-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
The democrats Are not backing down this time.
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
RightIsWrong
Diamond Member
Why is it not surprising that you would agree with a position that amounts to...
"We don't want to be PERCEIVED as losers so we will just keep going until we finally have to admit that we run a post-war occupation like Charlie Weis and Cam Cameron put together a football gameplan."
Lemon law
Lifer
Sincear says---Yep; I linked a few of the articles later after Craig said I was not a reliable source. After February things would be quite rough if we were to believe Secretary Gates.
The fact is that we dems don't especially perceive Sec Gates as all that reliable as a source authority. Better than Rummy yes, but that is not saying much. Face the facts, Gates is going to be a GWB&co shill.
And the severity of the cuts are irrelevant. Either the dems or GWB can end this standoff. It gets a wee mite unreasonable to expect the dems to be the ones that always back down getting nothing. This time, its GWB who may be the one who has to finally not get his way 100% like in the past.
If Gates wants to bitch, he can bitch at GWB. In the interest of the common good, both sides have to compromise. And that means GWB has to give some also FOR A CHANGE.
GWB is not exactly in any kind of position to argue that his policies are wise after authoring the greatest set of foreign and domestic blunders in US history.
And now must sell us on the proposition that he, GWB, will shut totally down the entire US military to perpetuate his policies.
That is how the public relations war will be framed.
The fact is that we dems don't especially perceive Sec Gates as all that reliable as a source authority. Better than Rummy yes, but that is not saying much. Face the facts, Gates is going to be a GWB&co shill.
And the severity of the cuts are irrelevant. Either the dems or GWB can end this standoff. It gets a wee mite unreasonable to expect the dems to be the ones that always back down getting nothing. This time, its GWB who may be the one who has to finally not get his way 100% like in the past.
If Gates wants to bitch, he can bitch at GWB. In the interest of the common good, both sides have to compromise. And that means GWB has to give some also FOR A CHANGE.
GWB is not exactly in any kind of position to argue that his policies are wise after authoring the greatest set of foreign and domestic blunders in US history.
And now must sell us on the proposition that he, GWB, will shut totally down the entire US military to perpetuate his policies.
That is how the public relations war will be framed.
kage69
Lifer
And...surprise surprise, Pabs runs away like he just didn't get spanked. Again.
Which sucks, as I'm still looking for the cheerleader who can illustrate exactly what you just described. So many repeat this popular buzz-phrase, but none of them can explain how it correlates to reality. They just spew something catchy, imply patriotic overtones, and continue on with more spin. It's depressing. 🙁
I think I'd be better off if my neighbor were shot, and I get his belongings. The 'we're better off' argument isn't exactly the adequate one for foreign policy.
Sure, it's nice as one of the questions - as in, for a possible policy that's otherwise justified, will we be better off, but it's not the only question to ask. That's called 'might makes right'.
We're not better off with all our 'enemies' killed, no matter how it happens. We're better off when we are a moral nation with a strategy of peace.
Lemon law
Lifer
As Pabster puts it--------If you honestly believe that we are not better off with Saddam six feet under, and his regime out of power, I pity you. And the ilk who would agree.
To some extent that could be argued as the sole benefit of the Iraqi occupation. A dividend that has paid the United States nothing at all for the 1.6 trillion in direct and indirect costs. Even for the Iraqi people themselves, the Iraqi occupation at this point is probably a net loss. Because far more Iraqi have been killed, wounded, and have been forced to flee during the US occupation than during the entire 25 year rein of terror of Saddam.
Pabster, If you and the ilk choose to ignore those unpleasant downsides of the current Iraqi occupation, you are free to do so, but a majority of the American people are rejecting GWB&co for precisely those reasons.
To some extent that could be argued as the sole benefit of the Iraqi occupation. A dividend that has paid the United States nothing at all for the 1.6 trillion in direct and indirect costs. Even for the Iraqi people themselves, the Iraqi occupation at this point is probably a net loss. Because far more Iraqi have been killed, wounded, and have been forced to flee during the US occupation than during the entire 25 year rein of terror of Saddam.
