Be Careful what you wish for

[Andreus]

i think this is where the twilight zone music cues in

thanks for sharing your opinions kulindahr

they are kooky as all hell but you have a right to them

 

[Kurn]

lol, when i read to understand it makes no sense whatsoever

So start your own party! Party hearty! The Hearty Party!

 

[OtterJoq]

So the Dems control the Senate and the House - hip hip hooray. Or is it?

Instead of complaining, they will now have to contribute.

Instead of scapegoating, they will have to be part of the solution.

Iraq is no longer Bush's problem exclusively, it is a Dem problem too.

Rumsfeld is gone - no more soundbites about how incompetent he is

I guess admitting the economy is good will be ok?


Time for action - real decision making. Not just second guessing and Monday morning quarterbacking

Are they up to it?

Will Nancy Pelosi use her power to waste valuable time investigating the Bush Admin or instead put forth an agenda that she/her party believe will benefit the country.

Will Charlie Rangel spend more time decorating Cheney's old office than figuring out how to finance the govt?

Will they push for a deadline to pull out of Iraq? or reduce funding?

Tough tough decisions to make - and the Dems will have to make them - or appear just as ineffective as the Republicans

This is what they wanted - or is it?

Put up or shut up time

Want some cheese with that whine?

 

[Kulindahr]

Many of our JUB homocons need their closets for other things... but you didn't hear that from me!

I haven't seen many closets that were BIG enough for "other things".

 

[Kulindahr]

i think this is where the twilight zone music cues in

thanks for sharing your opinions kulindahr

they are kooky as all hell but you have a right to them

If you'd actually read things written by past supreme court justices, and historical research on the subject, and what the founders said, you'd know you're calling the founders' opinions "kooky".
Like others here, you retreat to calling things "kooky" instead of dealing with substance.

If that's typical of any significant portion of all the newly elected Congresscritters, then what the voters wished for may turn out to be something we should have been very careful of indeed.

BTW, did you look at my avatar, so you won't be operating on assumptions any more?

 

[Andreus]

Oh, she's inconsolable, the poor thing! Perhaps it's best to leave her alone.

yeah

when she said that it was a proven FACT that if guns were illegal there would be 2.2 million more deaths she lost me.

and that part that said that i am pro rape if i want gun controll... special one that was

well that and the thing about the armed society being a peacefull one

well

to be honest

i find the whole gun obsession rather creepy and non productive.

we may just be seeing the republicans idea of bi partisan dialogue....

buy a republican partisan a gun and he will ram his politics down your throat

oh these guys are soooo going to lose their asses in the next two years

 

[chance1]

Want some cheese with that whine?

try reading the post before responding Otter

no whining - legitimate questions for the Dems

and if you read subsequent posts, you will see that a majority of the JUBBERs support payback not improving the country

which proves my point

 

[turtle]

and if you read subsequent posts, you will see that a majority of the JUBBERs support payback not improving the country

But, of course, there is no reason for us not to do both.

 

[chance1]

But, of course, there is no reason for us not to do both.

well said turtle

I appreciate the honesty

 

[Kulindahr]

But, of course, there is no reason for us not to do both.

Actually, there is: it's called being civilized.

 

[NW007]

Interesting thought for you all to ponder.

Tonight the CNN political analysts were discussing the voters reaction last week. Even though the voters put the Democrats in charge of Congress; 78 % of the voters who were polled were concerned that the Democrats might pull out of Iraq too quickly. The analysts went on to discuss how that could make the Democrats look bad by 2008 if we leave and Iraq just completely falls apart. Otherwords, these same voters could end up holding the Democrats responsible if we leave too soon and Iraq completely falls apart more than it is right now.

CNN was just debating the political risks to such action. Just an example how real world decisions are never just that easy.

 

[Andreus]

at the end of the day, the commander in Cheif will be held responsible for the events in Iraq

that is the bottom line

the democrats can coerce and coddle, but he will make the call to either change the policy or stay

that means that it can be good for the dems if he doesn't change or good for the repubs of the future if he does

 

[NickCole]

Even though the voters put the Democrats in charge of Congress; 78 % of the voters who were polled were concerned that the Democrats might pull out of Iraq too quickly. ...

