side, I would say that it's the opposite. Perhaps our ideological perspective biases us towards thinking that the other side uses spin more, and better?
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Murtha called for an immediate withdrawal of troops.
quote:An influential House Democrat who voted for the Iraq war called Thursday for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, another sign of growing unease in Congress about the conflict.
"This is the immediate redeployment of American forces because they have become the target," said Rep. John Murtha
Congress voted on whether to withdraw troops immediately.
Is it reasonable to conclude that Congress voted on something Murtha didn't propose?
Or that Congress is in some way obligated to only vote on things that Murtha proposes?
Congress could have ignored him. This would tell Iraqi insurgents that there are calls for immediate withdrawal in Congress, without telling them that there is an overwhelming majority against that happening. Since the only way the insurgents can win is if the US gives up, this would indicate to them that victory for them is possible, so it's more reasonable to keep fighting.
So what does Murtha accomplish, when he calls for a cut-and-run strategy, when such a strategy has no chance (403-3 against)? It isn't to get the strategy implemented, that's for sure. And what do the media accomplish, when they tell terrorists that we're about to buckle? What they're doing is saying, hang in there, terrorists, any minute now you'll win! It's recruitment ads for our enemies.
If there were a chance we'd actually start withdrawal now, it would be worth discussing. Until it is, the best defense our soldiers have, short of their own selves, is for Congress to make it clear that the hope Murtha extends to our enemies is a false hope. Telling the enemy to hang in there is bad; showing them they can't win is a good use of Congress's time.
[ December 02, 2005, 05:38 PM: Message edited by: Will B ]
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I used the Orwellian reference because the current Administration has a habit of deliberately using language that is misleading when naming things. Their terminology is NOT accidental, it is well thought out.
Fair enough, but do you admit that both sides are using misleading language to further their goals?
I agree with Lyrhawn, all politicians lie. It just seems like this administration has lied more than any other I can think of. They have deliberately turned their back on the majority of the American people, and the basic needs of 'common' everyday working people, while catering to the rich and big business special interests. Recently, while Congress was looking for ways to cut the budget, they didn't even consider ending the tax cuts for the rich. Instead they cut food stamp programs for the hungry, and cut Head-Start programs which are proven to help poor children succeed in getting an education.
Looking at what is said by the Administration, and what is really done, shows a disturbing pattern. The pattern that emerges - the misleading rhetoric, and misleading names - is a deeply dishonest one. The campaign postures and promices were for show, not acted upon. Religion, lies, and prejudice were used to gain power which is being used to fulfill an unknown and unannounced REAL agenda.
If Bush had run on a platform of ending abortion and overturning Roe v Wade, he would have lost votes, so he downplayed that agenda. Bush said he was against nation building - and we are building a nation. Bush was 'for the environment' and then he gutted the EPA. When 9/11 happened, he LOOKED for a way to tie Saddam into that and create a reason to go to war with Iraq. It is hard to figure out WHAT he really is up to, since he appears to say whatever it takes to enable him to have the power to achieve his secret ends.
Meetings and methods of making decisions that were transparent in the past have become secrets. The VP fought for years to avoid giving up the secret of his energy task force that set energy policy. The truth is emerging (from Oil Company records) that the companies who were being regulated were the task force who wrote those regulations, without representation given to opposing opinions. Special interests are running our nation.
We hold ourselves up as examples of freedom and Democracy, we're going to 'bring Democracy' to the Middle east. Yet in this Administration's watch that Freedom has eroded more than at any other time I am aware of in our history.
Posts: 337 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: What they're doing is saying, hang in there, terrorists, any minute now you'll win! It's recruitment ads for our enemies.
I think a fundamental mistake you are making here is to assume that suicide bombers have the same definition of "win" that we do. They consider themselves martyrs. They don't need the hope of "winning" to be encouraged. A reasonable hope of achieving reasonable goals works against extremists. It makes it harder for them to recruit.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If Bush had run on a platform of ending abortion and overturning Roe v Wade, he would have lost votes, so he downplayed that agenda.
Point of clarification, not necessarily in opposition, taken from the 2000 Republican Platform:
quote:The Supreme Court’s recent decision, prohibiting states from banning partial-birth abortions — a procedure denounced by a committee of the American Medical Association and rightly branded as four-fifths infanticide — shocks the conscience of the nation. As a country, we must keep our pledge to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence. That is why we say the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who perform abortions.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/conventions/republican/features/platform.00/ I cannot confirm that Bush would have lost votes if he had spoken more about overturning Roe v. Wade.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Suicide bombers don't hope to survive the experience (of course), but they (and other terrorists who don't kill themselves) must hope to accomplish something. It's a little hard to believe that their hope is that they won't achieve any of their goals.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So far, if Bush really did intend to overturn abortion, he's done a terrible job of it so far. The status quo is pretty much the same. Perhaps Alito will change things, but if so, it has taken Bush five years to do anything concrete.
