• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

The Big Question Democrats Are Ducking

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

CaptnKirk

Lifer
Jul 25, 2002
10,054
0
71
Then you're obviously NOT PAYING MUCH ATTENTION.

Murtha, who you dispise, offered a plan to retract over the horizon, hold US troops in secure positions as responders
and allow the Iraqi Army/Police to perform the job that they have 'alledgedly' been trained to do,
with quick response with air support whenever it was needed, and ground troop backup on demand.

Instead of allowing that bill to come to the floor for consideration and debate, the GOP's wrote a bait and switch bill that
basically said 'Lets retract everything now' and put it up for a vote by their enablers.
It was a poison bill and everyone knew it.
That's not legislation, that's thuggery - America deserves more than that.
This GOP Congeress has ZERO, ZILTCH, NADA, NOTHING as thier accomplishments for the country except Tax Cuts for the wealthy.

They have even gutted the Military, both in personell and equipment - and you're too partisan to recognize it.
Joe Galloway

Just a reminder of where you and the Army is at under the Bush War Policy . . .

(Paragraph 7)

Schoomaker, your Genera,l has said,"it would cost an additional $17 billion just to work through the huge backlog of broken and worn out Army tanks and Bradleys and Humvees at Army repair depots. Nearly 1,500 worn-out fighting vehicles are sitting at the Red River Army Depot in Texas, and 500 useless M1 tanks are at the Anniston Depot in Alabama."

Read the article and weep for the country.
 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,988
0
0
Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Murtha, who you dispise, offered a plan to retract over the horizon, hold US troops in secure positions as responders
and allow the Iraqi Army/Police to perform the job that they have 'alledgedly' been trained to do,
with quick response with air support whenever it was needed, and ground troop backup on demand.
BS. Murtha's just a tool in the liberal belt who comes out swinging when elections get close. He's chosen because of his past service to the country which some feel makes him invulnerable to any question of his motives.

His attacks on our troops were despicable and that's also why you haven't heard so much as a peep out of the guy for some time now.

Do you honestly expect anyone to support any "plan" a quack like Murtha would put forward? That'd be like asking John Kerry for our next move.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,991
2
0
There are a pile of alternate plans----but just no plan with single party concenus----sensable Republicans are divided---democrats are divided. And if we are going to exit Iraq safely.
With safely defined as not causing the whole mid-east to erupt in violence---we need a national bi-partisan plan that we can stick to over the course of many years. And probably will need international help also.

What we have with GWB is a busted plan---call it the Mr. Potato head plan for the lack of a better word---where we would go into Iraq---remove Saddam---and graft a new head on the Iraqi government---instead---the whole Iraqi government went---and GWB &co. had no planning in place to be a ---from the street up government. The rest is history---and GWB has failed to come up with a realistic alternate plan---even after nearly four years.---so don't be an idiot and say GWB has a plan---he had a fantasy--not a plan---and now has a failed plan because he does not have the intelligence to formulate A REALISTIC PLAN THAT WILL WORK.---and a plan he can sell to both national parties, the world, and the Iraqi people.

Nor do I see GOP enablers as being the problem---they are simply doing what enablers do in any organization---support the ideas of the chief---get a chief with new and betters ideas,
they will support that also---get a chief with worse ideas---they will go along with that also---but where do you find a bigger idiot than GWB?

But it may be a moot point on GOP enablers---in five weeks or so---the American people may just throw quite of a few of those rascals out of power.---and then the democrats will have to come up with a plan.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,916
172
106
Originally posted by: M00T
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: M00T
Look what I found... and 7 wholes pages of it.

I doubt ProfJohn or any of the other blowhards will read it though. They'll just keep saying "the Dems offer no solutions."

Pathetic.

EDIT:

Here's some more
5 ways to win back Iraq

How to win in Iraq

How to win in Iraq v2

So if anyone says "no solutions have been offered" one more time, then they are nothing but a shill.
M00T, did you read any of these so-called "Democrat" solutions b4 posting?

The first and last link are the same things, i.e., duplicate. The Slate article looks to be a rehash of the first & last links.

I haven't the time now to read as thoroughly as I'd like, but I don't see any Democrat Party solutions. The authors appear to merely mention, and critisize, the "pull out " solution discussed elswhere in this thread. So, unfortunately there are no Dem solutions (other than the pull out option which I oppose).

