Generational Dynamics
Fourth Turning Forum Archive


Popular links:
Generational Dynamics Web Site
Generational Dynamics Forum
Fourth Turning Archive home page
New Fourth Turning Forum

Thread: Iraq CF Thread - Page 21







Post#501 at 11-15-2007 03:54 PM by The Wonkette [at Arlington, VA 1956 joined Jul 2002 #posts 9,209]
---
11-15-2007, 03:54 PM #501
Join Date
Jul 2002
Location
Arlington, VA 1956
Posts
9,209

Quote Originally Posted by Mikebert View Post
As I see it, the GOP leadership doesn't want a religious conservative on the ticket this year. So I figure voting for one is the best way to throw the wrench. Huckabee has the best numbers of the religious right candidates.
Huckabee, as Governor, wasn't economically conservative enough for many of the conservative leadership. He actually raised some taxes to cover more poor kids in Medicaid/S-CHIP. Imagine that!
I want people to know that peace is possible even in this stupid day and age. Prem Rawat, June 8, 2008







Post#502 at 11-15-2007 03:58 PM by Marx & Lennon [at '47 cohort still lost in Falwelland joined Sep 2001 #posts 16,709]
---
11-15-2007, 03:58 PM #502
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
'47 cohort still lost in Falwelland
Posts
16,709

Quote Originally Posted by Mikebert View Post
If it <national healthcare> is ineffective, Democrats like Clinton will their lose power by losing elections. It is good politics for Democrats to support Mitt's doomed-to-failure policy. Blaming failures because the other guys let you do it doesn't really work. The Republican efforts to blame Iraq on the Democratic Congressmen who voted to support the prez hasn't worked. Polls still show than the public blames the Bush Administration for the war. Democrats won't get blamed for Republican fuck-ups so there is little reason to try to stop them. The public will punish you for trying, so you would be a fool to do so.
First, I don't think the Romney plan is so bad that it won't improve the mess we have now. Second, the public thinks GOPpers are great, so they'll give it a lot of leeway. Third, being a rug is looked upon with disdain, regardless of party.

Quote Originally Posted by Mikebert
... Ethanol has been around for a long time. It's proven not to affect the oil companies. Effective policy on energy would affect the oil companies and so is verboten to Republicans.
I'm not advocating ethanol for the Dems. It's a stupid idea for them, but great for the GOP. After all, why would the GOP want to harm the oil companies? They do want to get the environmentalists and End-of-Energy types off their backs, though. Ethanol is perfect. It even serves a GOP constituency by funding an ineffectual program that threatens none of their other constituents.

Quote Originally Posted by Mikebert
... And once again, ineffective policy takes power away from Democrats. America is a conservative country. Americans like conservative/Republican administrations and are forgiving if they do a poor job. They will tolerate liberal/Democratic administrations only if they do a good job. So Democrats have to be effective if they want to hold power.
But the GOP doesn't, and it serves their needs to not be at times. I think we're talking at cross-purposes here.

Quote Originally Posted by Mikebert
... Effectiveness matters for Democrats. LBJ screws the pooch on Vietnam and doesn't even run for re-election. Dubya screws the pooch on getting Osama and not only runs, but wins.
That one may be a chink in the armor. Republicans are bullet proof ... up to a point. Beyond that, they lose their invincibility shields, and are even more naked than the Dems.

Osama-on-the-loose is a winner for the Dems, if they have the balls to use it ... a lot!

Quote Originally Posted by Mikebert
... See my point? Even the WSJ gets it.
Gets what? They reported that Wall Street has had it with the GOP, at least for now. If I was a Rep running for anything shy of an iron-clad safe seat, I might be worried. A POTUS elect can have big coat tails, though I don't see Hillary having any coat tails at all. The GOP should be doing everthing they can to get her on the ballot. Infact, I think they are, in a back handed way.

Quote Originally Posted by Mikebert
... Only if the Dems enact ineffective policy. If electoral results give Clinton the choice, why on Earth would she choose ineffective policy?
There is a small window for the Dems to do well, and, as you admit your self, they had better do it right. I can't see a divisive character like Hillary being the Dem to do it. In fact, I see her as the one to push the hot buttons often and hard, and just maybe ... accidentally ... pushing the reset button that gives the GOPpers another shot - one they don't deserve.
Last edited by Marx & Lennon; 11-15-2007 at 10:18 PM.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.