Pabster, If you and the ilk choose to ignore those unpleasant downsides of the current Iraqi occupation, you are free to do so, but a majority of the American people are rejecting GWB&co for precisely those reasons.
Notice how they lower the bar?
If the invasion led to 'democracy being on the march' across the middle east, as repressive regimes became nice democracies, the rightis would say that justified it.
If the invasion had short-term tangible benefits to the people of Iraq, which should have been pretty easy with the lifting of the crippling sanctions, they'd say that was justification.
If the invasion had resulted in some clear benefit to the US, from cheap oil to other nations around the world praising the US, to even 'intimidation' bringing benefit, they'd cite that.
If their secret right-wing economic agenda to implement radical right-wing economic policies across Iraq had worked, they'd have that as a 'secret justification'.
And when they're wrong on all of the above - terrorism increases, Iraq suffers, the world opinion and US image are harmed, the costs and casualties skyrocket, democracy is made to look pretty unattractive to the neigbors in the region, oil is up, and so on -they still say it was all justified because you can't consider the result in the first 20 years or so, ask in 50.
So basically, short of the ending of the human race, pretty much any situation they say proves the invasion was justified.
What nonsense. At this point they're down to cherry picking nice things - Saddam gone, the levels of disaster occasionally fluctuating to less disastrous, etc.
We're at the level now of Napolean declaring victory at Waterloo, just as the Nixon strategy was to declare victory in Vietnam.
What's scary is how it's forgotten that even if the war had gone a lot better, it'd have been a mistake as an illegal war of aggression, setting a terrible precedent for imperialism.
kage69
Lifer
This perception of yours fits perfectly with the rest of the nonsense we get from you on a regular basis. Nice try, but your faulty call-out doesn't answer ironwing's question, nor does it prove me wrong concerning your post history. If anything, your attempt to deflect bolsters it - thanks! But what a sad comment on the merits of your position when requests for clarification are denounced as "troll stew." Really puts you as a person into perspective - again, thanks!
There you go again - can't be bothered to support your position so you throw another strawman on the tracks and add a generous helping of condescension to grease the wheels.
Watch your step, you might do yourself an injury backtracking that fast! Or would you like to provide us with examples of 'me and my ilk' wishing Saddam were still around?
What am I saying, that would just allow you to avoid ironwings poser some more - c'mon, ye of tremendous integrity, prove us wrong. Show us your pity is real, call us curious. 🙂
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
Another show of stupidity from the Democrats? What a surprise. :roll:
One would think they learned the first time around but now they're back for another spanking. Buncha fools.
One would think they learned the first time around but now they're back for another spanking. Buncha fools.
Lemon law
Lifer
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well since the democratic plan A strategy of try to work with GWB does not result in anything positive for the country, time may now tell which party gets the spanking as the democrats appear serious about sticking to plan B. And now GWB with a 33% approval and a 67% disapproval must now explain to the nation why he rejected the war funding the dems provided. If the public does not back GWB, we will know who gets the spanking.
This time the dems are united as a party and the GOP seems like the caught deer in the headlights. The end may be near for GWB as the lone decider. If GWB loses this pissing contest, he simply fades into a lame duck with no credibility.
The fate of a party and a President who delivered FAILURE in everything they touched. The real buncha fools inhabit the white house.
I tend to agree. The war was a disaster, a totally unnecessary waste but now that we're in the shit up to our eyeballs there's nothing that can set it right. We have to salvage what we can and end it somehow, but the answers aren't obvious or clear. Nobody for sure knows what's best to do, in my opinion, and so we're screwed. We can't get out over night. We can't cut and run and leave a horrible blood bath behind us. Oh we can, but that's a disaster too. It's messes like this that should tell Republicans they should never vote for anybody that appeals to them.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
Plan A? Work with GWB?
