Author Topic: U.S., Iraq Agree On 'Time Horizon' For Withdrawal  (Read 1739 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
U.S., Iraq Agree On 'Time Horizon' For Withdrawal
« on: July 18, 2008, 07:00:52 PM »
  U.S., Iraq Agree On 'Time Horizon' For Withdrawal


http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92685473


Well what do you know?

Lanya

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3300
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: U.S., Iraq Agree On 'Time Horizon' For Withdrawal
« Reply #1 on: July 18, 2008, 08:55:04 PM »
"Time Horizon" sounds so much nicer than timetable.  I can just imagine George Carlin riffing on that. ;)
Planned Parenthood is America’s most trusted provider of reproductive health care.

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: U.S., Iraq Agree On 'Time Horizon' For Withdrawal
« Reply #2 on: July 18, 2008, 09:00:44 PM »
Somewhere along the line I think Lanya missed the part where we'd begin pulling out when the Iraqis were ready to take over, and not some artificial timetable generated by DC politicians.  Apparently we're near that point, so why wouldn't we be able to start considering a functional timeline dictated by the events on the ground and not an artificial one, produced by some political hacks, thousands of miles away?
« Last Edit: July 18, 2008, 11:17:06 PM by sirs »
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Christians4LessGvt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11161
    • View Profile
    • "The Religion Of Peace"
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: U.S., Iraq Agree On 'Time Horizon' For Withdrawal
« Reply #3 on: July 18, 2008, 09:08:07 PM »
of course they dont get it sirs
they are still stuck in pre-surge times
"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" - Ronald Reagan - June 12, 1987

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: U.S., Iraq Agree On 'Time Horizon' For Withdrawal
« Reply #4 on: July 18, 2008, 10:31:21 PM »
<<they are still stuck in pre-surge times>>

Yeah, Viet Nam pre-surge time.  Some things never change.  Declare the victim of your aggression (ooops! I mean the people you rushed thousands of miles to "help" with bombing, killing and torturing of "bad guys," i.e., them) to be ready to assume their own "defence" (against themselves) and then get the hell out as fast as you can and hope against hope that the puppet rulers you left behind will last another four or five years, or at least long enough for another U.S. administration to be holding the bag when the puppets are finally torn to pieces by their own people.  Yeah, those pre-surge times.  I remember them well.

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16143
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: U.S., Iraq Agree On 'Time Horizon' For Withdrawal
« Reply #5 on: July 19, 2008, 06:48:42 AM »
Quote
to be ready to assume their own "defence" (against themselves) and then get the hell out as fast as you can and hope against hope that the puppet rulers you left behind will last another four or five years, or at least long enough for another U.S. administration to be holding the bag when the puppets are finally torn to pieces by their own people.

One would think, reading posts in here for the last couple of years, we are nowhere close to getting the hell out as fast as we can.

One will also see that many of us want to leave significant troop strengths in Iraq to avoid the mass purges as Iraq evolves.

And wars do transcend administrations. LBJ--> Nixon, FDR-->Truman etc.




Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: U.S., Iraq Agree On 'Time Horizon' For Withdrawal
« Reply #6 on: July 19, 2008, 12:41:52 PM »
<<And wars do transcend administrations. LBJ--> Nixon, FDR-->Truman etc. >>

Which ought to indicate to at least some of you who really runs your country, notwithstanding the farcical "elections" that you hold every four years to preserve the fiction of a democracy.


BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16143
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: U.S., Iraq Agree On 'Time Horizon' For Withdrawal
« Reply #7 on: July 19, 2008, 01:17:39 PM »
Quote
Which ought to indicate to at least some of you who really runs your country, notwithstanding the farcical "elections" that you hold every four years to preserve the fiction of a democracy.

I don't think this tidbit indicates anything.

You seem to be implying that only the oligarchy has any sway. That is not true.

Feminism and it's roots begat Roe vs Wade.

The NAACP and like organizations begat the civil rights movements of the 40's, 50's and 60's.

The Great Depression begat Social Security.


Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: U.S., Iraq Agree On 'Time Horizon' For Withdrawal
« Reply #8 on: July 19, 2008, 11:33:13 PM »
<<Feminism and it's roots begat Roe vs Wade.

<<The NAACP and like organizations begat the civil rights movements of the 40's, 50's and 60's.>>

Proving either that the oligarchy is enlightened enough to change with the times or that it doesn't really give a shit about social issues that don't directly impact its wealth and power and thus asserts itself only in foreign policy and military spending.

<<The Great Depression begat Social Security.>>

According to my dad, who lived through the Great Depression, Social Security and other New Deal social policies were a direct response to the benefits being realized by the workers and peasants in the U.S.S.R.  The establishment, or its more enlightened wing, was effectively co-opting the American Communist Party and staving off a second American Revolution.  Truly or falsely, the U.S.S.R. was being depicted as the workers' and peasants' paradise by Western journalists and returning travellers, and the labour movement was becoming vocal in demanding "workers' rights" and growing steadily more powerful, a phenomenon which had to be nipped in the bud.

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16143
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: U.S., Iraq Agree On 'Time Horizon' For Withdrawal
« Reply #9 on: July 19, 2008, 11:50:18 PM »
Quote
Proving either that the oligarchy is enlightened enough to change with the times or that it doesn't really give a shit about social issues that don't directly impact its wealth and power and thus asserts itself only in foreign policy and military spending.

Proving that the oligarchs don't have the power you think they have.

Quote
According to my dad, who lived through the Great Depression, Social Security and other New Deal social policies were a direct response to the benefits being realized by the workers and peasants in the U.S.S.R.  The establishment, or its more enlightened wing, was effectively co-opting the American Communist Party and staving off a second American Revolution.  Truly or falsely, the U.S.S.R. was being depicted as the workers' and peasants' paradise by Western journalists and returning travellers, and the labour movement was becoming vocal in demanding "workers' rights" and growing steadily more powerful, a phenomenon which had to be nipped in the bud.

Interesting prism your father has.


Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: U.S., Iraq Agree On 'Time Horizon' For Withdrawal
« Reply #10 on: July 20, 2008, 06:48:56 AM »
...had to be nipped in the bud.


By giveing over to the demands?

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: U.S., Iraq Agree On 'Time Horizon' For Withdrawal
« Reply #11 on: July 20, 2008, 08:28:22 AM »
<< . . . the labour movement was becoming vocal in demanding "workers' rights" and growing steadily more powerful, a phenomenon which had to be nipped in the bud.>>

BT:  <<By giving over to the demands?>>

I guess I didn't make myself clear.  Sorry.  They gave in to many of the demands of the labour movement in order to keep the labour movement from drifting over to the Communist movement.  The Communist movement crested in the U.S.A. and Canada during the 1930s but it was beset by factionalism, with the Trots siphoning off a lot of CPUSA members.  However, both branches of the movement were pushing public ownership of the means of production as the practical means by which the benefits of the workers' and peasants' state could be realized in America.  There was a kind of ripple effect.  As the communist militants agitated for public ownership as the key to a cornucopia, the unions were becoming more strident in demanding workers' rights and the workers were becoming more militant, some being recruited by the PCUSA or the Trots or their affiliated/infiltrated unions.  During the 1930s, the U.S.S.R. was experiencing economic growth in the double digits, while the U.S.A. and Canada were experiencing the Great Depression.  There was a lot of violent civil unrest due to strikes, marches of the unemployed and there was a lot of agitation and so-called agitprop, based on reports coming out of Russia showing a workers' and peasants' "paradise."

What you seem to be so skeptical of is nothing more than the application of the principle, "better to bend than to break."  There was a relatively small but active and growing demand for the whole store, while organized labour and the unemployed were demanding something less than that but more than the endless hard times that capitalism was actually delivering at the time.

