Use of Uniformed Military as Political Props?

Bi, it is obvious that you are still a bad boy. You would never make at the State Department.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Bi, it is obvious that you are still a bad boy. You would never make at the State Department.

what a disapointment.... :wink:

0 Replies

So far, it seems to me that everyone has missed the point in focusing on the President rather than the Democratically controlled Congress. Bush's speech is a plea for the Congress to stop playing political games by denying funding to our troops in combat as a means of politically attacking the Administration.

0 Replies

bush is having a hissy because he's not getting everything he wants everytime he wants it for a change.... he doesn't give a rats ass about a god dam thing but waving his pecker and acting tough.....

0 Replies

Asherman wrote:

So far, it seems to me that everyone has missed the point in focusing on the President rather than the Democratically controlled Congress. Bush's speech is a plea for the Congress to stop playing political games by denying funding to our troops in combat as a means of politically attacking the Administration.

Political games? Right.

You discount principled opposition to an unprincipled war with a wave of your Authoritarian hand. Typical response of you, Ash.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Why are you so certain that your vision of what is principled and unprincipled is universal? To me the political theatrics of the left and the Democratic Party during a time when our nation is under attack from a foe determined upon our defeat IS unprincipled. These political games directed at the President and his administration can easily result in U.S. casualties and loss of combat effectiveness during a very sensitive period. Making a show of opposition to the Administration may make the left happy, but the people who stand most to gain are the terrorists killing our troops.

The Democrats are indulging in public theater, knowing that the President can not abandon his duties and responsibilities as Commander-in-Chief. They expect a Presidential Veto, and know that they can't overcome it. That will in turn deny out troops the funding needed, until a clean and unconditioned funding for the troops is passed. They will then blame the President for the problems, rather than taking responsibility for their own partisanship. Very "un-principled" political gamesmanship by the Democratic Party.

No, not "authoritarian hand", but the considered conclusion of one who places the Constitution and well-bing of his country above shrill name calling, slanders and partisan attacks on our government leaders.

0 Replies

Funny, how you uphold the constitution on one hand, yet support those who do everything they possibly can to weaken and get around the parts of it that they don't agree with. It really shows how hollow your arguments are, Ash.

Quote:

Party during a time when our nation is under attack from a foe determined upon our defeat IS unprincipled

Perhaps you've been behind the times, but we are the ones doing the attacking in Iraq. Iraq didn't attack America. Your analogy fails.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

What is and is not Constitutional is and has always been a matter of political contention. The ultimate arbiter is the Supreme Court. The government adopts a law or policy that it believes necessary to meet circumstances. The opposition party may disagree and challenge the law/policy through the courts, and the Supreme Court, following its procedures, makes a ruling. Of course, we as individuals will favor our own interpretation but the Constitution is what the Court says it is; and that is the way the Constitution is supposed to work.

Our troops aren't currently attacking Iraq, or its people. They are there trying to prevent radical Islamic terrorist from co-opting Iraq's democratically elected government; a government that certainly is struggling and needs all the support it can get. The people attacking Iraq and its people are terrorists who murder more innocent, non-combative Iraqi's in a day that were harmed by the brief war that Saddam provoked and lost. The people our troops are facing today in Iraq are the aggressors, and our troops serve Democracy and our Nation's best interests by trying to root out the terrorists.

0 Replies

Look, you don't need to post over and over again that you've swallowed the Koolaid completely, Ash - we all know this already.

The fact that you think our troops are 'serving democracy' by the forced overthrow of a sovereign nation shows how removed from reality you are. We are serving one thing and one thing only, and that's the interests of the Neocons and fools who blindly support them.

To say that Saddam 'provoked then lost' the Iraq war is the height of idiocy. I can't believe you'd make such a statement and expect to be taken seriously on a non-Republican website.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Look, you don't need to post over and over again that you've swallowed the Koolaid completely, Cyclops - we all know this already.

Overthrowing Saddam's Ba'athist regime and fostering a freely elected Iraqi government is indeed serving Democracy, and attempting to improve the lot of an oppressed people. Saddam violated both the spirit and letter of his agreement that resulted in the Gulf War cease fire. He then murdered thousands who sought to replace him with a democratic government. He conspired with corrupt UN, French and Russian officials to sell prohibited oil for his own benefit. He actively and openly supported international terrorism by his words and by making money available to terrorists. He ordered the assassination of an American President. He fired on Allied aircraft in non-fly zones where they were authorized to be. He frustrated and did everything he could to prevent the sort of open weapons inspections he agreed to. He banished the inspectors when they objected to being led around by the nose. He was given an ultimatum to change his ways, and he rejected it. There was a long run-up to renewal of the Gulf War, but Saddam never believed that the U.S. would act on its threat. Bad mistake on his part, and the War was over quickly and with minimal casualties and destruction.