Post#503 at 11-15-2007 04:45 PM by Mikebert [at Kalamazoo MI joined Jul 2001 #posts 4,502]
---
11-15-2007, 04:45 PM #503
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Kalamazoo MI
Posts
4,502

Quote Originally Posted by zilch View Post
He just told you why... he's AGAINST everything the "Republicans have an absolute requirment for," like:
  1. Continued wars: Warfare is a matter self-defense, conservatives, however, aren't as girly and squeemish about the residual effects as liberals.
  2. No national health insurance: No socialized "one-payer" system and no free lunch!
  3. No action on global warming: No socialist remedy, to a problem mankind can't fix anyway!
  4. No action on deficits: Have you seen the deficit falling like a rock, lately? Pro-growth economics works everytime!
  5. No action on alternate energy: We should start drillin' in places where environmental wackos say no, and we should increase refining capacity and decrease refining regulations now!


I dare say, Democrats are diametrically opposed to everything we are for.
Marc is right. Republicans favor lots and lots of war-making capability. Fighting frequent wars is needed to justify all that war-making capability.

On the other hand, war-fighting capability clearly does not provide defense. All the vast armament America has acquired at enormous expense was powerless to repel the most deadly invasion of the US in nearly two centuries. Indded, after the invasion it was tacitly acknowledged that the so-called "defense department" was utterly incapable of defending the homeland and so a new department was created for that purpose.

Marc opposes national health insurance, action on global warming or alternate energy. And deficits generated by tax cuts don't bother him.

All pretty much consonant with standard Republican beliefs. In fact he paraphrases Fred Thompson's slogan to imply that Thompson, like he, approves of the list he gives:

Responsible, sensible and strong national-defense government is what Republicans are for.
Last edited by Mikebert; 11-15-2007 at 06:17 PM.







Post#504 at 11-15-2007 05:58 PM by zilch [at joined Nov 2001 #posts 3,491]
---
11-15-2007, 05:58 PM #504
Join Date
Nov 2001
Posts
3,491

Response...

About the only thing you got right in that post was the correct spelling of my name. But for that I do thank you.







Post#505 at 11-15-2007 06:27 PM by Mikebert [at Kalamazoo MI joined Jul 2001 #posts 4,502]
---
11-15-2007, 06:27 PM #505
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Kalamazoo MI
Posts
4,502

Quote Originally Posted by zilch View Post
Have you seen the deficit falling like a rock, lately? Pro-growth economics works everytime!
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08168.pdf

Period Increase in Nat'l Debt ($billions)
2003-4 596
2004-5 539
2005-6 575
2006-7 500

Liar
Last edited by Mikebert; 11-15-2007 at 06:30 PM.







Post#506 at 11-15-2007 07:52 PM by zilch [at joined Nov 2001 #posts 3,491]
---
11-15-2007, 07:52 PM #506
Join Date
Nov 2001
Posts
3,491

Pants on fire?

Quote Originally Posted by Mikebert View Post
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08168.pdf

Period Increase in Nat'l Debt ($billions)
2003-4 596
2004-5 539
2005-6 575
2006-7 500

Liar
Change subject, eh? Funny, I've never heard ya bitch about the debt before.







Post#507 at 11-16-2007 02:04 AM by Bob Butler 54 [at Cove Hold, Carver, MA joined Jul 2001 #posts 6,431]
---
11-16-2007, 02:04 AM #507
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Cove Hold, Carver, MA
Posts
6,431

Quote Originally Posted by zilch View Post
About the only thing you got right in that post was the correct spelling of my name. But for that I do thank you.
Very gracious of you, Mark.







Post#508 at 11-16-2007 08:02 AM by Mikebert [at Kalamazoo MI joined Jul 2001 #posts 4,502]
---
11-16-2007, 08:02 AM #508
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Kalamazoo MI
Posts
4,502

Quote Originally Posted by zilch View Post
Change subject, eh? Funny, I've never heard ya bitch about the debt before.
I'm not bitching. You falsely claimed that the deficit was plummeting. Just calling a spade a spade.

I presented the actual statistics showing a modest decline in the deficit (trend rate 25 billion/yr) that predicts the current $500 billion deficit going away in 20 years--assuming no recession. Of course there will be a recession before then and it will go up, so its not really falling at all.

In any case, the deficit is not plummeting and you are spreading bullshit as usual.







