• 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."

U.S. Orders 4-6 Day Pause in Iraq Advance (because of supply shortages) Dems this is your chance..

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

JellyBaby

Diamond Member
Apr 21, 2000
9,159
1
81
Jellybaby, interesting point on your last statement.

The inspection process worked and Iraq has rearmed in the last four years making it necessary to 'substantially diarm Iraq again'. By 'again' it means that no matter how well the inspectors did their job than Iraq would just rearm once they were out of country and the entire inspection process was futile and a complete waste of time while the Saddam regime was in power.

The other alternative is of course that the inspectors never found all that was hidden there and the only way to insure it's removal is a change in the Iraqi leadership.

They both point to the same end result. Saddam must go.
It's a messy situation because there was no closure in '91. According to many Bush 41's goal was to contain Iraq for a decade or so and hope the people of Iraq dealt with Saddum by themselves (or with covert aid). Didn't happen.

Iraq submitted to the U.N. yet here we have one nation leading a coalition of supporters not backed by the U.N. to oust Saddum. The U.N. should have been more decisive but now it's doubly clear to me they are truly irrelevant. I think the U.S. should withdraw from the U.N. but that's another matter.

Still, to some people indefinite containment and disarmament would have been preferrable to war. That plus Iraq violated paper agreements, a white collar crime. Had it done something more...criminal there would be universal support for this one.
 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
We've been around and around on this.

Suffice it to say that the "paper agreement" that Iraq violated was the cease-fire agreement that they signed.
 

JellyBaby

Diamond Member
Apr 21, 2000
9,159
1
81
I'm simply saying if Iraq had masterminded (or even been linked) to 9/11, if there was evidence of direct support to al qaeda, or if Iraq actually threatened somebody there would be more far more support for a military solution.
 

Tom

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
13,293
1
76
DaveSohmer quote-

"What was surprising, however, was the strength of the officer corps affiliation with the GOP. Sixty-four percent of the officers responding to the survey identified with the Republicans"

At the risk of being called stupid again, the issue that started this thread of discussion was your assertion that it would be difficult to find a Democrat serving in the military in the current conflict in Iraq. The article you quote from is referring to officers. Is the military only made up of officers now ?

Secondly, 64% is not the same as 90%, is it ? 90% is the figure you used earlier in the discussion. Assuming the survey number of 64% is correct then it wouldn't really be all that difficult to find a Democrat military person in the Iraqi conflict, even if you restricted your search to officers, would it ?

Additionally there is probably some correlation that could be made between officers/enlisted and business leaders/workers. If there is then a logical assumption would be that the percentage of Republicans in the officer corp is greater than the percentage of Republicans amongst the enlisted.

As I have already said, the reason the issue is worth my meager efforts to get this right are best described by a quote from the same article which you quoted..

"The finding suggests that officers have violated their professional ethic by abandoning the tradition of political neutrality."

and

"Senior leaders must reinforce the professional military ethic, which prohibits open political activity and emphasizes the ideal of apolitical service to the nation."


 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
At the risk of being called stupid again, the issue that started this thread of discussion was your assertion that it would be difficult to find a Democrat serving in the military in the current conflict in Iraq. The article you quote from is referring to officers. Is the military only made up of officers now ?
Yes you do risk it again. The article also clearly states that only 8% of the officer's claimed to be Democrats, a figure you conveniently ignored. As for the enlisted ranks, I could find no data however it is my experience that the numbers would be the same. The statement that I originally made, you know the one that was taken completely out of context and twisted around as to have no resemblance to the original, still holds true. I also clearly stated why I thought it was true and the reasons for it. Those reasons do not include any intended disparagement of any Democrat. It is just a cold hard statistical fact, one that the linked article clearly demonstrates.