I had hoped the trenches around Baghdad signaled the adoption of the so-called "oil spot" solution suggested by many. But am now doubtful as I haven't heard anything about its adoption in the press. I would be interested if any polititions contemplating a Presidential run have offered anything new? (e.g., oil spot, etc)

I am not as pessimistic as many here. I do believe a solution is possible, yet not likely under the conditions of mere squabbling among ourselves. Meh, it just highlights are two largest problems: a lack of leadership (someone to step forward and unify us in a good solution) and a bitter division among ourselves (I believe primarily promulgated by those in Congress).

Fern
Obviously it was you who didn't bother to read past the first sentences.

First article: "oil-spot strategy"
Second article: "Provide enough manpower for the job"

Need I say more? No... because you don't read.
Yeah, I did read them, but as I said, not as closely as I would have liked (I'm at work whenever I'm on the forums).

My point is I see you claiming that these are Dem solutions/suggestions. Yet these articles are NOT from Dems, when the Dems are mentioned, it is to remark upon their solution of "pull out". Further, the authors of these articles don't seem in favor of pull out either.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,916
172
106
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: M00T
Look what I found... and 7 wholes pages of it.

I doubt ProfJohn or any of the other blowhards will read it though. They'll just keep saying "the Dems offer no solutions."

Pathetic.

EDIT:

Here's some more
5 ways to win back Iraq

How to win in Iraq

How to win in Iraq v2

So if anyone says "no solutions have been offered" one more time, then they are nothing but a shill.
M00T, did you read any of these so-called "Democrat" solutions b4 posting?

The first and last link are the same things, i.e., duplicate. The Slate article looks to be a rehash of the first & last links.

I haven't the time now to read as thoroughly as I'd like, but I don't see any Democrat Party solutions. The authors appear to merely mention, and critisize, the "pull out " solution discussed elswhere in this thread. So, unfortunately there are no Dem solutions (other than the pull out option which I oppose).

I had hoped the trenches around Baghdad signaled the adoption of the so-called "oil spot" solution suggested by many. But am now doubtful as I haven't heard anything about its adoption in the press. I would be interested if any polititions contemplating a Presidential run have offered anything new? (e.g., oil spot, etc)

I am not as pessimistic as many here. I do believe a solution is possible, yet not likely under the conditions of mere squabbling among ourselves. Meh, it just highlights are two largest problems: a lack of leadership (someone to step forward and unify us in a good solution) and a bitter division among ourselves (I believe primarily promulgated by those in Congress).

Fern
What kind of point is that? I do not see that the authors claim they are Dems?, as M00T seems to claim You're complaining that there are no Democrat solutions, when there ARE Democrat solutions, you just don't like them. You're using the plural for the Dem solution. Other than "Pull Out" what is there? I have not heard the Dem Party Pols mention anything else. Have they? Which is fine, we can have a discussion about the good and bad points of the solutions, but complaining that none exist is just silly. I have not "complained" that there were none. Re-read my post and you'll see I mention the "pull out" option
See bolded respones above in the body of your post

 

Smilin

Diamond Member
Mar 4, 2002
7,357
0
0
Originally posted by: Smilin
why can I get no love/replies on my posts :(
Cool, some replies! I was feeling left out.

It appears there are some agrees with and disagrees with me in there but nobody really just flat out rejected everything.

What I read into that:
Dems/Repubs CAN get along and come up with a solution. If we can get polar opposite people in this forum (which is arguably worse than washington at times) to agree on even one point there is hope.

So that's what washington needs to do. Take something like my plan then add and subtract from it until we agree. Execute, adjust, execute...

Agree or not, palehorse74 threw some longer term ideas in there...everyone else could brainstorm on that then incorporate the ideas.

5to1baby1in5 mentioned some other problems that need addressed in the plan: America needs some good PR over there. He also mentioned some more tactical level ideas. I would say the tactical level stuff should be left to our generals but item #1 of my suggestion (vastly increase troops) would surely open more options for them.


Now as a bit of a detour from the warm and fuzzy above, I'm afraid I'm gonna Bush bash for a sec. Republicans may or may not dig this but I'm sure you've heard worse..
Bush has got to f'n go! He has really proven to be a divider and NOT a uniter despite his speeches. I *really* think that once he is gone this country is going to do a lot of healing very rapidly. There are intelligent and rational people on both sides of the isle and once dipshit is out of the way everyone is going to remember they are on the same team. That's my prediction. Starting in 2008 I'm an optimist.
 

