“America has hardly even begun to repay its debt to Iraq”

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

It's very odd to call US actions illegal yet not hold Iraq to the terms of its contract re: the surrender.

You keep making this same claim. Back it up, for once. Link to the terms of the surrender, and specify which one(s) were being violated in 2003. Maybe you can find the UNSC resolution authorizing the No-Fly zones. While you're at it, could you link to the post in this thread where I claimed the invasion was illegal? I said it was ill advised, and that the intelligence was questionable, but I don't think I claimed it to be illegal. Maybe another strawman on your part?

Quote

BTW, you're abusing double (sometimes more) negatives a lot in your writing lately.

Ahhh … the old standby for those without any support for their argument - criticize the writing. Do not think that I do not believe that your posts in this thread are not without a lack of credibility.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Anarchy in the Middle East was in no ones best interest. The lack of order now pales in comparison had we just left and let the country succumb to the ensuing lawlessness.

You’re absolutely correct that autocratic dictators can have very stable states. Democracy is messy and complicated.

Perhaps the anarchy (not sure how much of Iraq is really anarchic now, as opposed to parts of 2004-05) & instability has benefited the radical Islamists or Iran? Removal of Hussayn made Iran the dominant indigenous power in the Middle East – unexpected/unintended consequence.

Which is goes back to the start of this thread – reconstructing Iraq & who pays for it. Is it in the US interest to insure that there is a (reasonably) stable counterweight to balance Iran in the Middle East?

If Iran was able to be the unchallenged hegemon (power) in the Middle East, what state would be most threatened?

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[ElJosh 0]

Quote

Yeah that is easy to do when you sit behind a desk and none of your kids or you are in the crosshairs of an enemy. Like almost all the others in this administration he did a fine job of ducking out of any kind of uniformed service.

Um, I've actually had those cross-hairs pointed at me. I've actually had mortars dropped all around me. I've seen guys that I just played poker with 2 days ago come back in body bags with bodies so chard that I couldn't find a place to tie the toe tag. That doesn't legitimize my opinion one way or another. So don't try to use your kids that way.

Oh and the PNAC all those guys were nobodies went they started that group. It's not like this was the Justice League of Bush.

If you honestly believe in all the conspiracies crap than you should also listen to Coast to Coast AM because big foot is apparently out there too.
~El Josh AKA Ruby
SGT US Army
OIF III
Mosul, Iraq

DS #149
Yes I only have 3 jumps...it's the magic number dude.

[nerdgirl 0]

Thanks for the reminder of the critical value of operational expertise ... & in the context of OIF & this thread particularly (reconstruction), the expertise of those with operational experience and understanding w/r/t Iraqi culture (beyond Ahmed Chalabi) and international development/post-conflict rebuilding may have just as important as military operations expertise.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[Amazon 7]

You DO know that MOST of this administration never served anything but themselves right?


Yet they are all RAH RAH RAH WAR>. KILL WAR GOOD

Kewl.. I think they should go themselves..

http://www.symbolman.com/chickenhawks.html

Just a bunch of fucking CHICKENHAWKS who ran when it was their turn...

I guess that is ok with you though.. Carry On

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Oh and the PNAC all those guys were nobodies went they started that group.

William Kristol, Robert Kagan, Eliot Cohen, John Bolton, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, and Paul Wolfowitz were “nobodies” in 1997?

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

You DO know that MOST of this administration never served anything but themselves right?


Yet they are all RAH RAH RAH WAR>. KILL WAR GOOD

Kewl.. I think they should go themselves..

http://www.symbolman.com/chickenhawks.html

Just a bunch of fucking CHICKENHAWKS who ran when it was their turn...

I guess that is ok with you though.. Carry On

I know that more of the Reps are veterans than the Dems... does that make Dems super-chickenhawks, then?

Seeing the enlistment record of Clinton and Obama, I'm supposing you'll be voting for McCain...since this is OBVIOUSLY such an important issue for you.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 2,435]

>I know that more of the Reps are veterans than the Dems... does that
>make Dems super-chickenhawks, then?

A chickenhawk is someone who advocates that someone else fight their wars for them - not someone who is not a vet.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

I know that more of the Reps are veterans than the Dems...

Do you mean overall or in Congress or former occupants of the White House?

Do you have a source that breaks down all members of Congress?

This webpage lists Senate members.