Post#509 at 11-17-2007 04:15 PM by Zarathustra [at Where the Northwest meets the Southwest joined Mar 2003 #posts 9,198]
---
11-17-2007, 04:15 PM #509
Join Date
Mar 2003
Location
Where the Northwest meets the Southwest
Posts
9,198

Quote Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon View Post
H-m-m-m. I think he listed about ten references, but you chose two. So who is cherry picking?

No, he said that going into Iraq with less than the required force was stupid, and still is. If you have trouble seeing the difference, you need an English class ... or two.
My point has been made. Marc can't answer it.

Pity, it must take a lot of existential gymnastics to avoid such cognitive dissonance.
Americans have had enough of glitz and roar . . Foreboding has deepened, and spiritual currents have darkened . . .
THE FOURTH TURNING IS AT HAND.
See T4T, p. 253.







Post#510 at 11-17-2007 04:29 PM by Zarathustra [at Where the Northwest meets the Southwest joined Mar 2003 #posts 9,198]
---
11-17-2007, 04:29 PM #510
Join Date
Mar 2003
Location
Where the Northwest meets the Southwest
Posts
9,198

Quote Originally Posted by zilch View Post

Good point. The fact that Saddam was paying the families of human suicide terrorists $25,000 would've emphasised the press secretary's point just fine, too. And then there was these good reasons, too:
So those Palestinian terrorists attacked us on 9/11? He gave them WMD? The money he was supplying Hamas & Co rivaled what Iran was (and is) giving their various Hezbollah factions in magnitude and breadth?

I did not know that! That's really wild stuff.

Americans have had enough of glitz and roar . . Foreboding has deepened, and spiritual currents have darkened . . .
THE FOURTH TURNING IS AT HAND.
See T4T, p. 253.







Post#511 at 11-17-2007 05:05 PM by Zarathustra [at Where the Northwest meets the Southwest joined Mar 2003 #posts 9,198]
---
11-17-2007, 05:05 PM #511
Join Date
Mar 2003
Location
Where the Northwest meets the Southwest
Posts
9,198

Quote Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54 View Post
Some truth in that. Thing is, I think he is actually attempting to prompt Zilch to respond with a serious post. This is a more sure sign of insanity.
True dat. Call me loopy.

And I am happy to see that ignoring Sujatha's inanity still makes sense.
Americans have had enough of glitz and roar . . Foreboding has deepened, and spiritual currents have darkened . . .
THE FOURTH TURNING IS AT HAND.
See T4T, p. 253.







Post#512 at 11-17-2007 10:39 PM by K-I-A 67 [at joined Jan 2005 #posts 3,010]
---
11-17-2007, 10:39 PM #512
Join Date
Jan 2005
Posts
3,010

Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
So those Palestinian terrorists attacked us on 9/11? He gave them WMD? The money he was supplying Hamas & Co rivaled what Iran was (and is) giving their various Hezbollah factions in magnitude and breadth?

I did not know that! That's really wild stuff.

Zar, as I recall, you supported the Iraq invasion as well. But, but.... I didn't know it was gonna turnout to be this hard, bitch.. bitch.. piss and moan.. whine.. sniffle.. sniffle..point finger at me, Semo or DA and blame. Write a sob story proclaiming that I've now turned over a new leaf and have become an opposition Democrat really isn't going to change or undue what has already been embarked upon in the past or accomplished in Iraq.

Saddam Hussein is dead. Yippie! His massive army has been decommissioned. Yippie. We've now got air bases and military bases strategically located near both Iran and Syria. Yippie.

Did I support the invasion? Hell no, I anticipated many complications simply knowing the location and I certainly knew about the existance of the anti-war/anti-America crowds. Finding no WMD's in Iraq, well that particular major complication really sucked and I have to admit even shocked me.
Last edited by K-I-A 67; 11-17-2007 at 10:49 PM.







Post#513 at 11-18-2007 02:01 PM by Zarathustra [at Where the Northwest meets the Southwest joined Mar 2003 #posts 9,198]
---
11-18-2007, 02:01 PM #513
Join Date
Mar 2003
Location
Where the Northwest meets the Southwest
Posts
9,198

Quote Originally Posted by K-I-A 67 View Post
Zar, as I recall, you supported the Iraq invasion as well. But, but.... I didn't know it was gonna turnout to be this hard, bitch.. bitch.. piss and moan.. whine.. sniffle.. sniffle..point finger at me, Semo or DA and blame. Write a sob story proclaiming that I've now turned over a new leaf and have become an opposition Democrat . . .
Three things.

