Leaving Iraq, Honorably

Damocles said:
Remember, I was not "for" the war... Notice how I make it clear that it doesn't compare to either side of this war? No, you just like to make it seem like I haven't thought it all the way through.

If we were still in battle with Saddam's forces I would agree, this "war" lasted longer than WWII, however we are not. Had we defeated Hitler's forces without defeating the will of the German people, as we did in Iraq, we might have exactly the same long occupation battle, but we didn't. The two just don't compare well at all. This "war" and then occupation is nothing at all like WWII.
Click to expand...


Yes, but you voted in such a way that benefited the incumbent!
 
Jarod said:
I think that Bush effectivly used people who belived in his social agenda to force some support for his forign agenda, while the two did not really have a lot to do with eachother.

That is why I like the directly elected "Secretary of State" with some of the presidental powers taken from the president and given to the SOS.
Click to expand...

I think you could get more DIRECT representation that way!
 
Jarod said:
I think that Bush effectivly used people who belived in his social agenda to force some support for his forign agenda, while the two did not really have a lot to do with eachother.

That is why I like the directly elected "Secretary of State" with some of the presidental powers taken from the president and given to the SOS.
Click to expand...

It would also demish the effect when you get a WHACKO in office.
 
Jarod said:
I think that Bush effectivly used people who belived in his social agenda to force some support for his forign agenda, while the two did not really have a lot to do with eachother.

That is why I like the directly elected "Secretary of State" with some of the presidental powers taken from the president and given to the SOS.
Click to expand...
This would take an Amendment... I see nobody at all proposing such a change. I cannot see either party hamstringing the Presidency in such a way, most of them want it, they'll not want to take a portion of their own power away...
 
Damocles said:
This would take an Amendment... I see nobody at all proposing such a change. I cannot see either party hamstringing the Presidency in such a way, most of them want it, they'll not want to take a portion of their own power away...
Click to expand...

Ahh you forget the clowntoon years.....
 
Damocles said:
This would take an Amendment... I see nobody at all proposing such a change. I cannot see either party hamstringing the Presidency in such a way, most of them want it, they'll not want to take a portion of their own power away...
Click to expand...

I agree it would be hard to accomplish such a thing, that does not mean it would not better for our government.
 
Damocles said:
This would take an Amendment... I see nobody at all proposing such a change. I cannot see either party hamstringing the Presidency in such a way, most of them want it, they'll not want to take a portion of their own power away...
Click to expand...

I am proposing it!
 
Damocles said:
This would take an Amendment... I see nobody at all proposing such a change. I cannot see either party hamstringing the Presidency in such a way, most of them want it, they'll not want to take a portion of their own power away...
Click to expand...

As long as we are going to play the what if game...

Maybe some people would like to support this because they know they will never get elected President, but think they may have a chance at SOS...

General Wes. Clark for example.
 
Damocles said:
Are you a lobbyist or a Congressional aide or somebody who might actually propose legislation to a person who can bring it to the floor?
Click to expand...




No, but I am somebody.....

"I see nobody at all proposing such a change."
 
btw I would like to see all bills written by lobbyists banned. The congressmen should have to write their own bills to submit. I voted for no lobbyists.
 
uscitizen said:
btw I would like to see all bills written by lobbyists banned. The congressmen should have to write their own bills to submit. I voted for no lobbyists.
Click to expand...
Congressmen have never written their own bills, at least not for a long time. They have aids and lawyers they hire for that. To tell the truth I can see no difference so long as they actually support the law rather than propose it to make a contributor happy...
 
Heck I have seen congressmen submit a bill and not even know what is in it.
But what the heck the rental fees were paid.
 
Stop Gerrymandering!

Amend the constitution to say that the shape of congressional districts must be set by a mathicamatical formula that does not consider political, racial or ethnic makeup of the population.
 
bob said:
i say assumtion simply because i feel there is no way too know for sure if they were there or not... atleast in the amount of time that we came to the conclusion.

an assumtion because of a lack of evidence for either position...
Click to expand...
More obfuscation. There is a great deal of evidence in support of the position that al Qaeda had little or no presence in Iraq prior to our invasion. There is, on the other hand, almost no evidence at all that they did have such a presence. One could conclude that the evidence is inconclusive or one could conclude that al Qaeda had little presence in Iraq prior to the invasion. Neither conclusion would be an assumption, however.

Now, if one were to assume that al Qaeda was an important force in Iraq prior to March of 2003, then one might be more inclined to the former conclusion. That would be an instance of the Fallacy of Initial Predication, however and, hence, crap.
 
Damocles said:
Once again, you can pretend to find disagreement in the fact that we both agree we should leave without leaving "under cover of darkness" or you can assume that because I think that leaving smartly is better than leaving "under the cover of darkness" and handing them a recruitment tool is "foolish" all because I am of a different political party.... It's your choice. Each time you repeat this nonsensical, "You have pretty darned close to the same plan, but you are "wrong" because you are of the same party as Bush" it becomes more apparent you cannot see past ideology to even get an inkling of my actual position.
Click to expand...


I only disagree with your assertion that our leaving will necessarily cause an increase in AQ recruitment. I think we should get out as quickly as we possibly can and I believe that if we do so promptly and publicize for all the arab world to see that we are leaving because our mission is finished and because we now realize that our presence is causing more harm than good and that we want Iraqis to solve their problems for themselves...if we do that, AQ recruiting will suffer as a result regardless of what victorious spin AQ places on our departure. I think the arab street will generally look favorably on us and on our departure in that instance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top