Thread: Democrats: What is the most politically-advantageous number of dead US troops?

Originally Posted by dalem

There is a difference between being opposed and working to get your own side defeated.

-dale

If you believe your country is doing something unjust, you don't have the right to, within the legal framework of American law, to try and work against it?

Originally Posted by smilingassassin

Reid and Pelosi are traitors who should be hung, shot, lethally injected or whatever the hell punishment is chosen for them for brazenly declaring defeat, meeting with the enemy and constantly working to undermine victory. The fact that the liberals in this forum still can't acknowledge THAT fact speaks volumes to me.....

They sure as hell are trying their hardest to subvert it. Now they're going to hold over the war funding bill until next year unless, of course, Bush agrees to tacking a withdrawal schedule to it, which he won't, to his credit. This is a huge distraction for the DoD and the Army, which must now plan on how to get by if a bill isn't passed. They're talking about laying off 100,000 civilian employees to get the needed funding. I don't think of Pelosi and Reid as traitors in the classic sense, because they're doing this openly, but the effect is the same.

Originally Posted by Feanor

If you believe your country is doing something unjust, you don't have the right to, within the legal framework of American law, to try and work against it?

Sure, it is legal for Reid and Pelosi to seek legislation which forces an end to the war. And the war doesn't have to be unjust. It could be just.

They're not acting because the war is unjust, but because they think it is bad for the country. They're making a value judgement.

But the issue isn't whether it is legal to seek legislation to end the war, but whether the Congress is usurping the power of the president as commander in chief. Notice their bills don't outright say 'end the war'; rather they contain measures intended to chisel away at the commander in chief's ability to conduct it. This is a clear sign to people who understand politics that their efforts are political. If they were true to their stated beliefs, they would block all funding bills period, no compromises. They don't do it because it would be political suicide for the whole party. So much, for the courage of one's convictions.

Originally Posted by JAD_333

Sure, it is legal for Reid and Pelosi to seek legislation which forces an end to the war. And the war doesn't have to be unjust. It could be just.

They're not acting because the war is unjust, but because they think it is bad for the country. They're making a value judgement.

But the issue isn't whether it is legal to seek legislation to end the war, but whether the Congress is usurping the power of the president as commander in chief. Notice their bills don't outright say 'end the war'; rather they contain measures intended to chisel away at the commander in chief's ability to conduct it. This is a clear sign to people who understand politics that their efforts are political. If they were true to their stated beliefs, they would block all funding bills period, no compromises. They don't do it because it would be political suicide for the whole party. So much, for the courage of one's convictions.

Motivation can't be used to judge the validity of ones actions because there is no objective way to verify it even if previous statements by the individual exist, as he could've been lying or acting on a subconscious motivation that he himself is unaware of. What they are doing therefore does not make them traitors. It simply makes the weasels and rats, and ... well ... politicians. But we already knew all of that.

Originally Posted by dalem

She was a persistant little trollop back in the days when I could interest such womenfolk. And no, no it wasn't worth it.

-dale

Was the pizza that good?

Originally Posted by JAD_333

Julie:

Why is it that opponents of the war and Bush haters stoop to trying to put square pegs in round holes? Don't they have any well thought out arguments to support their call for withdrawal from Iraq and substantive counter-arguments to Bush policies? Why do they feel compelled to dig down into the muck and come up with twisted logic for debating points.

That "muck" as you call it, is what has gotten the confidence down in many Americans as to the Iraq War. That "muck" is also responsible for the high percentages of desertions, and lowering the criteria for recruitment.

Originally Posted by JAD_333

That's what calling US a traitor on a par with John Walker Lindh is.

I disagree.

Originally Posted by JAD_333

The examples you give to prove your point are the kinds of things that go wrong from time to time in a large organization that deals with literally millions of active duty and separated members of the military, not to mention 2 million civilian employees and many more retirees. It's not Bush or the GOP or the dems at fault. It's a system staffed and run largely by civil servants who were there before Bush came into office and will be there when he leaves. Perhaps one could say, at most, that if those incidents had not been corrected when they came to light, the nation could be accused of callousness towards its military but in each of the incidents you cite the error was corrected, and in some cases heads rolled.

I again disagree. They were serious incidents that should not have went on so long without oversight.

Originally Posted by JAD_333

You're insinuating that Bush knew all along he had a general who could run the war and kept him hidden in the closet for 3 years, and that he was only waiting until there was a certain level of casualties and money spent to bring him out.

It was the Americans in the 2004 election that forced him to make changes in DOD, Rumsfeld being one of them.

Originally Posted by JAD_333

I suppose the same could be said of Lincoln before he found his Grant.

No, because Lincoln had to constantly search for military leaders who could win victories and hasten reunion. Ironically, in the 1880's, Grant wrote that the war was unjust, accepting the theory that it was designed to gain land open to slavery.

Originally Posted by JAD_333

You're suggesting the peace summit is motivated by the possibility of an oil pipeline via Jordan. This is nonsense. Do you suppose Russia, Syria and all the other participants in the conference would attend if that was the case? Perhaps you overlooked the part of the article about how oil is already going from Mosul to Isreal via a pipeline thru Turkey, and that talk of the Haifa line may be to put pressure on Turkey.

The plan envisages the reconstruction of an old pipeline, inactive since the end of the British mandate in Palestine in 1948, when the flow from Iraq's northern oilfields to Palestine was re-directed to Syria.