5to1baby1in5

Golden Member
Apr 27, 2001
1,182
40
91
Now as a bit of a detour from the warm and fuzzy above, I'm afraid I'm gonna Bush bash for a sec. Republicans may or may not dig this but I'm sure you've heard worse..
Bush has got to f'n go! He has really proven to be a divider and NOT a uniter despite his speeches. I *really* think that once he is gone this country is going to do a lot of healing very rapidly. There are intelligent and rational people on both sides of the isle and once dipshit is out of the way everyone is going to remember they are on the same team. That's my prediction. Starting in 2008 I'm an optimist.
The first oportunity to defeat Bush is to neuter him in congress in the elections ~1 month from now.

Figures, the first president in many years that owns both houses, and it has to be this fvck-up.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,520
0
0
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: M00T
Look what I found... and 7 wholes pages of it.

I doubt ProfJohn or any of the other blowhards will read it though. They'll just keep saying "the Dems offer no solutions."

Pathetic.

EDIT:

Here's some more
5 ways to win back Iraq

How to win in Iraq

How to win in Iraq v2

So if anyone says "no solutions have been offered" one more time, then they are nothing but a shill.
M00T, did you read any of these so-called "Democrat" solutions b4 posting?

The first and last link are the same things, i.e., duplicate. The Slate article looks to be a rehash of the first & last links.

I haven't the time now to read as thoroughly as I'd like, but I don't see any Democrat Party solutions. The authors appear to merely mention, and critisize, the "pull out " solution discussed elswhere in this thread. So, unfortunately there are no Dem solutions (other than the pull out option which I oppose).

I had hoped the trenches around Baghdad signaled the adoption of the so-called "oil spot" solution suggested by many. But am now doubtful as I haven't heard anything about its adoption in the press. I would be interested if any polititions contemplating a Presidential run have offered anything new? (e.g., oil spot, etc)

I am not as pessimistic as many here. I do believe a solution is possible, yet not likely under the conditions of mere squabbling among ourselves. Meh, it just highlights are two largest problems: a lack of leadership (someone to step forward and unify us in a good solution) and a bitter division among ourselves (I believe primarily promulgated by those in Congress).

Fern
What kind of point is that? I do not see that the authors claim they are Dems?, as M00T seems to claim You're complaining that there are no Democrat solutions, when there ARE Democrat solutions, you just don't like them. You're using the plural for the Dem solution. Other than "Pull Out" what is there? I have not heard the Dem Party Pols mention anything else. Have they? Which is fine, we can have a discussion about the good and bad points of the solutions, but complaining that none exist is just silly. I have not "complained" that there were none. Re-read my post and you'll see I mention the "pull out" option
See bolded respones above in the body of your post
So, unfortunately there are no Dem solutions (other than the pull out option which I oppose)
Sounds like complaining there are no Dem solutions when at least one exists...or maybe I'm reading that wrong...
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,991
2
0
The stakes in Iraq are a lot higher than in VietNam---where Nixon adopted the McGovern peace plan---renamed it peace with honor---and we sailed home saying yipee we won.
A few years later the North Vietnamese took over and only our ego's were hurt.---because VietNam was remote and not important to the larger world.---but in our decade long super commitment---there was never a national politican concensus---or a realitic plan--but finally Nixon cut and ran.

But Iraq is right smack dab in the middle of the oil patch---and the whole world has a stake---If Iraq goes civil war it could well ignite a world war and involve nukes. We damn well better have a better national plan and a commitment---and get the world aboard---11/2008 will likely be too late---so I am optimistic about the 2006 election coming up being the first positive step.

If we cut and run from Iraq now---all hell may break loose---so in MHO--its not realistic--and now--hat in hand--the USA will have to beg the international community for help---and that is not possible under GWB---who told the world its my way or the highway
and has not changed since.---which is another reasons we must get rid of GWB asap.
90% of the world just delights in seeing GWB get its commuppance---and the world will not help us UNTIL WE GET RID OF GWB.
 

maluckey

Platinum Member
Jan 31, 2003
2,933
0
71
and the world will not help us UNTIL WE GET RID OF GWB
And the International community has done so much for world peace when? WWI? WWII? Vietnam? Morrocco? Sudan? Darfur? Somalia? Mogadishu? East Timor?

The so-called International Community does nothing until it affects them directly. Until then they do nothing. It is their pattern and has been for centuries.

Out of the Europeans, Great Britain is the only one that even tries to break the cycle of wait- and- see- if- the-situation-worsens-then-we-will-do something....no.....wait-it's- too-late-atitude.
 

slash196

Golden Member
Nov 1, 2004
1,549
0
0
What this topic fails to point out is that Republicans have no answers for Iraq either. No one does, because there ARE no answers. This situation defies repair.
 