One, we were lied to. And I have proven this. It's not hard to prove actually. And if you disagree, I am still waiting for you, or Chris, or HC, or the Trog, to disprove it.

Two, it's called evolution. It's called growing up. It's called adapting to new information. You wouldn't understand, apparently.

Three, why should I take any criticism seriously from an someone ignorant enough to think the constitution says the President can do what he wants with the military and Congress has no say?

Quote Originally Posted by K-I-A 67 View Post
. . . really isn't going to change or undue what has already been embarked upon in the past or accomplished in Iraq.
You're right. We can't "undue" what has been done. But we can do what's right now. What would that be? One, getting the job actually done. Or two, leaving if we are not willing to do that. And why #2? Because our nation and our troops don't deserve the utter waste of blood, treasure, and sanity for something that's going to end up as screwed up as if we leave now anyway.

Oh, and impeaching, convicting, and jailing those who lied to us and got us into this mess would be good as well.
Americans have had enough of glitz and roar . . Foreboding has deepened, and spiritual currents have darkened . . .
THE FOURTH TURNING IS AT HAND.
See T4T, p. 253.







Post#514 at 11-18-2007 11:27 PM by K-I-A 67 [at joined Jan 2005 #posts 3,010]
---
11-18-2007, 11:27 PM #514
Join Date
Jan 2005
Posts
3,010

Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
Three things.

One, we were lied to. And I have proven this. It's not hard to prove actually. And if you disagree, I am still waiting for you, or Chris, or HC, or the Trog, to disprove it.

Two, it's called evolution. It's called growing up. It's called adapting to new information. You wouldn't understand, apparently.

Three, why should I take any criticism seriously from an someone ignorant enough to think the constitution says the President can do what he wants with the military and Congress has no say?
One, you haven't prooven anything to anyone other than the anti-Bush krohnies. Yes, a mistake was made with not prooving or demanding proof beyond all reasonable doubt that WMD's actually still existed prior to invading Iraq. In my opinion, we invaded with high probability speculation and we got burned.

Two, in evolutionary terms, I'd say you're still have a long ways to go before you catch up with me in the growing up department. This is just my opinion based strictly on the 4T. Who knows, in real-life terms you might actually surprise me with your level of so-called personal evolution. I dunno, something just tells me that there is a major so-called evolutionary gap between the two of us.

Three, I've never actually stated that the congress has no say or legal ability to over-ride or check the power of the President. I've only stated a federal judge doesn't have the Constitutional authority to dictate to, undermine or hamper the President of the United States in matters involving our National Defense. Actually, you had to proove to me that some mid level federal judge had the Constitutional authority to check the Constitutional authority of the President of the United States. Zar, this may come as a surprise but we don't live in the Soviet Union.


Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
You're right. We can't "undue" what has been done. But we can do what's right now. What would that be? One, getting the job actually done. Or two, leaving if we are not willing to do that. And why #2? Because our nation and our troops don't deserve the utter waste of blood, treasure, and sanity for something that's going to end up as screwed up as if we leave now anyway.

Oh, and impeaching, convicting, and jailing those who lied to us and got us into this mess would be good as well.
Well, despite all the blunders, hurdles and mistakes, I happen to believe we are slowly but surely prevailing with our military efforts in Iraq. I don't see the need to commit more troops or increase our present financial commitment. Personally, I really don't care about the successfulness of the so-called neo-con Americanization social project that's currently going on within Iraq as well.







Post#515 at 11-19-2007 11:53 AM by Marx & Lennon [at '47 cohort still lost in Falwelland joined Sep 2001 #posts 16,709]
---
11-19-2007, 11:53 AM #515
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
'47 cohort still lost in Falwelland
Posts
16,709

Quote Originally Posted by K-I-A 67 View Post
... Well, despite all the blunders, hurdles and mistakes, I happen to believe we are slowly but surely prevailing with our military efforts in Iraq. I don't see the need to commit more troops or increase our present financial commitment.
FWIW, the cost of this war goes up every day we are engaged, because the Army and Marine Corps are being ground into dust at both the personnel and materiel levels. The estimate of the full-cycle cost of these two wars is $1T and counting - to say nothing of the cost in lives. So the commitment is already made. The only choice we have is to either cut out losses or continue to roll the dice.

Quote Originally Posted by K-I-A
Personally, I really don't care about the successfulness of the so-called neo-con Americanization social project that's currently going on within Iraq as well.
If you don't care about any possible positive outcomes, then why do you support these wars? Are you a war fan?
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.







Post#516 at 11-19-2007 12:27 PM by Child of Socrates [at Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort joined Sep 2001 #posts 14,092]
---
11-19-2007, 12:27 PM #516
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort
Posts
14,092

Quote Originally Posted by K-I-A 67 View Post
Three, I've never actually stated that the congress has no say or legal ability to over-ride or check the power of the President. I've only stated a federal judge doesn't have the Constitutional authority to dictate to, undermine or hamper the President of the United States in matters involving our National Defense. Actually, you had to proove to me that some mid level federal judge had the Constitutional authority to check the Constitutional authority of the President of the United States.
The Constitution speaks pretty clearly to the powers of the judicial branch. In addition to the Supreme Court, Congress has established a system of federal courts which have clear jurisdiction in these matters. If they judge a congressional action or executive order to be unconstitutional, they are clearly within their constitutional and moral rights to do so.

These kinds of checks are what the Founders intended, so that one branch of government doesn't go completely out of control. It's easy to cry out "national security" in these matters (Nixon tried this, too), but a good judge won't automatically fall for that argument.







Post#517 at 11-19-2007 11:02 PM by Zarathustra [at Where the Northwest meets the Southwest joined Mar 2003 #posts 9,198]
---
11-19-2007, 11:02 PM #517
Join Date
Mar 2003
Location
Where the Northwest meets the Southwest
Posts
9,198

Quote Originally Posted by K-I-A 67 View Post
One, you haven't prooven anything to anyone other than the anti-Bush krohnies. Yes, a mistake was made with not prooving or demanding proof beyond all reasonable doubt that WMD's actually still existed prior to invading Iraq. In my opinion, we invaded with high probability speculation and we got burned.
That was not my point. Almost everyone thought some kind of WMD was going to be found. Nice strawman. I have shown that the Bush Administration said that the threat from Iraq was "imminent", or "immediate", or some permutation of extra special. They were insisting that there was a direct connection between Hussein and Al Qaeda and that WMD could be coming our way at any moment. They knew at the time that the data did not support that conclusion; at the very least they were caught in hysteria at the time -- but they still stand by their conclusion even now, which is lying.

I have supplied links and quotes upthread. See for yourself.

Quote Originally Posted by K-I-A 67 View Post
Two, in evolutionary terms, I'd say you're still have a long ways to go before you catch up with me in the growing up department. This is just my opinion based strictly on the 4T. Who knows, in real-life terms you might actually surprise me with your level of so-called personal evolution. I dunno, something just tells me that there is a major so-called evolutionary gap between the two of us.
I said nothing about achieving any "level" of evolution. You criticized me for changing my mind and my worldview. I was pointing out that changing opinions based on new information and/or new perceptions is evolutionary. You still seem to have trouble comprehending that concept. I don't know what you're like in "real life" and from what I have experienced here I don't care to know.

Quote Originally Posted by K-I-A 67 View Post
Three, I've never actually stated that the congress has no say or legal ability to over-ride or check the power of the President. I've only stated a federal judge doesn't have the Constitutional authority to dictate to, undermine or hamper the President of the United States in matters involving our National Defense. Actually, you had to proove to me that some mid level federal judge had the Constitutional authority to check the Constitutional authority of the President of the United States. Zar, this may come as a surprise but we don't live in the Soviet Union.
I will leave it to Kiff to education you on these matters. As for living in the Soviet Union, if you want an executive branch that does whatever it wants overseas and domestically without oversight, then these here United States will become no better than the Soviet Union in time. But again, I don't expect you to understand.

Quote Originally Posted by K-I-A 67 View Post
Well, despite all the blunders, hurdles and mistakes, I happen to believe we are slowly but surely prevailing with our military efforts in Iraq. I don't see the need to commit more troops or increase our present financial commitment.
Unless we have better control of the borders, and can much, much more adequately protect the oil and power infrastructures, it's all for nought. How do you "succeed" in a country where contraband and foreign fighters and agents are pouring in? . . . where there is chronically less oil revenue than under Saddam? . . . where there is only a few hours of electricity a day for years?

And the adminstration's claims of "progress" are overstated, to say the least (especially if you get information outside of the American media).

Quote Originally Posted by K-I-A 67 View Post
Personally, I really don't care about the successfulness of the so-called neo-con Americanization social project that's currently going on within Iraq as well.
I can see why you and Sujatha get along.
Americans have had enough of glitz and roar . . Foreboding has deepened, and spiritual currents have darkened . . .
THE FOURTH TURNING IS AT HAND.
See T4T, p. 253.