Now, its resurrection would transform economic power in the region, cutting out Syria and solving Israel's energy crisis at a stroke. Until 1948, the pipeline ran from the Kurdish-controlled city of Mosul to the Israeli port of Haifa, on its northern Mediterranean coast. The pipeline would cut Israel's energy bill drastically - probably by more than 25 per cent - since the country is currently largely dependent on expensive imports from Russia.

Originally Posted by JAD_333

As for the involvement of the Department of Energy, where on earth did you get the idea it dictates to other countries what they can or cannot do about its oil? Part of its mission is to represent the US in discussions concerning international pipelines. Why? Because most oil pipelines are financed and owned by private interests, including US interests. The US government is needed to work out legal issues with foreign governments that host pipelines through their territory. How is this sinister?

Shouldn't the Oil Minister in Iraq handle that?

Originally Posted by dalem

In that case it was doing something stupid for the wrong reasons.

And you did it without being a traitor to yourself. Alright then, case closed.

Originally Posted by JAD_333

Notice their bills don't outright say 'end the war'; rather they contain measures intended to chisel away at the commander in chief's ability to conduct it. This is a clear sign to people who understand politics that their efforts are political. If they were true to their stated beliefs, they would block all funding bills period, no compromises. They don't do it because it would be political suicide for the whole party. So much, for the courage of one's convictions.

You can't just pull every single troop out of there in an instant and "end the war" overnight. It has to be done in stages.

Originally Posted by Feanor

I stand corrected. In any event I think you get the point I was making.



Legitimate was added by you. I assumed authority meant just the ability to give the order and see it get done

Ability, a synonym of capacity, which is what I said.

smilingassassin,

a minor point outside your overall one, but should be addressed.

its part of a greater strategy to transform the ME. Now opposing that strategy dosn't make you a traitor, IMO it makes you an isolationist, head in the sand, morally paralysed and ignorant person.

i actually support this strategy, but opposing it does NOT necessarily mean you are an isolationist, head in the sand, morally paralysed, and ignorant person.

the whole concept of transformation is based upon the idea that we CAN transform the middle east by creating a new government, a new set of rules, etc etc etc. and that the people within would be able to take the ball and play it from there.

quite a few realists and other thinkers- in fact, i would argue the majority of international relations theorists, practictioners, and experts- would disagree. they point to the fact that there's no democratic experience, no democratic culture, a weak and enfeebled middle-class, tribalism, lack of capitalism, inefficient socialist bureaucracy, and a million other smaller things that would make democracy well-nigh impossible to impose by us. and that to do so would create chaos and incur a high cost.

so far our attempts at disproving this haven't exactly succeeded to our wildest dreams.

i disagree, because i feel that with wise decisions on our part, we could at least set up the background for all of their concerns- but nevertheless, i have to say they have compelling, logical arguments that need to be answered, and are far from ignorant.

Originally Posted by Feanor

If you believe your country is doing something unjust, you don't have the right to, within the legal framework of American law, to try and work against it?

When there's a hot war on, no. Win the war first.

-dale

Originally Posted by gunnut

Was the pizza that good?

Ye gods, no. I chose.... poorly.

-dale

Originally Posted by astralis

smilingassassin,

......
quite a few realists and other thinkers- in fact, i would argue the majority of international relations theorists, practictioners, and experts- would disagree. they point to the fact that there's no democratic experience, no democratic culture, a weak and enfeebled middle-class, tribalism, lack of capitalism, inefficient socialist bureaucracy, and a million other smaller things that would make democracy well-nigh impossible to impose by us. and that to do so would create chaos and incur a high cost.

so far our attempts at disproving this haven't exactly succeeded to our wildest dreams.

i disagree, because i feel that with wise decisions on our part, we could at least set up the background for all of their concerns- but nevertheless, i have to say they have compelling, logical arguments that need to be answered, and are far from ignorant.

Astralis, I also disagree with the belief that the culture and tribal social structure in the Middle East automatically results in the necessity for despotic governments at the national level. To me, it seems that tribalism and other facets of Middle Eastern culture are inherently local and grass roots level social phenomena and has facets of similarity with local democratic governance. While the initial stages of Iraqi Freedom has proven that it's foolish to impose democracy from the top down in a way that attempts to obliterate entrenched cultural norms, the recent success of grass roots level political and security engagement by the US military during the "Surge" shows that it might be quite feasible to build a pluralistic society from the ground up.

The key, I think, is to construct a government that reflects Arabic values and norms at the local level while reflecting a limited and compatible set of our ideals on pluralist governance, separation of powers, and protection of rights and freedoms at the national level. Such a government may not necessarily look like a classic democracy, but would be much more compatible with our interests and values than the current crop of despots.

It's unclear at this point whether such a government could still emerge in Iraq. The US made a key mistake early on in handing power too quickly to the Iraqis and organizing a government too easily controlled by the majority Shiites. However, I think, with the recent security gains, it's still within the realm of possiblity.

Originally Posted by citanon

The US made a key mistake early on in handing power too quickly to the Iraqis and organizing a government too easily controlled by the majority Shiites.

Well, you may recall that we wanted to wait a while but we had half the planet's yapping proles screaming that we needed to do it RIGHT THEN.

Fecking idiots.

-dale