I can't believe (actually I can knowing this lot) that anyone really believes in all those conspiracy ideas about how the GOP and conservatives are a blood-thirsty bunch of greedy neocons and fools. Why should any of us beleive that the Left, Democratic partisans and the RIM are innocent almost saintly models of perfection pitted against the evil United States.

0 Replies

Quote:

Overthrowing Saddam's Ba'athist regime and fostering a freely elected Iraqi government is indeed serving Democracy

No, it isn't. Democracy doesn't make choices for others how they run their countries, sorry. It doesn't dictate to other people the 'way it is going to be.' Democracy calls for them to make their own choices. There is none of that going on in Iraq at the moment (and they haven't held regular elections in a long, long time, so don't give me that crap either).

Quote:

I can't believe (actually I can knowing this lot) that anyone really believes in all those conspiracy ideas about how the GOP and conservatives are a blood-thirsty bunch of greedy neocons and fools.

Except for those such as yourself who willingly carry water for them,

I think the vast majority of Conservatives and members of the GOP have been used by the Neocons. There certainly isn't much Conservatism, social or fiscal, going on; and a whole lot of Authoritarianism and Nation Building, things that Conservatives are traditionally against, has been going on. In fact, the Republican party used to be for less government intrusion into people's lives; now, the leaders argue the opposite. The positions on many issues have changed amongst the Republicans now that Bush is in office. Can't you see this?

Quote:

Why should any of us beleive that the Left, Democratic partisans and the RIM are innocent almost saintly models of perfection pitted against the evil United States.

I don't know what the RIM is, but I don't know why anyone would believe what you said at all. Noone has ever presented the Dems this way; you are Appealing to Extremes, which is a logical fallacy.

You should keep in mind the relative nature of our positions; for years, those who believe as you do and carried water for the administration were seen as 'right,' even though your (and their) predictions on many issues turned out to be, in fact, wrong. And the trend is continuing. It must stick in your craw, the fact that the war almost certainly will be ended before the Bush crew would wish, that the Executive power struggle will end with the Congress winning, that those who you have looked to as leaders are being disgraced one by one. I'm not surprised that there is angst on your side; but I am pleased.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Ash, you Bushites really present a moving target. We were previously told, erroneously, that we had to invade because of Saddam's WMD. You now say it was because he violated agreements and was rough on his people.

BTW, where in the constitution does it say that we must continue endlessly in a losing war into which we were misled? The Dem bill did not withhold monies from the troops, but set a timeline within which our troops must be withdrawn.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Ash, you Bushites really present a moving target. We were previously told, erroneously, that we had to invade because of Saddam's WMD. You now say it was because he violated agreements and was rough on his people.

BTW, where in the constitution does it say that we must continue endlessly in a losing war into which we were misled? The Dem bill did not withhold monies from the troops, but set a timeline within which our troops must be withdrawn.

You are of course correct. Congress is under no compunction to fund a pointless, expensive, and poorly-managed war in perpetuity. Republicans, such as our Ash here, portray this as Congress betraying the American cause. But they aren't, at all. They are doing their job, acting as both a brake and an oversight body to the administration. Naturally those who would wish to see never-ending war and unlimited executive power will scream 'partisanship!' over and over; but they will be ignored, and why not ignore them?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Quote:

I can't believe (actually I can knowing this lot) that anyone really believes in all those conspiracy ideas about how the GOP and conservatives are a blood-thirsty bunch of greedy neocons and fools.

Ignoring the fact that you couldn't make it one full sentence without contradicting yourself--i personally don't believe that all conservatives and members of the Republican Party are a bunch of bloodthirsty, greedy neo-cons and fools (that's a redundancy, there)--just the ones appointed by the Clown in Chief in the Oval Office.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

BTW, where in the constitution does it say that we must continue endlessly in a losing war into which we were misled? The Dem bill did not withhold monies from the troops, but set a timeline within which our troops must be withdrawn.

In fact, the Constitution prohibits the open-ended funding of any military operations.

Article One, Section 8, reads, in part:

(Congress shall have the power:) To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

Seems like the founders intended military operations to be reviewed at least once in every term.

0 Replies

"Democracy doesn't make choices for others how they run their countries, sorry. It doesn't dictate to other people the 'way it is going to be.' Democracy calls for them to make their own choices."

So, since Germans elected Hitler we should have honored their choice. The people of the Soviet Union and China "chose" Communism, so the Cold War was an example of American Imperial aggression. The American President who led us into those conflicts were conspirators pursuing their own mad dreams of conquest and economic dominance. Let's see that would be six Democrats (FDR, Truman, JFK, LBJ, Carter, and Clinton), and six Rebublicans (Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and the two Bush boys). Are we to believe that all of the Democratic administrations were without fault or error, while all the Republican administrations are evil, greedy, warmongering crazies; is that right?