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Their "hope" is to die gloriously (or have others die)to keep the cause alive. While they have a cause, the leaders of the insurgents have power. If they don't have a cause they are nobody.
Look at Ireland for example. 800 years of occupation before Ireland (mostly) achieved independence. They didn't win a lot of battles. They eventually got what they wanted by losing gloriously.
In N. Ireland, the IRA was never going to militarily defeat the British Army. That was never going to stop them from trying. What is working (tbtG) to bring peace is a reasonable hope of achieving reasonable goals. The leaders who fail to understand this are more and more marginalized.
I cannot confirm that Bush would have lost votes if he had spoken more about overturning Roe v. Wade.
In an election that was won by a few hundred votes, who can say? I live in Florida - don't get me started on what happened in the elections - PLEASE!
Posts: 337 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by tern: So far, if Bush really did intend to overturn abortion, he's done a terrible job of it so far. The status quo is pretty much the same. Perhaps Alito will change things, but if so, it has taken Bush five years to do anything concrete.
He hasn't had the opportunity to do anything (that we know of) until now. Roberts is reportedly covertly anti-abortion, but we will only find out what he really believes when he has written some applicable decisions on the Supreme Court. As for Alito, according to some of his Reagan memos recently released he is staunchly anti-abortion. It should be interesting to watch Congress deal with this choice, with an election looming over them.
Posts: 337 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
The Supreme Court’s recent decision, prohibiting states from banning partial-birth abortions — a procedure denounced by a committee of the American Medical Association and rightly branded as four-fifths infanticide — shocks the conscience of the nation. As a country, we must keep our pledge to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence. That is why we say the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who perform abortions.
This publicity is a non issue which is meant to erode Roe v Wade. If you do the research, late term abortion is very rare, and is almost always done for the health/survival of the mother, or because of a severely deformed foetus.
I agree that ELECTIVE abortions of late term foetus should not be allowed, BUT you cannot give the same rights to the unborn that you give to those who were born. In doing that you legitimize religious belief systems of when a person becomes a person. Law must use Science in such things, and be quantified and concrete.
Posts: 337 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Most U.S. troops will leave Iraq within a year because the Army is "broken, worn out" and "living hand to mouth," Rep. John Murtha told a civic group.
Preposterous---and the only effect it can have is to demoralize our soldiers and encourage those that wish to kill them.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps you're missing that, if his proposal is successful, it would bring troops home where those who wish to kill them would find them rather out of reach?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Perhaps that is why I am glad you aren't one of the people in power.
Not that I agree with Murtha, myself...I don't. But there is a BIG difference between your definition of giving aid to an enemy and actully doing so.
What he is doing is giving voice to some real concerns that he feels need addressed. Not trying to help the enemy, not trying to hurt the soldiers, and not betraying American.
He si using his position to speak for the people who voted for him, and while I don't agree with his stance on the current amendment I think he has some good points to make.
And calling him a traitor and claiming he is being un-American doesn't change any of them...it only reveals your own agenda.
Thanks for being so transparent. Perhaps he isn't as stupid as you think he is. Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Those who cannot see the difference between our methods and motivations in this conflict and those of the insurgencey are too mentally myopic to be allowed to have opinions, like passing a basic eye exam to get a drivers liscence they should be required to site at least five morally significant differences before they are allowed to post.
quote: Their "hope" is to die gloriously (or have others die)to keep the cause alive. While they have a cause, the leaders of the insurgents have power. If they don't have a cause they are nobody.
Their hope is to get high, drunk or by food with money slipped to them by paymasters who risk nothing. The character of the insurgent bomber is well understood. Sorry to burst you bubble but you do not get a better class of IED emplacer in Iraq. The ones with the courage to attack openly are nice to have around, they charge us and die, we like them, they are easier to spot.
These are not patriots fighting for their country, they are desperate people trying to stop change from taking place and thier fight against the future is as much an attempt to hold onto prestige they already had as to stop a future they cannot imagine. Women with power? Kurds keeping a portion of the oil wealth in their region? Religious tolerance? Having to work for a living instead of drawing a government check? These are what they fight against and the reality is that if they fight hard enough they will never have to see the change take place....