Iraq is a big, deadly, expensive mess and Americans want it fixed.

Problem is, nobody knows how to fix it, and in fact it might not be fixable for a very long time.

While there were plenty of other problems to deal with, Bush & Co created one that didn't exist before them. I think Americans still have not realized what a disgustingly corrupt, dishonest, incompetent, destructive administration Bush & Co is. And BushRepublicans are responsible as well, riding on their coat tails and marching in lockstep to Karl Rove's orders.

What I suspect will end up happening is we redeploy our troops and then maintain some kind of monitoring in the area, and return militarily if our own interests are threatened.

The bottom line is Bush & Co started this with a bunch of lies so they could have a war with Saddam Hussein and then they mismanaged it spectacularly. BushRepublicans in Congress helped the incompetent Bush & Co by repeating their lying propaganda about how great it was going in Iraq and how Democratic opposition was anti-American and pro-terrorist. Also BushRepublicans are to blame because they neglected to hold Bush & Co accountable, neglected to perform essential oversight.

So Americans voted in Democrats. What Democrats have taken on is a situation in crisis, and that means crisis management. The worst part is they're not even in a position to take action with Iraq, only to formulate a plan and suggest it to Bush & Co.

It's a terrible situation for Democrats but it's also an opportunity. We'll see how well they finesse being entrusted with dealing with a huge mess that they don't have the power to clean up.

 

[NW007]

Iraq is a big, deadly, expensive mess and Americans want it fixed.

Problem is, nobody knows how to fix it, and in fact it might not be fixable for a very long time.

While there were plenty of other problems to deal with, Bush & Co created one that didn't exist before them. I think Americans still have not realized what a disgustingly corrupt, dishonest, incompetent, destructive administration Bush & Co is. And BushRepublicans are responsible as well, riding on their coat tails and marching in lockstep to Karl Rove's orders.

What I suspect will end up happening is we redeploy our troops and then maintain some kind of monitoring in the area, and return militarily if our own interests are threatened.

The bottom line is Bush & Co started this with a bunch of lies so they could have a war with Saddam Hussein and then they mismanaged it spectacularly. BushRepublicans in Congress helped the incompetent Bush & Co by repeating their lying propaganda about how great it was going in Iraq and how Democratic opposition was anti-American and pro-terrorist. Also BushRepublicans are to blame because they neglected to hold Bush & Co accountable, neglected to perform essential oversight.

So Americans voted in Democrats. What Democrats have taken on is a situation in crisis, and that means crisis management. The worst part is they're not even in a position to take action with Iraq, only to formulate a plan and suggest it to Bush & Co.

It's a terrible situation for Democrats but it's also an opportunity. We'll see how well they finesse being entrusted with dealing with a huge mess that they don't have the power to clean up.

Your version wasn't quite like CNN was discussing yesterday. Remember what the orignal vote was in Congress. The blame game needs to be behind us and everyone working on positive solutions. Iraq is just one of the issues

 

[evanrick]

Good one Mattie - another recycled pic from James with a baby crying - really original. About as original as the current Dem position on what to do in Iraq - oh that's right they have none.

You are proving the point of my post

You have no idea what the Dems will do - because they haven't outlined anything

Be careful what u wish for cause the hangover is gonna be killer

What will the dems do? Half of them say leave now, the other half arent sure?

Well, we are sure what the republican plan IS that has been working so nicely!
STAY THE COURSE!

Given the choice, you have to be an idiot to choose the republican plan.

 

[naked gent]

Well, your just cynical as hell, aren't you! LoL...I don't think it is really as simple or self-serving as you put it. Most of "big industry" in America have been very suspicious of free-trade. For every Bill Gates and Microsoft who supports it, there is a US Steel who doesn't. I think your revealing your own ideological prejudices. If you instinctively feel that "big business" is inherently evil...your prolly on the Left. I think business is inherently good.

