DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: gipper on September 15, 2007, 03:02:30 PM
-
There are two overriding reasons why it would be bad POLICY (and politics) for the Democrats to defund the Iraq War out from under Bush's blind ambitions: 1) there is the real potential that chaos would be created costing many US lives and casualties; and 2) there is the certainty that a simple defunding without a comprehensive plan (only implementable by a cooperative chief executive) would lead to chaos, regional roiling and indigenous bloodbaths. This is NOT a realistic alternative for responsible politicians (emphasizing the root "policy" in that word), and John Edwards's grandstanding is thus irresponsible politicking by a whore of the left-wing polls, he who voted so confidently FOR the war.
-
So they COULD, but they choose not to based on reasons stemming from "bad politics". So, do they (the newly elected Dem majority) represent their consitutients, or not?
-
Typically, you misread my post, wantonly I say. As for representing the constituents, I and many like me are constituents, and we're looking for leadership on policy as well as responsiveness to political will. That is the crucible of our democracy.
-
And just as typically you missed my point, dare I say wantonly even. Congress has been given the Constitutional authority to fund or defund a war, just as the President has been given the Constitutional authority to send troops into and out of battle zones. Our President is adhering to his Constitutional obligations as he sees fit. Can't say the same about the new Majority in Congress now, can we.
-
Don't even try to debate with me you poser. Sophism has a new face. BUSH will fuck up a defunding; you need a comprehensive, alternate plan which he is incapable of devising or implementing to make a withdrawal work.
-
Posted by: sirs
And just as typically you missed my point, dare I say wantonly even. Congress has been given the Constitutional authority to fund or defund a war, just as the President has been given the Constitutional authority to send troops into and out of battle zones. Our President is adhering to his Constitutional obligations as he sees fit. Can't say the same about the new Majority in Congress now, can we.
"as he sees fit"......that is the problem.
-
Spoken like the true arrogant arse we've all come to know and love around these parts :D What we actually need is the gumption and fortitude to deal with the current dilemmas & threat assessments localized in and around Iraq. Trying to lay the inability to defund the war in the branch of Government that has no control over it, is pretty lame, even for the all seeing, all knowing domer
-
Our ideas speak for themselves.
-
Posted by: sirs
And just as typically you missed my point, dare I say wantonly even. Congress has been given the Constitutional authority to fund or defund a war, just as the President has been given the Constitutional authority to send troops into and out of battle zones. Our President is adhering to his Constitutional obligations as he sees fit. Can't say the same about the new Majority in Congress now, can we.
"as he sees fit"......that is the problem.
"As he sees fit" applies to EVERY President who is having to consider sending troops into battle, so your real problem is with the Constitution. So, if the Constitution is a problem, by all means advocate for its being amended, Miss Chick
-
Our ideas speak for themselves.
Yo, domer, the only "idea" you keep speaking of is support of some form of responsible withdrawl, minus ANY substantive presentation of such......simply that that's what needs to happen. Adding of course the frequent Bush bash slur, intertwined within the "idea that speaks for itself"
-
As I just said ...
-
Ditto, regarding your ideas that "speak for themselves". Of course they must be speaking in sign language, since we're not actually hearing any ideas, outside of withdrawl without bringing about chaos.......which ironcally has been the plan all along from the Administration. Imagine that
-
domer, are you trying to tell us that the U.S. military, which has contingency plans for invading just about any place on earth, has NO contingency plans for hauling its ass out of Iraq on short notice? I would find that very hard to believe.
-
The problem, Tee, is to execute the withdrawal in concert with coordinate activities that would minimize damage or maximize advantage.
-
The problem, Tee, is to execute the withdrawal in concert with coordinate activities that would minimize damage or maximize advantage.
Certainly doable if the hands are taken off. Establish a fire perimeter and hose anything that makes contact. Simple and effective.
Also, we we will be leaving a lot of equipment over there for them to use. That is the scuttlebutt anyway.
-
There are two overriding reasons why it would be bad POLICY (and politics) for the Democrats to defund the Iraq War out from under Bush's blind ambitions: 1) there is the real potential that chaos would be created costing many US lives and casualties; and 2) there is the certainty that a simple defunding without a comprehensive plan (only implementable by a cooperative chief executive) would lead to chaos, regional roiling and indigenous bloodbaths. This is NOT a realistic alternative for responsible politicians (emphasizing the root "policy" in that word), and John Edwards's grandstanding is thus irresponsible politicking by a whore of the left-wing polls, he who voted so confidently FOR the war.
On point number one I agree , on point number two I agree in part , why not a comprehensive plan to win?
-
So basically going back to domer's original two concerns, we've really got them boiled down to one. It IS feasible for the U.S. Army to pull out with minimal casualties. And I like the unspoken implications of Mr. Perceptive's remarks about equipment left behind: "Shoot at any of our departing helicopters and all this fine equipment we are leaving behind will be fucked up so badly you won't even be able to use it for boat anchors."