Additionally there is probably some correlation that could be made between officers/enlisted and business leaders/workers.
I don't agree with that at all. Unlike business leaders/workers, where their differences are often simply union/mgm't differences, the military officer/enlisted have many common goals. Better pay, health care, retirement, a stronger overall defense, etc. are all goals that transcend the officer/enlisted ranks. Irregardless of what the facts bear out the Republican party is perceived to be more "military friendly" than the other political parties.
 

Tom

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
13,293
1
76
"Yes you do risk it again. The article also clearly states that only 8% of the officer's claimed to be Democrats, a figure you conveniently ignored."

I didn't ignore it, I was responding to your earlier post where you quoted the 64% Republican figure. If you had quoted the 8% Democrat figure I would have responded to that.

"The statement that I originally made, you know the one that was taken completely out of context and twisted around as to have no resemblance to the original, still holds true."

the statement in question-

"good luck finding one."

I took this statement to mean that you thought it would be difficult to find a Democrat serving in the military in the war in Iraq. How is this taken out of context ot twisted ?

If we can establish that that is what you meant to say, then my commenting on why I feel you said it is not out of context. It's my opinion.

As best I can understand it your further posts basically say that all you meant was that it literally would be hard to find one, because the percentage of Democrats is so low that it would be difficult to find a Democrat, and you didn't mean anything else.

Although it is puzzling why you would make such a remark for that reason, as though someone here on the forums might actually contemplate going over to Iraq and looking for a Democrat, and you just wanted to be nice and let them know it might be a difficult task(let's see 8% Democrats, they would have to talk to 13 officers, where could they find 13 officers ?) , I accepted what you said, I thought, when I attempted to make a humorous comment about "getting out more".


 

TheNinja

Lifer
Jan 22, 2003
12,207
1
0
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: jaeger66
Originally posted by: charrison


That is my point. No on knows, this could be real, it could misinformation. Eitherway Iraq has a few divisions that need to be weakened, troops need to rest, equipment needs to be repairs and supplies need to be topped off. After going 300 miles it makes sense to have an operational pause if it is needed. This is far from a disaster.
I'm not saying it's a disaster, and it's the right move under the circumstances. I just think it could have been avoided.
It's called PLANNING. This was a Bush "rush job".

Of course its the right move - they HAVE to stop. :p

So Bush made up the military plan? Wow, that's news to me, thanks for filling me in. Whether or not they stop makes no difference, they got to where they wanted, they are regrouping for the final push.
 

LeeTJ

Diamond Member
Jan 21, 2003
4,899
0
0
Originally posted by: Piano Man
My problem is that I don't think we should be there in the first place. The fact that they are f*cking up is icing on the cake. I'm sure it will give Bush an oppurtunity to put more of our soldiers in harms way for the defense of America.
how is "f*cking up" icing on your cake?? Do you WISH more soldiers to die?? i don't see how anyone can POSSIBLY make such a ludicrous statement whether you are FOR or AGAINST this war. THEY ARE THERE. Let's get as many of them safely back as possible.

I have no problem with you being against the war. talk about how evil this war is all you want, BUT NEVER EXPRESS anything that resembles you wishing that they don't do well over there. THAT IS ABSOLUTELY unacceptable.

 

NightTrain

Platinum Member
Apr 1, 2001
2,150
0
76
Originally posted by: LeeTJ
Originally posted by: Piano Man
My problem is that I don't think we should be there in the first place. The fact that they are f*cking up is icing on the cake. I'm sure it will give Bush an oppurtunity to put more of our soldiers in harms way for the defense of America.
how is "f*cking up" icing on your cake?? Do you WISH more soldiers to die?? i don't see how anyone can POSSIBLY make such a ludicrous statement whether you are FOR or AGAINST this war. THEY ARE THERE. Let's get as many of them safely back as possible.

I have no problem with you being against the war. talk about how evil this war is all you want, BUT NEVER EXPRESS anything that resembles you wishing that they don't do well over there. THAT IS ABSOLUTELY unacceptable.
It will get worse. Arnett's cheerleading is only the tip of the iceberg.

 

ASK THE COMMUNITY