Bwahahahaha.
You funny guy.
Whoozyerdaddy
Lifer
OMG I agree... /wrists
Lemon law
Lifer
At least TasteLikeChicken gets to the heart of it with-----Plan A? Work with GWB?
Bwahahahaha.
You funny guy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What precisely is wrong with the Congress and the President working together? Its the way our constitution is set up, three co-equal branches and all.
Its GWB and Dick Cheney with the concept of a unitary executive that is the anomely here.
Historically a President from one party and a congress dominated by another party has worked out quite well. I could cite both GHB and Bill Clinton as recent examples. Neither congress or the President got all they wanted but at least the constitution was respected and
there was nothing like this degree of open warfare between the branches of government.
The election of 11/06 was widely regarded as a mandate against GWB. A Mandate the President has chosen to ignore. Now the democrats have spent almost a year trying to
work with the President with nothing good for the country done to answer that mandate.
If GWB wants to shut the defense department down, its on his head. Congress has delivered the funds and GWB has refused to accept them. In our constitution the power is really with congress. A President who has good results has a certain power of persuasion, the bully pulpit as it were, and now that will be put to the test.
Bwahahahaha.
You funny guy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What precisely is wrong with the Congress and the President working together? Its the way our constitution is set up, three co-equal branches and all.
Its GWB and Dick Cheney with the concept of a unitary executive that is the anomely here.
Historically a President from one party and a congress dominated by another party has worked out quite well. I could cite both GHB and Bill Clinton as recent examples. Neither congress or the President got all they wanted but at least the constitution was respected and
there was nothing like this degree of open warfare between the branches of government.
The election of 11/06 was widely regarded as a mandate against GWB. A Mandate the President has chosen to ignore. Now the democrats have spent almost a year trying to
work with the President with nothing good for the country done to answer that mandate.
If GWB wants to shut the defense department down, its on his head. Congress has delivered the funds and GWB has refused to accept them. In our constitution the power is really with congress. A President who has good results has a certain power of persuasion, the bully pulpit as it were, and now that will be put to the test.
Thump553
Lifer
I think this is the correct move. Every action so far has made Congress look completely ineffectual and has continued to give Bush the blank check he wants. Force Bush to come to Congress to negotiate. If in a few months down the road the situation on the ground warrants continued funding of the war, then Congress can fund it then.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
The Democrats aren't pulling this stunt to work with GWB. I know it. You know it. Everyone knows it. They are pulling the same old bullshit they tried earlier this year and that already backfired on them once. The public didn't care for it one bit which is one of the reasons that Bush's approval ratings are stellar in comparison to Congress. Now things are turning around in Iraq and they want to screw with the military once again? Stupid move. Watch their approval ratings fall even further into the abyss.
btw, it's an ironic dichotomy that the same people who would call the majority of Americans stupid for re-electing GWB in '04 call the '06 elections a "mandate." I'll predict that if Hillary doesn't get elected in '08 the 'mandaters' will be calling the majority stupid again. Not a difficult prediction to make though because you guys are so transparent it's not even funny.
StageLeft
No Lifer
If it looks like a duck.
I have noted a general consistency in those who are doggedly pro-bush or pro-republican at this point and that's that they lack any sense of history of overall education. They may on occasion point to certain things in the past, but always wrapped around some emotional plea that may tie back to communism, WWII, or any other pedagogue they can scrape together before they're finished with their statement. This isn't to say democrats aren't plenty stupid as well, but those who continue to cling onto any positive ideas about the Iraq war sound an awful hell of a lot like a cult member defending their leader while the rest of us outside can hardly fvcking believe what they are are saying. Meanwhile their leader is mixing up the koolaid and they'll drink it eagerly down, because to shatter their previous notions of the world with truth is a harder pill to swallow than the one that will kill them, and at the heart of it they're an emotional, not intellectual creature, and so they do what they do best which is to feel, even if it's brainless.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
-
-