Because I myself and people like me will see that they die.
"Changing Hearts and Minds... Two to the Heart and One to the Mind!"
posted
Those who cannot see the difference between our methods and motivations in this conflict and those of the insurgencey are too mentally myopic to be allowed to have opinions, like passing a basic eye exam to get a drivers liscence they should be required to site at least five morally significant differences before they are allowed to post.
quote: Their "hope" is to die gloriously (or have others die)to keep the cause alive. While they have a cause, the leaders of the insurgents have power. If they don't have a cause they are nobody.
Their hope is to get high, drunk or buy food with money slipped to them by paymasters who risk nothing. The character of the insurgent bomber is well understood. Sorry to burst you bubble but you do not get a better class of IED emplacer in Iraq. The ones with the courage to attack openly are nice to have around, they charge us and die, we like them, they are easier to spot.
These are not patriots fighting for their country, they are desperate people trying to stop change from taking place and thier fight against the future is as much an attempt to hold onto prestige they already had as to stop a future they cannot imagine. Women with power? Kurds keeping a portion of the oil wealth in their region? Religious tolerance? Having to work for a living instead of drawing a government check? These are what they fight against and the reality is that if they fight hard enough they will never have to see the change take place....
Because I myself and people like me will see that they die.
"Changing Hearts and Minds... Two to the Heart and One to the Mind!"
What do you think it'll take to put an end to the insurgency?
I've heard conflicting theories: 1) The "hearts and mind" theory (this is different from what you talked about in your little quip): This theory is that there's a near endless supply of these folks willing to die for whatever cause they think they are dying for. That disaffected youth, people who have lost everything, and a mixture of garden-variety brainwashed zealots are in plentiful supply. It says the only way to end the insurgency is to show (prove for real) that things will be better for everyone in a democracy. Housing, jobs, schools, etc., etc.
This is believed to require at least a generation to pass before the change will be "accepted."
2)The "kill enough of them" theory This one says that we've already turned the tide. That the "quality" of the insurgents, and their numbers are dwindling rapidly and soon enough the "movement" will be just be represented by a few ineffectual die hards (literally) who can't muster significant support.
3) The "Iraqis self-rule" theory This one says that the insurgency will pretty much lose its great bugaboo when the foreign troops depart. That the thing they've found most useful in recruiting is the very fact of occupation. When that ends, so does the major raison d'etre for the insurgency.
I'm not sure whether I believe one of these or a combination of them. But I wonder if maybe there might not be a 4th or even several other options.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: These are not patriots fighting for their country, they are desperate people trying to stop change from taking place and thier fight against the future is as much an attempt to hold onto prestige they already had as to stop a future they cannot imagine.
Yeah. I feel the same way about people who oppose same-sex marriage. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
"The difference between a believer and a fanatic--A believer is willing to die for his cause. A fanatic is willing to kill.
There are many causes I would be willing to die for. There are very few I'd be willing to kill for."
I've never heard such a ridiculous statement. (Well, I am sure I have; this is close to the top though.) I don't how many times I have seen the argument you just threw up there get defeated with a child's logic. Please.
Posts: 73 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Perhaps you're missing that, if his proposal is successful, it would bring troops home where those who wish to kill them would find them rather out of reach?
Not at all, fugu. Any proposal that fails 403-3 is *not* successful, and therefore cannot bring the troops home. That's why I say Congress was right to vote on it. Murtha is continuing to tell terrorists they might win any day now, but Congress proved him wrong.
If his proposal had a reasonable chance, it would be a different matter (as I said).
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You mean like those French snobs who want to keep English words out of their language? You know the ones who want words to keep the same definition rather then being changed to mean something else?
"2)The "kill enough of them" theory This one says that we've already turned the tide. That the "quality" of the insurgents, and their numbers are dwindling rapidly and soon enough the "movement" will be just be represented by a few ineffectual die hards (literally) who can't muster significant support."
This is in fact all based on real world data and is quite relevant, it keeps our losses down and has created an environment where progress has been steady and will continue.
"1) The "hearts and mind" theory (this is different from what you talked about in your little quip): This theory is that there's a near endless supply of these folks willing to die for whatever cause they think they are dying for. That disaffected youth, people who have lost everything, and a mixture of garden-variety brainwashed zealots are in plentiful supply. It says the only way to end the insurgency is to show (prove for real) that things will be better for everyone in a democracy. Housing, jobs, schools, etc., etc."
This is an ever diminishing problem, the really gullible, vengeful and stupid do weed themselves out faster then they can be recruited. It is expensive to equip and time consuming to make a true zealot. So it is true to say that they will never be out of such, it is false to consider them to be an infinite threat, there will always be more murders in New York City, doesn't mean we need to occupy it.
") The "Iraqis self-rule" theory This one says that the insurgency will pretty much lose its great bugaboo when the foreign troops depart. That the thing they've found most useful in recruiting is the very fact of occupation. When that ends, so does the major raison d'etre for the insurgency."
This is just a misunderstanding of the Iraqi people and the region. Think of them as having the morality of a Kindergarten class and you will have you clue as to why the teacher cannot just leave and not expect to come back to pandimonium. We will need to remain visible and influential with the locals and the Government as an ever present "shaperone" until the habit of responsible behavior takes hold. That is not to say we cannot appoint hall monitors and turn much responsibility to them, but if we do not want them selling drugs for sex in the bathroom and shaking down lower classman for cigerette money we need to watch them carefully and punish them sevearly for breach of trust.
quote:This is in fact all based on real world data and is quite relevant, it keeps our losses down and has created an environment where progress has been steady and will continue.
This isn't really getting any news coverage. I mean, I've heard the thought expressed, but I haven't seen a bunch of reports coming out that present any "real world data."
It's a nice thing to believe, but if it is, where's the data? It doesn't seem like something that the press would ignore.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't how many times I have seen the argument you just threw up there get defeated with a child's logic. Please.
Well then, perhaps you could lower your rhetoric to a childlike level and explain this crushing logic, please?
Because there are quite a lot of things I would be willing to kill for, and even more that I would be willing to die for-and I think that someone having a larger discrepency isn't unreasonable.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:So far, if Bush really did intend to overturn abortion, he's done a terrible job of it so far. The status quo is pretty much the same. Perhaps Alito will change things, but if so, it has taken Bush five years to do anything concrete.
The worst thing that could happen to the Republican party is if RvW were overturned, or that we actually do ratify a constitutional amendment against gay marriage.
If that happens, the fundamentalists may have to give political priority to other religious principles during elections, like combating poverty.
I would truly love to see a nuclear slugfest between the corporate interests and the fundamentalist Christians.
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
If you go to your post and click on the Edit Post button (it's the icon that looks like a piece of paper and a pencil that sits right above the title line in each individual post), you get to change it (only the person who made the post and the moderators can do this). You can even delete a post (there's a check box to delete).
So, if you make a truly important error, you do have the option of fixing it.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: I've never heard such a ridiculous statement. (Well, I am sure I have; this is close to the top though.) I don't how many times I have seen the argument you just threw up there get defeated with a child's logic. Please.
Why is this ridiculous? Surely you agree that many people are willing to kill for things they aren't willing to die for; why is the opposite "ridiculous?"
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: These are not patriots fighting for their country, they are desperate people trying to stop change from taking place and thier fight against the future is as much an attempt to hold onto prestige they already had as to stop a future they cannot imagine.
Yeah. I feel the same way about people who oppose same-sex marriage.
You are aware that we aren't out bombing civilians to stop same-sex marriage, right? Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, to clarify, the issue is not WHY they're bombing civilians, but that they're bombing civilians AT ALL? Their motives could be entirely noble, but the bombing of civilians is still a bit problematic? Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:And calling him a traitor and claiming he is being un-American doesn't change any of them...it only reveals your own agenda.
Thanks for being so transparent. [Wink] Perhaps he isn't as stupid as you think he is. [Big Grin]
As you know, Kwea, I did not call Murtha a traitor, or un-American, or stupid.
It isn't *my* transparency you reveal when you make up things about me.
I paraphrased. If that isn't what you meant, but were not brave enough (or were too smart to say) to say it openly then you neeed to revisit your posts, because that is what it looked like and sounded like....
And not just to me.
I doubt you know much about my own beliefs, one way or another, although you probably think you do.
quote:What they're doing is saying, hang in there, terrorists, any minute now you'll win! It's recruitment ads for our enemies.
quote: for Congress to make it clear that the hope Murtha extends to our enemies is a false hope.
quote:Preposterous---and the only effect it can have is to demoralize our soldiers and encourage those that wish to kill them.
So....where was I wrong again? Next time you try to play coy, make sure your previous posts on the subject have at LEAST dropped to a new page....
You implied he was only helping our enemies, you said his opinion only mattered if he could win the vote, and you implied that doing anything other than what your political views are...things like making a stink even if you can't win outright so that people start paying attention....is stupid.