The free Iraqi elections were a first for that unhappy nation, and, if left in peace by the Radical Islamic Movement (RIM), the country would today probably be well on its way to self-sufficiency. Because of the constant terrorist operations carried out against the elected Iraqi government it's a wonder they've done as well as they have.

I agree that most conservative are appalled at the skyrocketing of the National Debt, but recognize that the security of the nation and support of our military fighting terrorist organizations in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere is a vital necessity. On the other hand, the Democrats who earlier complained about the cost of national security now would like to expand spending for social projects while cutting funds to the military. The Constitution specifically tasks the President as the Commander0in-Chief of the U.S. military, not the Congress, and the current example is a good reason for that wise choice. During times of war and national crisis policies and restrictions unthinkable in "normal" times become essential ... even if the Party out of power sincerely disagrees. Is there potential for a less free and open society in the long-term future? Yes, but so was there during all of our times of national emergency and war.

The only "angst" I feel is mixed with disappointment that some Americans find it so easy to side with those who are waging active, if illegal, war against us and all the values of Western Civilization.

0 Replies

Asherman wrote:

So, since Germans elected Hitler we should have honored their choice.

Hitler was never elected, he ran against Hindenberg, and lost--he polled 35% of the vote. He used parliamentary methods to force Hindenberg to appoint him Chancellor, and then he outlawed left-wing parties. Even then, the Nazis only polled 45% of the vote. He needed a coalition of the Conservatives and the Catholic Party to ram the Enabling Act through the Reichstag, which allowed him to legislate without further reference to the Reichstag.

Say, there's and idea--the Shrub could outlaw "libruls," and the pass an act to legislate without reference to Congress. Oh, wait, he already does that--signing statements.

(I believe Asherman gets the honors for invoking Godwin's Law in this thread.)

0 Replies

Quote:

The only "angst" I feel is mixed with disappointment that some Americans find it so easy to side with those who are waging active, if illegal, war against us and all the values of Western Civilization.

Sure, they are called Republicans.

The terrorists want us to have less freedoms (according to Bush and those such as yourself) so what do the Republicans suggest we do? Cut down on our freedoms.

Look, this is a pointless conversation. I'm not interested in hearing your arguments recycled ad infinitum as to why you support a group who is diametrically opposed to the concepts you claim to support, or hearing your idiotic analogies -

Quote:

So, since Germans elected Hitler we should have honored their choice.

We DID honor their choice, right up until they started sacking other nations. And we even honored it after that, up until they started attacking the USA. Hell, some of our most prominent families (say, such as the Bush family) had to be made to stop honoring their choice.

Quote:

The people of the Soviet Union and China "chose" Communism, so the Cold War was an example of American Imperial aggression.

Last time I checked, we didn't attack either the Soviet Union nor China. So yes, we did Honor their choice of government. The cold war was a war of ideology, not of American Imperialism. You are once again forced to resort to Appealing to Extremes; you have zero argument without it.

If you can't do better than this tripe, don't bother responding. K?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Ash, you set up a straw man. No one said that the Dems were without fault or error relative to wars.

You point to the wonderful democracy that we brought to Iraq. I think the other countries in the Middle East observe that, if what Iraq is now is democracy, we don't want any part of it.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Hitler was never elected, he ran against Hindenberg, and lost--he polled 35% of the vote. He used parliamentary methods to force Hindenberg to appoint him Chancellor, and then he outlawed left-wing parties.

That's a bit like saying "Churchill was never elected, he never even ran for king against George VI. He used parliamentary methods to force George VI to appoint him prime minister ..." and this is where the analogy ends. Under the Weimar constitution, the German chancellor had a similar role as a prime minister. He was stronger than the prime minister of France because the German president was weaker than the French president. On the other hand, the chancellor was weaker than the prime minister of England because the German president was stronger than the English king. Anyway, whenever Germans voted for the NSDAP in federal elections, they knew full well they were voting for a chancellor Hitler. That makes it misleading to say Hitler was never elected.

Asherman wrote:

So, since Germans elected Hitler we should have honored their choice.

You should have, and you did. On the other hand, the Polish, French, English, and a dozen other nationalities hadn't elected for Hitler to attack and occupy them. And even if they had, the government of Germany had formally declared war on the US before the US reconquered any German-occupied territories. The US entered World War II for a lot of reasons, but ideological aversion against Fascists was not among them. Roosevelt never even intervened with Franco ruling Spain after shooting its republic to pieces -- and neither did any of Roosevelt's successors.

0 Replies

Use of Uniformed Military as Political Props?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know