Aug 1, 2006
1,308
0
0
Originally posted by: maluckey
and the world will not help us UNTIL WE GET RID OF GWB
And the International community has done so much for world peace when? WWI? WWII? Vietnam? Morrocco? Sudan? Darfur? Somalia? Mogadishu? East Timor?

The so-called International Community does nothing until it affects them directly. Until then they do nothing. It is their pattern and has been for centuries.

Out of the Europeans, Great Britain is the only one that even tries to break the cycle of wait- and- see- if- the-situation-worsens-then-we-will-do something....no.....wait-it's- too-late-atitude.
Huh? WWII? Hello? FDR? Japan? Pearl Harbor? Germany? Had been bombing England? Long before we finally entered? The isolationists? 'Member?
 

maluckey

Platinum Member
Jan 31, 2003
2,933
0
71
International Machine Consortium
Member


Exactly! International community did nothing.

The United States only entered into the WWII fray overtly AFTER Europe was sure to fall. Had we pre-emptively invaded some leftists would scream murder, and that Hitler was a nice guy and that Stalin was only looking after his own interests and wasn't a threat to anyone. After all, they (the Russians) lacked industry and technological expertise.

The United States entered into Vietnam AFTER France had screwed the pooch. We went into Africa AFTER the UN had dropped the ball etc.
 

slash196

Golden Member
Nov 1, 2004
1,549
0
0
Originally posted by: maluckey
International Machine Consortium
Member


Exactly! International community did nothing.

The United States only entered into the WWII fray overtly AFTER Europe was sure to fall. Had we pre-emptively invaded some leftists would scream murder, and that Hitler was a nice guy and that Stalin was only looking after his own interests and wasn't a threat to anyone. After all, they (the Russians) lacked industry and technological expertise.

The United States entered into Vietnam AFTER France had screwed the pooch. We went into Africa AFTER the UN had dropped the ball etc.
We went into Iraq AFTER it was clear that they did not posess weapons of mass destruction...
 

UberNeuman

Lifer
Nov 4, 1999
16,939
3,079
126
Originally posted by: slash196
What this topic fails to point out is that Republicans have no answers for Iraq either. No one does, because there ARE no answers. This situation defies repair.
You're wrong about that. The Republicon's do have an answer for Iraq - and it's "stop talking about the troubles over there and shortly everyone in Iraq will be nice and stop killing, then they'll do what we want them to do..."

What Republicons forget or dismiss is that other countries aren't going to fall in step and line with what they consider freedom or democracy...
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,387
140
116
Staying the course FTL.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,584
344
126
We went into Iraq AFTER it was clear that they did not posess weapons of mass destruction...
Actually, we went into Iraq while it was unconfirmed whether they possesed the WMD. The inspectors under Hans Blix had found no evidence by February 2003, and reported that the Iraqis were providing sufficient cooperation that no action was needed against them, and said they'd finish the inspections within three months.

Because the Bush administration could not afford their justification for war to be destroyed in those three months, they announced they had to attack immediately to protect American from the imminent threat of attack from Iraq - if they waited three months, the first warning might be a mushroom cloud, or cropdusters with WMD on our soil.
 

UptheMiddle

Senior member
Dec 28, 2003
235
0
0
Originally posted by: Smilin
Originally posted by: Smilin
why can I get no love/replies on my posts :(
.......

What I read into that:
Dems/Repubs CAN get along and come up with a solution.....
The very first step: approach this as the UNITED States. Aren't people weary of all the politics involved in every issue? I honestly get the feeling that certain elements of the Democratic Party would bring ruin to the whole situation if it would make them look better. Interests of the nation should come first, and most people seem to agree that withdrawing isn't in anybody's best interest.

 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,268
4
0
Originally posted by: M00T
Look what I found... and 7 wholes pages of it.

I doubt ProfJohn or any of the other blowhards will read it though. They'll just keep saying "the Dems offer no solutions."

Pathetic.