I deal with domer's second concern as follows: It's speculative. You can't base your decisions on a bunch of maybes and what-ifs. The British pulled out of Palestine in 1948 and all hell broke loose. It wasn't exactly unforeseen and the repercussions are still being felt today, but still from the British POV, the decision to pull out when they did was the right one. Deal with today's problems today, domer.
Tomorrow will take care of itself. Always has, always will. Fear of tomorrow should not be the excuse that paralyzes you today.
"So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself - - nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance." - F.D.R., First Inaugural Address
-
Your credibility on this issue is nil, Michael, because your fondest desire, which you promote at every turn, is for the US to suffer the worst possible outcome for its ill-considered "venture," damn the casualties.
-
<<Your credibility on this issue is nil, Michael, because your fondest desire, which you promote at every turn, is for the US to suffer the worst possible outcome for its ill-considered "venture," damn the casualties.>>
Well, it's exactly what they deserve, domer. I don't think they should come home covered in roses with a ton of gold medals for everyone who served. If there's a God, he has to be a just God.
And how is your credibility any higher? You appear to want the best outcome for the U.S.A. despite the blatant illegality of their invasion at a cost of what now appears to be over a million Iraqi lives. It's as if the concept of crime and punishment had never even occurred to you.
I suggest the issues be discussed on their merits without resorting to personal attacks. They don't advance the argument and they waste everyone's time. You suggested one of the reasons for opposing U.S. withdrawal at this time was the potential danger to U.S. troops. I attempted to show that there was no valid cause for concern in that respect. Apart from an ad hominem attack on me, do you have any answer to my comment?
-
My argument does not need elaboration. It stands on its own as the common-sensical approach to our troop safety. But the more compelling factor, not a chimera but predicted by our best independent, journalistic minds like Michael Ware, is that astute planning is needed to avoid a catastrophe upon our leaving, replete with bloodbaths. That is a concern I take seriously in its own right as a moral imperative, and as a diplomatic/foreign relations one as the news of our failure in this regard spreads down through the decades.
-
To my way of thinking at this point, a US Iraq withdrawal should be preceded by a comprehensive peace treaty (tolerance, not reconciliation) and a firm, enforceable non-aggression pact. For starters, who would be the necessary parties to these agreements?
-
<<Your credibility on this issue is nil, Michael, because your fondest desire, which you promote at every turn, is for the US to suffer the worst possible outcome for its ill-considered "venture," damn the casualties.>>
Well, it's exactly what they deserve, domer. I don't think they should come home covered in roses with a ton of gold medals for everyone who served. If there's a God, he has to be a just God.
And how is your credibility any higher? You appear to want the best outcome for the U.S.A. despite the blatant illegality of their invasion at a cost of what now appears to be over a million Iraqi lives. It's as if the concept of crime and punishment had never even occurred to you.
I suggest the issues be discussed on their merits without resorting to personal attacks. They don't advance the argument and they waste everyone's time. You suggested one of the reasons for opposing U.S. withdrawal at this time was the potential danger to U.S. troops. I attempted to show that there was no valid cause for concern in that respect. Apart from an ad hominem attack on me, do you have any answer to my comment?
Michael Tee, you are lower than pond scum if you seriously believe it is not appropriate to honor the soldiers who served there at the directive of the CA. It is their JOB to serve where and when directed. I did not always agree with where I was sent but that is the soldier's life. Ask any Canadian soldier; he would say the same. Direct your ire at CA. not the soldier who is simply serving his country the best he/she knows how, as directed by those above him/her.
Perhaps I misunderstood your post.???
-
I imagine that the military does have several contingency plans for leaving Iraq.
But their track record has been pretty awful.
Consider their plans for maintaining order after Saddam fell. And their plans for creating a respect for minorities once the Shiites won the election.
Their plans for keeping Al Qaeda out weren't that good, either.
They seem to have had a plan for erecting a giant "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" banner and dressing AWOL pilot Juniorbush in a flight suit, though.
-
<<Michael Tee, you are lower than pond scum if you seriously believe it is not appropriate to honor the soldiers who served there at the directive of the CA. It is their JOB to serve where and when directed. I did not always agree with where I was sent but that is the soldier's life. Ask any Canadian soldier; he would say the same. Direct your ire at CA. not the soldier who is simply serving his country the best he/she knows how, as directed by those above him/her.>>
Mr. P., they invaded someone else's country, and by at least two estimates now have caused about a million Iraqis to die. I don't give a shit WHOSE orders they were following or what their thoughts were on the subject, but there is such a thing as personal responsibility for one's own actions. If they chose to wrap up that personal responsibility and place it in the safe-keeping of their Commander-in-Chief, then that's their problem and they are personally responsible for whatever criminal actions their commander decided to send them to commit, including wars of unprovoked aggression. That the retribution falls on their heads and not also on their commander-in-chief's is one of life's many injustices but no one ever said life was fair.
I would not say the same thing for the Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan only because that was a country from which a murderous attack was planned and launched on our neighbour and they deserved to be invaded and the Taliban government wiped out. So I guess the big difference is that the Canadian forces in Afghanistan are engaged in a lawful exercise in retributive force, whereas the U.S. soldiers in Iraq are engaged in a criminal war of unprovoked aggression.