And shows
Republican: 15 veterans/4 combat veterans (2 retiring)
Democrat: 14 veterens/6 combat veterans

1. Christopher J. Dodd (D-CT)
Army Reserve 1969-75
2. #Daniel K. Akaka (D-HI)
U.S. Army 1943-47
3. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)
Army Reserves 1968-74
4. #Thomas Carper (D-DEL)
U.S. Navy 1968-1973
Navy Reserve 1973-1991
5. Tom Harkins (D-IA)
U.S. Navy 1962-67
Navy Reserve 1968-74
6. #Daniel Inouye (D-HI)
Medal Of Honor
U.S. Army 1943-47
7. Tim Johnson (D-SD)
U.S. Army 1969-
8. Edward Kennedy (D-MA)
U.S. Army 1951-53
9. #John Robert Kerry (D-MA)
U.S. Navy 1966-1970
10. Herb Kohl (D-WI)
Army Reserve 1958-64
11. #Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Army 1942-1946
12. Bill Nelson (D-FL)
U.S. Army 1968-1970
13. Jack Reed (D-RI)
U.S. Army 1967-1969
14. #Jim Webb (D-VA)
U.S. Marine Corps 1964-1972
Ass't Sec. of Defense 1984-1987
Secretary of the Navy 1987-1988


1. Robert Bennett (R-UT)
National Guard 1957-61
2. Thad Cochran (R-MS)
U.S. Navy 1959-61
3. Larry Craig (R-ID)
National Guard 1970-72
4. Michael Enzi (R-WY)
Air National Guard 1967-73
5. Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
• U.S. Air Force 1983-1989
National Guard 1989-1994
6. #Chuck Hagel (R-NE)
U.S. Army 1967-68
7. James M. Inhofe (R-OK)
U.S. Army 1954-56
8. Johnny Isakson (R-GA)
National Guard 1966-1972
9. Richard Lugar (R-IN)
U.S. Navy 1957-60
10. #John R. McCain (R-AZ)
U.S. Navy 1958-81
*POW Vietnam 1967-73
11. Pat Roberts (R-KS)
U.S. Marine Corps (1958-62)
12. Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
Army Reserves 1973-86
13. Arlen Specter (R-PA)
U.S. Air Force 1951-53
14. #Ted Stevens (R-AK)
Army Air Corps 1943-46
15. #John R. Warner (R-VA)
U.S. Navy 1945-46
Marine Corps 1950-52
Marine Corps Reserves 1952-1964

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[Iceburner 0]

in an all volunteer military, we are choosing to go overseas...you dont want to go to war, then dont sign up for the military. You make it sound as though somone held a gun to my head and said "sign the f'n documents and go to war"

it's important to note too, that the USMC has been exceeding the recruiting goals from month to month, and actually expanding it's size.....man the Pres. must have a lot of weapons himself to force all of us to unwillingly fight his war

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>I know that more of the Reps are veterans than the Dems... does that
>make Dems super-chickenhawks, then?

A chickenhawk is someone who advocates that someone else fight their wars for them - not someone who is not a vet.

She is using military service as a qualifier - since there are more Reps that are veterans, that would make the Dems more 'chickenhawkish' than the Reps... QED.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

BTW, you're abusing double (sometimes more) negatives a lot in your writing lately.

Ahhh … the old standby for those without any support for their argument - criticize the writing. Do not think that I do not believe that your posts in this thread are not without a lack of credibility.

As opposed to the old standby of ignore all the sections you have no response for, and then pretend the section you are replying to is the only one written?

Just an observation you're free to ignore...tailed at the end of a shitload of support.

There are applications for double negatives, but usually they're counterproductive.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

If Iran was able to be the unchallenged hegemon (power) in the Middle East, what state would be most threatened?

I suspect Iraq. I wonder if and when Israel would get involved. It's not in their best interest for any single country to gain too much power. Such a scenario could make for strange bedfellows indeed.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

As opposed to the old standby of ignore all the sections you have no response for, and then pretend the section you are replying to is the only one written?

Pot, meet Kettle.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

I know that more of the Reps are veterans than the Dems...

Do you mean overall or in Congress or former occupants of the White House?

Do you have a source that breaks down all members of Congress?

This webpage lists Senate members.

And shows
Republican: 15 veterans/4 combat veterans (2 retiring)
Democrat: 14 veterens/6 combat veterans

It's closer than I expected - the majority of the GOP veterans when the Democrats were the draft dodging party were from WWII and Korea. Now that it has turned, they have to fabricate Swift Boat groups to assert that they are still the party of soldiers.

I wonder if in another 10 years, the military will become more closely tied to the Democrats rather than the draft dodging leadership of the GOP (McCain notably excepted, but likely to be dead or very retired in 10 years)

Side question - should National Guard count? Should Reserves count? If a bar is to be set, it would be possibility of foreign deployment.

[ElJosh 0]

Trying to use military service to how well a politician can do his job is a pointless argument. I wish it wasn't, being a combat vet myself I have an underlying camaraderie with other vets but historically military service and a notable political legacy do not go hand in hand. Many of what history would call our great presidents never serviced and some of our complete debacles to grace the same office were notable military figures at one time.
~El Josh AKA Ruby

DS #149
Yes I only have 3 jumps...it's the magic number dude.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

She is using military service as a qualifier - since there are more Reps that are veterans, that would make the Dems more 'chickenhawkish' than the Reps... QED.

YOU are talking APPLES and rotten apples again.. Mike and you know it...Quit putting words in my mouth.

I am referring not to your favorite rePUBICans.. I am referring to the Band of Cowards that inhabit the ADMINISTRATION. Every time that I bring that up YOU.. bring up numbers of congress critters...Most of the far right wing pukes in this administration that you worship ran like scared little draft evaders that they were... yet here we are 30+ years later and you paint them as gods gift to patriotism...

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

She is using military service as a qualifier - since there are more Reps that are veterans, that would make the Dems more 'chickenhawkish' than the Reps... QED.

YOU are talking APPLES and rotten apples again.. Mike and you know it...Quit putting words in my mouth.

I am referring not to your favorite rePUBICans.. I am referring to the Band of Cowards that inhabit the ADMINISTRATION. Every time that I bring that up YOU.. bring up numbers of congress critters...Most of the far right wing pukes in this administration that you worship ran like scared little draft evaders that they were... yet here we are 30+ years later and you paint them as gods gift to patriotism...

Speaking of putting words into mouths... I don't 'paint' them as anything - you're the one that idolizes or demonizes based on party.

So sorry that your 'chickenhawk' mantra is still more applicable to the Dems than the Reps...and has been for decades.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Amazon 7]

DUDE you still do not get it...


CHICKEN... those who were afraid to go to war themselves and escaped service by various means.. family influence etc.

HAWK... someone who is a supporter of war.. any war.. ezpecially the ones that they can get rich off of...

Almost to a man the chickenhawks in YOUR administration are a Band of Cowards... yet they sure are brave with the blood of others.... kinda like all those staunch YOUNG republicans out there who are now finding a mryiad of excuses.. kinda like your hero Lush Ribjob with the butt boils.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=gFGit_tZDqs[url]

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Trying to use military service to how well a politician can do his job is a pointless argument. I wish it wasn't, being a combat vet myself I have an underlying camaraderie with other vets but historically military service and a notable political legacy do not go hand in hand. Many of what history would call our great presidents never serviced and some of our complete debacles to grace the same office were notable military figures at one time.
~El Josh AKA Ruby

Yes, the modern history (Truman on) for Presidents doesn't show much of a relationship between experience and action. Reagan only fought the Nazis on the lots of Hollywood, yet I think there are a lot of Democrats here would would gladly trade Shrub and his vast experience in the Air Guard for the Gipper. OTOH, his dad showed the benefit of military and CIA experience.

But this little running fight here isn't so much about political legacy so much as the appropriateness of draft dodgers advocating others go to war. Given your experience, would you have an easier time getting a deployment order from McCain, Gore, Kerry, than you would from either of our last two Presidents?

[love2flyhigh 0]

This coming from expierence and the fact that I am in Iraq right now. Alot of the people over in this country are happy we came and did what we did. Some are not (crazies/terrorists) and some have lost loved ones most bad some good and they are not happy about it but its war. Look what we did with europe when we took out germany. We rebuilt and entire contenent and didnt ask for a thing in return. Well their is my to cents and you can take it for what its worth. If you have any question about what its like pm me.

[ElJosh 0]

Haha. I'm a soldier I just do what I'm told.

Honestly it doesn't matter who the Commander in Chief is or what he tells me to do. My job is to do it.
Robot like? Yes, but that is what my job is.

There is a system of checks and balances. The president is just a figure head. The house and senate make all the desicions.

Not to derail this tread but what is sad about our country is that we spend all this time, effort and money election a president but most people couldn't give a shit about voting for a senator or rep. These are the people that we should focus on. They're the ones with all the power and they only "work 150" days a year

DS #149
Yes I only have 3 jumps...it's the magic number dude.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

There is a system of checks and balances. The president is just a figure head. The house and senate make all the desicions.

Not since the 19th Century when Congress took on Andrew Johnson has this been true. On the foreign policy front, the President started taking over when TR sent the great white fleet one way and challeged Congress not to fund their return.

LBJ, Nixon, Reagan all furthered the Imperial Presidency to the point where checks and balances are more theoretical - note how successful Pelosi was in changing the current war.

[billvon 2,435]

>There is a system of checks and balances. The president is just a figure head.

Not any more. Per our Constitution, only Congress can declare war. Nowadays presidents have usurped that right. That's happening more and more often. We are gradually moving power from the legislature to the president; people seem to want a king, and are willing to cede power to a single figure. After a certain point that starts to accelerate, and they take more and more power themselves. They create new non-cabinet positions to avoid congressional oversight, and grant the new positions (like the National Security Council and the Office of Management and Budget) lots of power.

So while I agree in principle, that's not reality today.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>There is a system of checks and balances. The president is just a figure head.

Not any more. Per our Constitution, only Congress can declare war. Nowadays presidents have usurped that right. That's happening more and more often. We are gradually moving power from the legislature to the president; people seem to want a king, and are willing to cede power to a single figure. After a certain point that starts to accelerate, and they take more and more power themselves. They create new non-cabinet positions to avoid congressional oversight, and grant the new positions (like the National Security Council and the Office of Management and Budget) lots of power.

So while I agree in principle, that's not reality today.

See bolded, above - a bit misleading, Mr. Moderator.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706