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

Man....despite the somewhat confrontational title of this thread...I love it!

Everybody involved with this one should be proud of themselves.

Originally Posted by TopHatter

I know you're mad, believe me we've had enough conversations out on your lanai to know that you've seriously hacked off right now.

You've also seen me mad as a hatter, usually after consuming a little too much of your rum.

As I said earlier though, this is a great thread but we just need the slice out the occasional personal attacks on other members. Good to go?

I'm witcha, mate.

I got it said. All I wanted to do anyway, really.

Goddam' Democrats.

This is the last post of yours I'll ever read. But I'm not letting it drop, not until you understand what you've obviously missed: what this whole thread is about.

Here we go:

Originally Posted by S-2

I've looked at this thread real closely. The entire tone of your initial post was provocative-nothing but.

It was meant to be provocative. I'll not apologize for it, either. As for 'nothing but', well, you're wrong, as you're prone to be. There is a point.

You've managed to miss it up to now.

It was never intended as anything but a CRUDE debasement of our system and the tons of really fine Americans who'd choose to vote democrat or support the Democratic Party.

See above.

It's a rant, Bluesman. Nothing but.

It's rather more than that.

Not much substance from your end. Cherry picking your points does nothing for your argument...whatever it really is.

You couldn't pick up the point, huh? It is explicitly made. Shouldn't be that hard for you. But it WAS, was it?

Snide? That's not me with some smarmy title behind each democrat politician that you reference. Tasteless, actually.

Then don't you EVER try to use sarcasm or satire in here, Hoss, because you're not suited to recognize it.

Astralis has apologized for his early outburst and since tried to engage JAD, Yellow Fever, and you. What could be an interesting thread (only because of his willingness to engage about goals and objectives for OIF vs. GWOT and the available alternatives) is drowned by your drum-beat of self-righteous loathing for any other POV.

And that's where you've managed to miss the whole dam' point of the thread. Which I get to define, as the Original Poster; it's MY thread, and I get to determine what it's all about, and you can go in any tangent you want as a participant, but tangents they ARE, because I say so. So, try to get this, dewd: this thread is about the eagerness of an entire political party to lose this war in order to capitalize on it politically. Nothing else, not 'goals and objectives for OIF vs. GWOT and the available alternatives'. That is interesting, to be sure, and if you want to start your own thread about it, knock yourself out. For the moment, though, you're just a jumped-up hijacker.

You've a very narrow view of victory. Too bad. There are some interesting alternatives that would meet our national interests just as well as dead-end commitment to Iraq, come hell or high water.

See above; sounds like you've got quite a bit to say on THAT matter, completely seperate from MY thread.

But, in my view, you've completely failed to shape the terms of this possible debate.

That's because we're not having a debate ABOUT that.

Instead, you rant and bully.

Well. Sorry as hell about THAT, Precious. Are you sure you're in the right forum?

What are America's objectives? What should they be? Are they in concurrence now?

Again, FASCINATING, I'm sure. Also, unrelated to what I started this thread for.

Those are the real issues 'cause, dude, that's what it's about. Not democrats. That's laughable.

Than go away laffin'. But just go away, because if you don't want to discuss what I want to discuss, stay the hell outta my thread.

Shoo.

This republican administration has failed to make a compelling case for continuing OIF and the GWOT under the current terms. Petraeus is engaged in, what many are saying (including him, I think)may be, our last effort. Obviously, I hope he's able to create a change in prevailing conditions.

You want to talk about Republicans? Go do it somewhere else; we're not talking about nobody else but the Democrats, and their attachment and assitance to America's enemies.

Frankly, I think that the real battle is whether Ryan Crockett can convince the Iraqi legislature to produce meaningful and fair laws on de-baathification and sharing oil revenues. Without these indicators, it's impossible for me to believe that the Iraqi national government can be successful.

Frankly, I think you should start a thread laying out that argument and having a rippin' good chat about THAT, if you're so inclined.

That's the issue of note to me. Not democrats nor republicans.

To YOU. FINE. Discuss what you want as you will, but don't ever tell me again what my goddam' thread is about when you obviously haven't grasped it after nine pages.

'Ignore' to you.

Your rant was hijacked into a meaningful thread by Astralis long before I weighed in.

If you don't mind, I think I'll stay. If you do mind, I'll stay anyway.

No name calling from me. Not out of respect, though. You don't merit any. None. Go dry your wings and re-string your guitar. Or have another rum.

You've immediately started screwing with a good thread again, even if it didn't start that way.