EDIT:

Here's some more
5 ways to win back Iraq

How to win in Iraq

How to win in Iraq v2

So if anyone says "no solutions have been offered" one more time, then they are nothing but a shill.
From your first link:
Summary: Because they lack a coherent strategy, U.S. forces in Iraq have failed to defeat the insurgency or improve security. Winning will require a new approach to counterinsurgency, one that focuses on providing security to Iraqis rather than hunting down insurgents. And it will take at least a decade.
Who here wants to stay in Iraq that long?
 

maluckey

Platinum Member
Jan 31, 2003
2,933
0
71
We went into Iraq AFTER it was clear that they did not posess weapons of mass destruction...
Was that before or after the former Democratic President, Hillary Clinton and John Kerry himself thought that Saddam was a risk? Was that before or after Husseins own son stated that he would use chemical weapons if the United States invaded?

Point is there were MANY opinions on Iraq and it's capabilities. Saddam himself was no help by throwing out the international demining and demining verifications teams, and then constantly interfering with the inspections teams. A cautious person would take all this as a bad omen. Sure it all turned out to be smoke and mirrors, but you know what they say about hindsight....???

Apparently you are the type of person that believes, that when Charles Manson moves in next door, that he is just looking to turn ovewr a new leaf, despite the wild parties and dubious characters arriving on-scene at all hours of the night.
 

tommywishbone

Platinum Member
May 11, 2005
2,149
0
0
"...Apparently you are the type of person that believes, that when Charles Manson moves in next door, that he is just looking to turn ovewr a new leaf, despite the wild parties and dubious characters arriving on-scene at all hours of the night..."

Last time I checked, Iraq was over 10,000 miles away. Not really next door is it?

Edit: bush is a madman.
 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,988
0
0
Originally posted by: tommywishbone
Last time I checked, Iraq was over 10,000 miles away. Not really next door is it?
Ah, the straw man comparison.

Last I knew Manson didn't possess the wherewithal or the want to acquire and use nuclear and biological/chemical weapons of mass destruction.

 

UberNeuman

Lifer
Nov 4, 1999
16,939
3,079
126
Problem is that the Gop is unwilling to commit to a long term engagement in Iraq in fear of public opinion and having to re-instate the draft...

/can't have it both ways... Commit or shut up...
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,268
4
0
Originally posted by: Smilin
3. Get rid of the stupid tax cut. What jackass does a tax cut in wartime? Sorry folks you wanted war and war costs money. Stop putting it on the credit card for your kids to pay. Put a warbonds project back in place for those that really support the war (and not just give it lipservice).
Educate yourself a little bit on Tax cuts and revenue growth.
Here is a nice chart to make it easy:
Federal Revenue Rising
Since the May 2003 tax cuts the revenue into the Federal government has gone up up up and for FY 2005 was the highest level in Federal history.
2003 $1.8 Trillion in Revenue
2005 $2.15 Trillion in Revenue

And revenue is still going up.
WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- The U.S. government recorded record-high overall and corporate tax receipts on Sept. 15, which was a quarterly deadline for tax payments, the Treasury said Monday.
Total tax receipts were $85.8 billion on Friday, compared with the previous one-day record of $71 billion on Sept. 15 of last year, the Treasury said.
Within the overall figure, corporate tax receipts Friday were $71.8 billion, up from $63 billion in September of last year.
Treasury Undersecretary for Domestic Finance Randal Quarles said Friday's numbers provided a "continuing demonstration of the strength of the U.S. economy."
"In fact, Friday's gross receipts were the largest in a single day in the nation's history - 20% higher than receipts on the same quarterly tax payment date last year," Quarles said in a statement.
One more great chart for you...
Higher Tax Rates, Lower Revenue
This one shows that in 1996 after the Clinton tax increase the amount of tax revenue as a % of GDP was actually smaller than in 1989, when the tax rates were smaller!!! lower rates= more revenue.
 

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,361
8
0
Originally posted by: maluckey
We went into Iraq AFTER it was clear that they did not posess weapons of mass destruction...
Was that before or after the former Democratic President, Hillary Clinton and John Kerry himself thought that Saddam was a risk? Was that before or after Husseins own son stated that he would use chemical weapons if the United States invaded?

Point is there were MANY opinions on Iraq and it's capabilities. Saddam himself was no help by throwing out the international demining and demining verifications teams, and then constantly interfering with the inspections teams. A cautious person would take all this as a bad omen. Sure it all turned out to be smoke and mirrors, but you know what they say about hindsight....???

Apparently you are the type of person that believes, that when Charles Manson moves in next door, that he is just looking to turn ovewr a new leaf, despite the wild parties and dubious characters arriving on-scene at all hours of the night.
Regardless of which Democrats/Republican supported the invasion, Bush cannot blame the Democrats for the poor handling of the war in Iraq.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY