A seeming contradiction

Forums: Politics, Iraq
Email this Topic • Print this Page

According to the Democrats, isn't the war in Iraq a pointless guagmire from which we should extracate ourselves asap? The language of this amendment contradicts that:

Quote:

DEMOCRATS OPPOSE AMNESTY FOR IRAQIS WHO KILL AMERICAN SOLDIERS

Thursday, June 15, 2006

Washington, DC - Senate Democrats offered the following amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill to reject the Iraqi government's attempt to offer amnesty to those Iraqis who have attacked U.S. Armed Forces:

Sense of the Senate:

(1) The Iraqi government should not grant amnesty to persons who have attacked, killed, or wounded members of the U.S. Armed Forces serving heroically in Iraq to provide all Iraqis a better future.

(2) President Bush should immediately notify the government of Iraq that the United States government opposes granting amnesty in the strongest possible terms.

http://democrats.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=257100&

Maybe they aren't all on the same page.

Anyway, if we don't give them amnesty, I guess we have to kill them.......talk about enlightened rules of engagement! Hoorah!

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 2 • Views: 1,586 • Replies: 23

No top replies

Is the "we" you refer to the Iraqi government?

I'm confused. Am I missing something?

It does seem a little odd that our Congress would be voting on what or what not the Iraqi government can and cannot do.

0 Replies

I'm with boomerang.

If I had to guess, I'd say they're sticking it in there in order to trot it out come election time. As all politicians like to do.

0 Replies

Re: A seeming contradiction

paull wrote:

(1) The Iraqi government should not grant amnesty to persons who have attacked, killed, or wounded members of the U.S. Armed Forces serving heroically in Iraq to provide all Iraqis a better future.

it certainly appears inconsistent to criticize the Iraq War on the one hand, and claim that our soldiers serve to provide all Iraqis a better future, but i guess politics takes precedence over consistency. on the one hand, the dems are critical of the the war, but they don't want to give the impression that they don't "support our troops," which would be political suicide along the lines of Ann Coulter criticizing 911 widows. (this is off-topic, but she thinks they're human shields. the right has its human shields--literally, as well as metaphorically, in our troops)

0 Replies

Huh? I can't see a contradiction between opposing the our presence in Iraq, and opposing amnesty at the same time.

0 Replies

Roger is exactly correct in this. It is certainly likely that the Dems are politically motivated in this; nevertheless, one can opposed military action while retaining the highest regard for our troops, and wishing them to be safe as much as is possible. I see no inconsistency here.

Quite apart from that, this is just another political thread which lumps all Democrats together, claiming they are ideological robots; and which lumps all "liberals" together, claiming they are ideological robots. That is just a much horsie poop as attempting to suggest that all Republicans think identically, and that all conservatives think identically.

The purpose of this thread appears to be provocation.

0 Replies

roger wrote:

Huh? I can't see a contradiction between opposing the our presence in Iraq, and opposing amnesty at the same time.

well, there is an inconsistency if a stated reason for opposing our miltary presence in Iraq is the hardship it has created for the Iraqi people. that's not consistent with the assertion that our troops are securing a better future for all Iraqis. one could argue that the hardship is a necessary evil to secure that better future, but then one might be obliged to support our continuing military presence in that case. my personal view is that this amendment is primarily an exercise in rhetoric by both parties.

0 Replies

boomerang wrote:

Is the "we" you refer to the Iraqi government?

I'm confused. Am I missing something?

It does seem a little odd that our Congress would be voting on what or what not the Iraqi government can and cannot do.

Why should this be confusing. Just as Ronald Reagan, in a 1980 campaign debate, famously declared "I paid for this microphone!" the administration can justifiably say "we paid for this government!" It is not surprising that congress should want to direct the domestic policy of what is, in all truth, an American satrapy, a vassal state bought and paid for with American dollars.

Colin Powell had it right: he told Bush before the war "you break it, you bought it." His mistake was in thinking that he was issuing a warning rather than offering an opportunity.

0 Replies

joe

I want to marry you and have your baby.

0 Replies

Well now I've gone from confused to having a frikken headache.

I think paull should get his caboose back in here and explain his word choice because I have a feeling that he would argue with your perfectly logical interpretation, joe.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

boomerang wrote:
Is the "we" you refer to the Iraqi government?

I'm confused. Am I missing something?

It does seem a little odd that our Congress would be voting on what or what not the Iraqi government can and cannot do.

Why should this be confusing. Just as...It is not surprising that congress should want to direct the domestic policy of what is, in all truth, an American satrapy, a vassal state bought and paid for with American dollars.

Colin Powell had it right: he told Bush before the war "you break it, you bought it." His mistake was in thinking that he was issuing a warning rather than offering an opportunity.

I'm rather curious how we're controlling the outcome of Irai elections. This is simply a "sense of the Senate" resolution.

0 Replies

I must not have explained well enough in the original post, or some of you are being deliberately obtuse. The phrase
"U.S. Armed Forces serving heroically in Iraq to provide all Iraqis a better future." implies, to me, a native English speaker, that it is better for us to be there than not. Meanwhile, the previously stated position of the Congressional Democratic leadership runs something like this:

Quote:

Murtha, a former Marine who initially supported the war, announced two weeks ago that he no longer supported the conflict in Iraq and called for a rapid withdrawal of American troops from the region.

"He knows of what he speaks," Pelosi said of Murtha. "I believe the plan he has put forth makes America safer, our military stronger and Iraq more secure."

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Roll_Call_Pelosi_will_back_Murtha_1130.html

I noted that the Democrats might not all be on the same page. But I would hope that their leaders of the Senate and House might be.....wouldn't you?
Those entities might well be "lumped" together, it seems to me.

There isn't any doubt that this is "politics". Fortunately, it is also an idealogical crack big enough to drive a Ford Expediton through, and I hope the Republicans do. It reminds me of Kerry's prevarications, and I am sure many others will make that connection as well.

0 Replies

paull,

It implies no such thing. It says nothing about better to be there than not be there.

If you are in an accident and act heroically does that mean it is a good thing you were in an accident? I don't think so. Nor would any English speaker I know of.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

joe

I want to marry you and have your baby.

Well, I must admit that's a much better offer than the one I recently got to have an abortion in Northern Ireland. Thanks, blatham!

0 Replies

I don't think Lola's going to go for this, Mr. Mountie.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

I'm rather curious how we're controlling the outcome of Irai elections.

I see that you continue to maintain your unbroken string of posts in which you thoroughly and completely misinterpret the posts to which you respond. I congratulate you, Brandon, on your Ripkenesque consistency.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:
boomerang wrote:
Is the "we" you refer to the Iraqi government?

I'm confused. Am I missing something?

It does seem a little odd that our Congress would be voting on what or what not the Iraqi government can and cannot do.

Why should this be confusing. Just as...It is not surprising that congress should want to direct the domestic policy of what is, in all truth, an American satrapy, a vassal state bought and paid for with American dollars.

Colin Powell had it right: he told Bush before the war "you break it, you bought it." His mistake was in thinking that he was issuing a warning rather than offering an opportunity.

I'm rather curious how we're controlling the outcome of Irai elections. This is simply a "sense of the Senate" resolution.

joefromchicago wrote:

I see that you continue to maintain your unbroken string of posts in which you thoroughly and completely misinterpret the posts to which you respond. I congratulate you, Brandon, on your Ripkenesque consistency.

I congratulate you on your continuing inability to address the substance of a challenge to your logic, always preferring to attack the poster. This is, of course, the hallmark of people who are in the right.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

I congratulate you on your continuing inability to address the substance of a challenge to your logic, always preferring to attack the poster.

What challenge? You asked "how we're controlling the outcome of Iraqi elections," but nowhere in this thread has there been any mention of Iraqi elections. I'm not sure whose post you're challenging, but it's not mine and it's not here, so there's no point in responding to your irrelevant comments.

Brandon9000 wrote:

This is, of course, the hallmark of people who are in the right.

Thanks, I think I'm right too.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
I congratulate you on your continuing inability to address the substance of a challenge to your logic, always preferring to attack the poster.

What challenge? You asked "how we're controlling the outcome of Iraqi elections," but nowhere in this thread has there been any mention of Iraqi elections. I'm not sure whose post you're challenging, but it's not mine and it's not here, so there's no point in responding to your irrelevant comments.

Brandon9000 wrote:
This is, of course, the hallmark of people who are in the right.

Thanks, I think I'm right too.

And, of course, unless you actually use the very words I do, you didn't say it. Let me spell it out for you. You said that we owned the country and they were subordinate to us. How is this possible when they have free elections?

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

And, of course, unless you actually use the very words I do, you didn't say it.

I'll let you know when I have unlocked the hidden meaning of this cryptic message.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Let me spell it out for you. You said that we owned the country and they were subordinate to us. How is this possible when they have free elections?

Free elections mean nothing in a state that is occupied by a foreign army. If the Iraqi parliament voted today to expel the American troops, do you think that they would leave?

0 Replies

A seeming contradiction

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know