So either you can't read you own posts, you thought I couldn't read them, or you failed to communicate anything you meant to properly.
quote:Originally posted by Will B: Any proposal that fails 403-3 is *not* successful, and therefore cannot bring the troops home. That's why I say Congress was right to vote on it. Murtha is continuing to tell terrorists they might win any day now, but Congress proved him wrong.
I want to reiterate that Congress did NOT vote on Rep. Murtha's proposal. The House DID vote 403-3 against a bill that was essentially a bastardized and ridiculous version of Murtha's bill proposed by a Republican representative. If the House had voted on Murtha's resolution, it would not have been 403-3 against.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Alas, I've got to agree with Nato on this. I think it was a tactical blunder by the GOP to not vote on Murtha's proposal as it stood. It still would have been shot down, if not quite 403-3, and then everyone would have really been on record, and not had the excuse that it was a ridiculous version of Murtha's proposal.
As a side note, it's interesting how everyone, especially including the Republicans, always point out the Murtha is a war hero, before talking about where his proposal is wrong? Nobody did that with Col. North (also a genuine war hero) or Randy Cunningham, who was guilty - but was also one of only three Vietnam War aces?
OTO, I saw a column which pointed out that the Republicans are angry with Rep. Jean Schmidt (sp?) because her quoting the Marine officer who wanted her to tell Murtha, "Cowards run. Marines don't." allowed the Democrats to focus the discussion on Murtha as a person rather than Murtha's proposal. This, combined with the MSM's fairly successful attempt to cast this as Murtha's coming out against the war (not so, he was against it from almost the beginning, and 18 months ago he called for the prosecution of those who "misled" him into voting for it) has taken the spotlight pretty much off the pros and cons of Murtha's actual proposal.
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
With respect to Olliver North, his actions sort of erase his claim to be anything but scum, IMHO. Murtha has served his country honorably, from what I can tell -- although there is that whiff of scandal that he narrowly squeeked through a few years back.
But the big take-home lesson from Ollie North is, really, when asked to shred documents, make copies first and quietly let your "employers" know that they'll be released upon your sudden or suspicious demise.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I remember a LOT of people talking about North's service records...I even remember people saying he was a hero and we shouldn't even think of questioning his actions....
Other than that I agree with your last post though. While I see nothing wrong with putting that bill up for a vote, the Rep did themselves wrong by not voting on it as it originaly was...they had more than enough votes to defeat it after all.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, Nato has an interesting argument. In what way is the GOP version a "bastardized" version of Murtha's proposal?
Much better than the tactic of imagining what other posters are really thinking -- which, even if accurate, would be beside the mark.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
IMO, there is only semantic differences, but Murtha's proposal, as it stood still would have failed. Cowardly Republicans.
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Will B: Well, Nato has an interesting argument. In what way is the GOP version a "bastardized" version of Murtha's proposal?
Much better than the tactic of imagining what other posters are really thinking -- which, even if accurate, would be beside the mark.
Yeah...god forbid we judge someone's arguments on what was actually said rather than what people THINK they might have meant to say at some point, some day....
Once again, read what I said about my opinion...you are reading bias into things where it doesn't exist...I actually disagree with Murtha's plan of action....
But I am completely capable of drawing reasonable infrences based on your statments, and I know it isn't just my opinion of your views, as I talked about it with several Jatraquero's about them and they agreed with me.
Once again, if you didn't actually didn't mean to imply anything of the sort you didn't communicate your points very well.
posted
The GOP's version demanded immediate withdrawal, and Murtha's proposal sought withdrawal at the "earliest practicable date." The Republican bill was designed not to be passed, it was designed to discredit the proponents of withdrawal. The bill was essentially a straw man. The Republicans presented it as if it were the opponent's argument and then shot it down. It had no applicability to Murtha's actual proposal.
Removing our forces from the region is not a victory for the terrorists. The insurgent attacks are largely directed against the US presence, and without that presence, the main target for attacks is removed. Furthermore, the end goal of this war is to remove our troops and leave a stable Iraq behind, right? There will not be a victory until we're gone.
(Strangely, even though the war's planners claim that our goal is withdrawal, KBR, a subsidiary of Halliburton, is currently building four more permanent bases in the country. How will we ever get rid of the motivations of the insurgency when the occupying army is perpetually there?)
Also... Consider This: It takes roughly six weeks to train a US soldier, plus a little specialized training here and there. How long should it take to train Iraqi security forces? Why has it taken years and billions of dollars?
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Perhaps he isn't as stupid as you think he is. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