Post#518 at 11-20-2007 01:52 AM by Bob Butler 54 [at Cove Hold, Carver, MA joined Jul 2001 #posts 6,431]
---
11-20-2007, 01:52 AM #518
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Cove Hold, Carver, MA
Posts
6,431

Peacekeeping?

From the international Herald Tribune, In Basra, violence is a tenth of what it was before British pullback, general says. For discussion purposes.

BAGHDAD: Attacks against British and Iraqi forces have plunged by 90 percent in southern Iraq since London withdrew its troops from the main city of Basra, the commander of British forces there said Thursday.

The presence of British forces in downtown Basra, Iraq's second-largest city, was the single largest instigator of violence, Maj. Gen. Graham Binns told reporters Thursday on a visit to Baghdad's Green Zone.

"We thought, 'If 90 percent of the violence is directed at us, what would happen if we stepped back?'" Binns said.

Britain's 5,000 troops moved out of a former Saddam Hussein palace at Basra's heart in early September, setting up a garrison at an airport on the city's edge. Since that pullback, there's been a "remarkable and dramatic drop in attacks," Binns said.

"The motivation for attacking us was gone, because we're no longer patrolling the streets," he said.
Now, Basra is in a largely Shiite area. There would be very little ethnic cleansing violence, which has been more common up north. Up north there has also been a cut in the violence, but that too may not be due to foreign troops. Foreign troops have never been able to prevent the kidnap and murder scenarios that intimidate whichever sect is the local minority into heading for Jordan, Syria, refugee camps or areas where there sect is majority.

Still, it is looking like the ethnic cleansing is fairly complete. Most neighborhoods are now ethnically pure. Thus, ethnic violence is going down.

So, the question is, if the ethnic violence is nearing completion, can the attacks on foreigners be slowed by moving the foreigners out?

This would be a radical shift in tactics. The common wisdom being pushed by the Administration is that more troops stationed among the people created the lower levels of violence. I'm just not sure whether that common wisdom is right. The Administration and main stream media predicted that the British withdrawal would result in shiite on shiite civil war, as the pro local and pro Iranian factions went at each other. Apparently, not true.

Just another piece that suggests we are stepping into another Friedman Unit. The public debate on what is wrong in Iraq and how to fix it might properly move beyond 'Is The Surge Working."







Post#519 at 11-20-2007 03:23 PM by Child of Socrates [at Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort joined Sep 2001 #posts 14,092]
---
11-20-2007, 03:23 PM #519
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort
Posts
14,092

Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
I heard Thomas Ricks on the radio this morning. He was in Iraq earlier this month and reported that the level of violence is down and security is improved since the last time he was there. However, there is a lot of concern that the Iraqi government is basically twiddling its thumbs and doing little or nothing to figure out how Sunnis and Shiites are going to get along in the new regime.







Post#520 at 11-20-2007 03:28 PM by K-I-A 67 [at joined Jan 2005 #posts 3,010]
---
11-20-2007, 03:28 PM #520
Join Date
Jan 2005
Posts
3,010

Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
That was not my point. Almost everyone thought some kind of WMD was going to be found. Nice strawman. I have shown that the Bush Administration said that the threat from Iraq was "imminent", or "immediate", or some permutation of extra special. They were insisting that there was a direct connection between Hussein and Al Qaeda and that WMD could be coming our way at any moment. They knew at the time that the data did not support that conclusion; at the very least they were caught in hysteria at the time -- but they still stand by their conclusion even now, which is lying.

I have supplied links and quotes upthread. See for yourself.
The "imminent" threat was clearly defined as Iraq's or Saddams possession of and ability to manufacture WMD's. The facts were he had the ability and infrastruture to manufacture WMD's. The speculation was that he still possessed WMD's. The point you made about lies and imminent threat centered on the point WMD's existed and known capabilities to manufacture WMD's.

Are you saying or projecting that you don't/didn't view Saddam as being the type who would have indirectly supported Osama's war against us? I've seen no evidence that prooves or clearly shows Saddam was morally or ethically above the realm of all possibilities to actively, via covert or under the table type means, take part in or play an indirect yet accomdating, supportive or feeding type role in Osama's terrorist campaign against the United States.

Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
I said nothing about achieving any "level" of evolution. You criticized me for changing my mind and my worldview. I was pointing out that changing opinions based on new information and/or new perceptions is evolutionary. You still seem to have trouble comprehending that concept. I don't know what you're like in "real life" and from what I have experienced here I don't care to know.
You're the one who mentioned evolution in a context that also transmitted personal maturity that promoted the idea that you were somehow now higher than me on the maturity scale. Zar, you can attempt or try to wiggle, weasle, manipulate, spin, lie, deceive or deny your way out of perceived trouble or hole created with your mouth or actions.



Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
I will leave it to Kiff to education you on these matters. As for living in the Soviet Union, if you want an executive branch that does whatever it wants overseas and domestically without oversight, then these here United States will become no better than the Soviet Union in time. But again, I don't expect you to understand.
Well Kiff, above all, should be smart enough based simply on her wriiten language to figure out when a person or poster is well versed and educated in the basics. Kiff doesn't even appear to know that a federal judge is mid level employee of the Legislative Branch and not a member of the Supeme Court who alone wouldn't even have the Constitutional authority or power to over-ride the authority or Constitutional powers of the President of the United States. The funny thing, you and Kiff are both supporting the formation of a centralized power form of government by advocating more power to Legislative branch and reducing the powers of the Executive and Judicial branches.

Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
Unless we have better control of the borders, and can much, much more adequately protect the oil and power infrastructures, it's all for nought. How do you "succeed" in a country where contraband and foreign fighters and agents are pouring in? . . . where there is chronically less oil revenue than under Saddam? . . . where there is only a few hours of electricity a day for years?
We isn't the right word to apply to the situation or issues within Iraq. They is the right word to apply to the situation and issues in Iraq. We simply created an opportunity. Now, they have to be willing to act upon, step up and assume control of the opportunity that we (Americans) have created for them (Iraqi's).

Zar, the fact of the matter is that we entered Iraq with a relatively small expeditionary/experimental sized force vs a large occupation, establish total social command and control size of force. Are you the type who jumps into a world of unknown's or do you enter with cautious conservative type restraint with the idea that we might not be able to stay long term?
Last edited by K-I-A 67; 11-20-2007 at 03:34 PM.







Post#521 at 11-20-2007 04:16 PM by Child of Socrates [at Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort joined Sep 2001 #posts 14,092]
---
11-20-2007, 04:16 PM #521
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort
Posts
14,092

Quote Originally Posted by K-I-A 67 View Post
Kiff doesn't even appear to know that a federal judge is mid level employee of the Legislative Branch and not a member of the Supeme Court who alone wouldn't even have the Constitutional authority or power to over-ride the authority or Constitutional powers of the President of the United States.
How far the "constitutional powers" of the President extend is most certainly a matter that falls under the jurisdiction of the courts. Richard Nixon found that out the hard way.

The funny thing, you and Kiff are both supporting the formation of a centralized power form of government by advocating more power to Legislative branch and reducing the powers of the Executive and Judicial branches.
How can power be centralized and diffused at the same time?

In any case, I am not advocating what you suggest. It may be helpful for you to think that way, but all it shows me is that you don't have a clue. The Founders did not want a unitary executive, and that's why they set up the system of checks and balances.







Post#522 at 11-20-2007 04:59 PM by Marx & Lennon [at '47 cohort still lost in Falwelland joined Sep 2001 #posts 16,709]
---
11-20-2007, 04:59 PM #522
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
'47 cohort still lost in Falwelland
Posts
16,709

I've been leaving this alone, but no more ...
Quote Originally Posted by K-I-A 67 View Post
The "imminent" threat was clearly defined as Iraq's or Saddam's possession of and ability to manufacture WMD's. The facts were he had the ability and infrastructure to manufacture WMD's. The speculation was that he still possessed WMD's. The point you made about lies and imminent threat centered on the point WMD's existed and known capabilities to manufacture WMD's.
You seem to misunderstand the concept of 'fact'. Nothing you list here qualifies as fact, since it all has been shown to be not true. The correct appellation for that kind of argument is speculation. So, to recap, we invaded a sovereign nation based on speculation - all of which proved false.

Quote Originally Posted by K-I-A
... Are you saying or projecting that you don't/didn't view Saddam as being the type who would have indirectly supported Osama's war against us? I've seen no evidence that proves or clearly shows Saddam was morally or ethically above the realm of all possibilities to actively, via covert or under the table type means, take part in or play an indirect yet accommodating, supportive or feeding type role in Osama's terrorist campaign against the United States.
Saddam was not about to share power with anyone. He had all potential opponents killed, whenever one was stupid enough to make that opinion known. Why would you or anyone think that Osama bin Laden would be due any different treatment.?