George Washington, the nations first president warned against political partisanship leading to political allegiance, animosity and inaction and ultimately would lead people away from true patriotism to their country first. The Democrats are soooo guilty of that right now, far more then the Republicans. Ideals are not being persued, political victory's are...

Just watched a TV interview segment of some LibDem bad-mouthing the US.

Ho hum; seen it. WAY too much.

Originally Posted by smilingassassin

Ideals are not being persued, political victory's are...

I don't know why people say pandering to public opinion is a bad thing. That statement sounds anti-democratic. Not an anti-democrat, anti-democratic. In essence you think representative democracy is bad. Now that really is treasonous.

Originally Posted by chankya

I don't know why people say pandering to public opinion is a bad thing. That statement sounds anti-democratic. Not an anti-democrat, anti-democratic. In essence you think representative democracy is bad. Now that really is treasonous.

Apparently, you think political leadership is the same thing as salesmanship, hucksterism, a good ad campaign.

It should be LOT more than that.

OF COURSE pandering to public opinion is a bad thing.

Originally Posted by chankya

I don't know why people say pandering to public opinion is a bad thing. That statement sounds anti-democratic. Not an anti-democrat, anti-democratic. In essence you think representative democracy is bad. Now that really is treasonous.

People are elected to serve a term, as your representative. During that time they are expected to govern. That means they are specialising in dealing with issues about which they know more about than the man on the street. Constantly referring to polls or referendums for every decision is in fact anti-democratic, it is instead mob rule.

Originally Posted by Parihaka

People are elected to serve a term, as your representative. During that time they are expected to govern. That means they are specialising in dealing with issues about which they know more about than the man on the street. Constantly referring to polls or referendums for every decision is in fact anti-democratic, it is instead mob rule.

Not really. Representative democracy is simply a means of bypassing the problems of governing on the basis of a direct democracy. (For larger states and nations.)

Are your representatives expected to be experts? In an ideal case perhaps. But not necessarily and not always. In modern democracies the expertise is provided by the professional bureaucracy. That however, is neither here nor there.

The problem of a self perpetuating class in a representative democracy was meant to be solved by a free press, free speech and a popularly elected assembly. The last of these can only really be controlled during elections. So when you think about it the system is designed to ensure that only people who broadly satisfy the will of the people are elected and hence govern and legislate. So the system is not broken but it is in fact working exactly as it is meant to me.

What do you mean by mob rule? If you mean the will of the majority then that has always been a problem with democracy. The "tyranny of the majority".

The elected officials are better placed to make decisions because they have access to the best data and advisors. You choose them to make those decisions based on your analysis of their ability, and have the right to change them based on their track record.
What I mean by mob rule is that when every decision is made by elected officials by reference to public opinion. They are making decisions based on ignorance, namely the public isn't sufficiently educated on every issue to make an informed decision. The whole point of electing a Government is for them to govern, to make strategic decisions based on the best data available. The whole point of a democracy is to elect officials to make those decisions, and to review the performance of those officials at the appropriate times, namely the elections.
An example of this is the current Democrat party, who were elected with a mandate, but as far as I can see from outside the country are using their time to politic and attack the president rather than actually governing.
This is why I often ask the question of how is their 'first 100 days' agenda going, because as far as I can see, it's not.
In other words, despite being in power, they are using that power to campaign for the Presidency rather than pass legislation as per their mandate.
Having a governing party that only campaigns rather than governs is a sure fire way to piss off the electorate and might explain the current dissatisfaction with them.

Originally Posted by chankya

I don't know why people say pandering to public opinion is a bad thing. That statement sounds anti-democratic. Not an anti-democrat, anti-democratic. In essence you think representative democracy is bad. Now that really is treasonous.

Chankya, where are you from. No profile.

I ask because your response to smilingassassin's post is a bit odd. He's not criticizing the basic idea of representative democracy, but party politics.

Here again is what he said:

George Washington, the nations first president warned against political partisanship leading to political allegiance, animosity and inaction and ultimately would lead people away from true patriotism to their country first. The Democrats are soooo guilty of that right now, far more then the Republicans. Ideals are not being persued, political victory's are...

Assassin is talking about a view the first US president held about political parties. Washington was little naive on that score. But keep in mind there were no parties, per se, before that time; just patriots and a congress with a single house and no power to tax.

Congress now has two houses and the power of the purse. Factions were inevitable because right from the start there were different points of view of how the nation should be shaped. They remain to this day. Enuf said on that subject.

Many people still agree with Washington; I mean one does get fed up at times with partisan politics. The first victim is usually good sense. Take, for example, the subject of this thread, the apparent political expediency that one party is demonstrating in opposing the Iraq war.