"Giving over to the demands" is a misleading way of describing what actually happened (the New Deal) because it doesn't take into effect the much more radical demands that were circulating and growing at the time, that were NOT given into.  It implies that all the demands were met, although that's my fault because I might have made it appear from my earlier post that the only demands on the table were those of organized labour.  It was pretty clear to the ruling class of the time that if the legitimate demands of the unemployed and organized labour weren't met in some meaningful way that this would only stoke CPUSA and/or Trotskyist recruitment of the working class and ultimately lead to some kind of revolution.  It was pretty clear to Roosevelt and the more enlightened members of the ruling class that the American proletariat was not going to put up indefinitely with Depression-era hard times.  They (the working class) had a great example before them in the form of Soviet Russia.

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: U.S., Iraq Agree On 'Time Horizon' For Withdrawal
« Reply #12 on: July 20, 2008, 08:39:39 AM »
<<Interesting prism your father has. >>

That's the most diplomatic way of saying "bullshit" that I know of.


Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: U.S., Iraq Agree On 'Time Horizon' For Withdrawal
« Reply #13 on: July 20, 2008, 01:00:39 PM »
According to my dad, who lived through the Great Depression, Social Security and other New Deal social policies were a direct response to the benefits being realized by the workers and peasants in the U.S.S.R.  The establishment, or its more enlightened wing, was effectively co-opting the American Communist Party and staving off a second American Revolution.  Truly or falsely, the U.S.S.R. was being depicted as the workers' and peasants' paradise by Western journalists and returning travellers, and the labour movement was becoming vocal in demanding "workers' rights" and growing steadily more powerful, a phenomenon which had to be nipped in the bud.

Interesting prism your father has.

===================================
I always thought that Social Security was a response to Huey Long's "Share the Wealth" Clubs and the Townsend Movement, as well as the Bonus Marchers. The idea was to inject money into the economy so people would have something to spend, not unlike our recent "bonus" checks.

www.sciencestorm.com/award/9210663.html - 12k

I agree that it was also to diminish the appeal of Communism.  I suspect your father was more tuned into European politics than the average US factory worker or sharecropper.
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: U.S., Iraq Agree On 'Time Horizon' For Withdrawal
« Reply #14 on: July 20, 2008, 01:53:02 PM »
<<I always thought that Social Security was a response to Huey Long's "Share the Wealth" Clubs and the Townsend Movement, as well as the Bonus Marchers. The idea was to inject money into the economy so people would have something to spend, not unlike our recent "bonus" checks.>>

You know, I'd totally forgotten about the Townsend Plan, which was enormously influential during the Great Depression, and I'm sure was a big factor in the birth of Social Security.  There were literally millions of members of Townsend Clubs all over the U.S. and the pressure from them must have been huge, so you are undoubtedly correct.  The Bonus Marchers were a more direct threat as most of them were Army veterans and had a much greater potential for violence than the Townsend clubs, which were mainly composed of senior citizens. 

My dad's comments were actually made with the influence of organized labour in mind and were not focused exclusively on Social Security but on the New Deal reforms as a whole.

My dad certainly would have been much more <<tuned into European politics than the average US factory worker or sharecropper,>> but he was also (as a manufacturer and a businessman) very aware of the North American scene and particularly the North American labour scene.  The fact is that there was very active left-wing agitation going on in the U.S. during the Depression, and both sharecroppers (white and black) and factory workers were actively targeted by organizers not only from organized labour but also from Trotskyite and Communist Party agitprop cadres.  There was an undeniable appeal to the stories, true or not, of the "workers' and peasants' paradise" that were being reported at the time.  But I think possibly he over-estimated the indirect contribution of the U.S.S.R. and underestimated both the Townsend Plan and the Kingfish.  Although he seemed to know an awful lot about Huey Long, I don't think I ever heard him talking about Dr. Townsend at all.

Huey Long certainly seems to have had Presidential aspirations and "Share the Wealth" had obvious Depression-era appeal, but I think he would have been a pretty hard sell outside the South.  FDR and his supporters had done a pretty good job of portraying him as a hick and a bumpkin on the outside and a crook and a thug on the inside - - sort of like a scary clown - - although of course he was a very intelligent man and a shrewd and savvy politician.  Incidentally, if you subscribe to Turner Classic Movies, they were showing All the King's Men again last week  (or maybe it was the week before.)