Quote Originally Posted by K-I-A
... Well Kiff, above all, should be smart enough based simply on her written language to figure out when a person or poster is well versed and educated in the basics. Kiff doesn't even appear to know that a federal judge is mid level employee of the Legislative Branch and not a member of the Supreme Court who alone wouldn't even have the Constitutional authority or power to over-ride the authority or Constitutional powers of the President of the United States. The funny thing, you and Kiff are both supporting the formation of a centralized power form of government by advocating more power to Legislative branch and reducing the powers of the Executive and Judicial branches.
Uh, Federal judges are all members of the Judicial, not the Legislative Branch of our government. The fact that you think they are is a bit disturbing, to be perfectly frank.

FWIW, US District Court judges make rulings in cases that are then appealed to the Circuit Court in their respective circuits. Small panels of Circuit Court judges review those cases, and may decide to review the case as seated, or refer it to a panel of the whole. After that ruling, an appeal to the SCOTUS can be made ... and not before.

Quote Originally Posted by K-I-A
... We isn't the right word to apply to the situation or issues within Iraq. They is the right word to apply to the situation and issues in Iraq. We simply created an opportunity. Now, they have to be willing to act upon, step up and assume control of the opportunity that we (Americans) have created for them (Iraqi's).
In a convoluted way, that's true, though the issue of why we created an opportunity for them in the first place is still germane. Whether it was by lie or by error or by stupidity, we were sucked into a war we had no business entering and one that will cost us dearly. I want an apology, damn it! If I had been asked to go there several times, like many have, I'd want that apology to be public, humiliating and in person, with the entire cast in attendance: Bush, Cheney, Rice, Powell, Rumsfeld, Franks and Bremer.

Quote Originally Posted by K-I-A
... Zar, the fact of the matter is that we entered Iraq with a relatively small expeditionary/experimental sized force vs a large occupation, establish total social command and control size of force. Are you the type who jumps into a world of unknowns or do you enter with cautious conservative type restraint with the idea that we might not be able to stay long term?
H-m-m-m. Your idea of a small force and mine are rather different. A BCT or two might be small in this context, but that's less than 10,000 troops. We went in with 300,000. How, by any stretch of the imagination, is that 'small'?

BTW, I corrected your spelling along with mine. I hope you don't mind.
Last edited by Marx & Lennon; 11-20-2007 at 05:04 PM.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.







Post#523 at 11-20-2007 05:15 PM by K-I-A 67 [at joined Jan 2005 #posts 3,010]
---
11-20-2007, 05:15 PM #523
Join Date
Jan 2005
Posts
3,010

Quote Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon View Post
If you don't care about any possible positive outcomes, then why do you support these wars? Are you a war fan?
In my opinion, a positive outcome doesn't have to include the complete formation of two American proto-type states currently known as Iraq and Aphganistan.







Post#524 at 11-20-2007 05:38 PM by The Wonkette [at Arlington, VA 1956 joined Jul 2002 #posts 9,209]
---
11-20-2007, 05:38 PM #524
Join Date
Jul 2002
Location
Arlington, VA 1956
Posts
9,209

Saddam Hussein did have nerve gas

The claim that Saddam had WMD was bolstered by the documented fact that he used nerve gas against the Kurds in the 80s. They must have been destroyed in 91 however, since they certainly weren't found in 03. Either that, or the insurgents got to them before we could.

Now, the Bomb, which is what most Americans were scared of, is another story.
I want people to know that peace is possible even in this stupid day and age. Prem Rawat, June 8, 2008







Post#525 at 11-20-2007 05:41 PM by Marx & Lennon [at '47 cohort still lost in Falwelland joined Sep 2001 #posts 16,709]
---
11-20-2007, 05:41 PM #525
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
'47 cohort still lost in Falwelland
Posts
16,709

Quote Originally Posted by K-I-A 67 View Post
Quote Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon View Post
If you don't care about any possible positive outcomes, then why do you support these wars? Are you a war fan?
In my opinion, a positive outcome doesn't have to include the complete formation of two American proto-type states currently known as Iraq and Aphganistan.
H-m-m-m. OK. What is acceptable then? We've spent a lot of blood and treasure, but I can't see any outcome that's markedly different than what we went in to replace. What's your take?
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.
-----------------------------------------