Does it seem sensible to you that virtually all the opposition to the war is centered in one party, the Democrats, while most of the support for it is in the other party? Is it sensible to believe that the Democrats possess some special insight into the war that the other party doesn't have?

Obviously, the answer to both questions is no. No, it is not sensible. So, we are justified in having a hunch (to put it mildly) that the Democrats are united on this issue for some reason other than pure concern for Iraq. Can we reasonably assume that what they're after is the White House in the upcoming election? I'd say so.

Regardless of where anyone stands on Iraq, everyone ought to be little uneasy knowing that one of the major political parties may be pandering (your word) to public opposition to the war in order to win elections.

And what if that party went so far as to introduce legislation and held antagonistic hearings designed to interfere with the conduct of the war-- would you be a little worried that they might be screwing up foreign policy for their own ends?

We are in the middle of a difficult struggle in Iraq. Some of us question whether it is right for one party to make it even more difficult by using its majority in Congress to weaken the ability of the president to prosecute the war and then criticize him for not doing better?

You see what bluesman is getting at?

Now, I am not saying that Congress cannot and should not ever thwart a war in progress. But I would expect that if it was justified it would be done with considerably more bipartisanship than we've seen so far.

Originally Posted by JAD_333

Chankya, where are you from. No profile.

I'm from India but am squatting in San Jose(Dallas was so much more friendlier. I studied at UTD) for another year till i move back!

I ask because your response to smilingassassin's post is a bit odd. He's not criticizing the basic idea of representative democracy, but party politics.

Not at all. I'm just wondering why it should seem odd that a politician is courting votes. Because at the end of the day after all the arguments and the semantics, thats what it comes down to. And I'm saying that the question is wrong. That the courting of votes is an essential and possibly the most important check on the power of politicians and the most useful leverage the demos has in influencing the direction of the country.

You're basically saying lets go to war or more accurately stay at war. The wishes of the majority of the population of the United States be damned. Whatever the reason for the war, does that seem like a democracy to you?

Many people still agree with Washington; I mean one does get fed up at times with partisan politics. The first victim is usually good sense. Take, for example, the subject of this thread, the apparent political expediency that one party is demonstrating in opposing the Iraq war.

Not true. In representative democracy with the likely problems of concentration of powers, choice is a good thing. Why do you keep using "political expediency" like its necessarily a bad thing? Show me one other way the citizens can influence the direction of the country as effectively? And you want to take that away?

Does it seem sensible to you that virtually all the opposition to the war is centered in one party, the Democrats, while most of the support for it is in the other party? Is it sensible to believe that the Democrats possess some special insight into the war that the other party doesn't have?

Is it sensible to assume that the republicans have some insight that the majority of the country doesn't? Look, I'm not taking positions on this debate. I'm just saying that on this thread people are talking about what to me is the democratic exercise of powers by the people as if its a bad thing. How do you intend to fight a war with most of the country pulling in the opposite direction?

We are in the middle of a difficult struggle in Iraq. Some of us question whether it is right for one party to make it even more difficult by using its majority in Congress to weaken the ability of the president to prosecute the war and then criticize him for not doing better?

You see what bluesman is getting at?

Now, I am not saying that Congress cannot and should not ever thwart a war in progress. But I would expect that if it was justified it would be done with considerably more bipartisanship than we've seen so far.

You could say the last about forging forward with the war and it would be as true. Again, I'm not taking a position.

Democracy is a self righting system. If the democrats get elected I'd fully expect the republicans to be at their throat, point out all the flaws in their plan and pick it apart. That is their responsibility as the opposition. But I fail to see how any of this would be a bad thing. If you pull out and there are massive repercussions in terms of terrorist activity then we'll see the results in the next mid term elections. Without trying to sound callous let me say this... Maybe a few more people will die but atleast you'll have the country behind the fight then. Democracy(And I mean with the whole vote chasing thing as an integral part) always works ... eventually. Its slow perhaps but stable. Parihaka points out that the people don't know the value of the war. It is the President's responsibility to point out the value. Its is the responsibility of the congressman who voted for the war to explain to his constituents. Obviously some people get the reason for the war. Parihaka gets it. He's neither American not serves in any preferential position to have gotten classified intelligence( do correct me if I'm wrong) and yet you think the majority of the populace is too dense to get the same thing. So you want instead to prosecute the war without the majority agreeing with it.

And let me also point out that you seem to make the republican party into something they are not. They are also courting votes. Except they are courting the votes that You and Bluesman have to give.

In closing let me apologize for my combative tone. I've had a working weekend!