I'll plead guilty to the cynicism charge but I never said big business was inherently evil. I think its quite rational to want your investments to be protected. In the 19th century as america expanded west we built forts to protect settlers from indians and in the 20th century we've followed much the same plan as we have investments in most of the worlds countries and a military presence in them as well.

While I don't think business is evil I'm not sure what you mean by saying it is inherently good. A business that produces hefty profits is a good business especially if its yours but I don't think business "does good". Its not the reason they exist and should it happen its totally ancillary to their real purpose.

We COMPLETELY dissagree here. The West is half asleep, demoralized, and uncertain how to deal with, what I believe, to be the single most important international issue regarding world peace that we will face in this century. I always find it funny when people only quote that one line from Ike. Even Ike thought it was used out of context in his time. He presided over one of the greatest expansions of the military industrial complex in history. Ike's warning was to be careful in your oversight...not "it's time to break out the sandles and love-beads." Give the General a little more credit than that.

I didn't mean to suggest that it was time to break out the love-beads. Your right about Ike presiding over the creation of the military-industrial complex but his warning was to beware its influence.

"In the councils of goverment we must guard against the unwarranted influence by the military-industrial complex."

That complex will always need an external threat to justify its continued growth and they have been searching for one ever since the fall of communism. You might think 50 guys living in tents wouldn't qualify as such a threat but I guess they'll do until the chinese step up to the plate. Outside of the war the defense budget is gowing although connecting that growth to the war on terror is difficult.

Where are you getting that ideologies not linked to "land aquisition" fail? 1. Who says Islamic extremism isn't interested in controlling territory? 2. Movements DEVOID of fervrent ideology usually fail, not the other way around. "A few loopy muslims?" We need to chip in and get you cable news or sumthin. Islamic extremism is adhered to by TENS of MILLIONS upon TENS of MILLIONS at the most conservative estimate. It is THE dominate opposition politically in EVERY SINGLE MUSLIM COUNTRY ON THE PLANET in those countries not ALREADY under their control. Were you just unaware of this? Can you name a SINGLE muslim country where that is NOT the case? I can't think of one.

Your need to conflate the threat notwithstanding I thought in the "war on terror" we were fighting those who attacked us not some indigenous religious movement in Egypt or Pakistan which seeks to gain power. (In Afghanistan yes because that religious movement gave support to those who attacked us.)

In answer to your questions: 1. If the Al qaeda group which attack us did so in order to gain control of some piece of land do tell what piece was it?

2. Movements devoid of ideology can and do succeed unless you consider the ideology to be power for us. Such examples would include Saddam, Musharraf in Pakistan and those fun loving ruling generals in Burma. All managed to gain control over land without benefit of any overiding ideology.

As for your final query you might try thinking harder: Turkey and India are two.

You have me utterly confused here???? Your saying Al Qeada has NO interest in Iraq BECAUSE it is so rich in oil? WTF??? Are you kidding? I could argue the abserdity of that, but why take my word for it? Accoriding to Al Qeada's official sources, Iraq is THE CENTRAL FRONT in thier efforts. They will be delighted to take over or at least control significant aspects of that countries national life.

Whatever interest Al Qaeda may have in Iraq once we leave I'm confident the Iraqi's will dispose of them in short order. Currently in Iraq the sunni Al Qaeda contingent there is killing more of the shia than they are americans. Once the shia consolidate their power and make a deal with the sunnis those foreign to Iraq had better watch out. Should such a deal never be struck then the sunnis can be expected to give succor to any foreign terrorists there.

And while you and George Bush may be satisfied that Iraq is the central front in the war on terror because Al Qaeda says it is to me that means that most of their resources are deployed there which is not the case. I'd advise you to pay less attention to what they say and more attention to what they do.

It is just not true, and in direct contrast to basic military history, to think that the South Vietnamese were not severely handicapped by the total cut-off in aid. They DID run out of the most basic supplies.

Basic military history says the south simply didn't engage in enough battles with the north to run out of anything. The north had a 2 yr plan to defeat the south....it took them less than 4 months. The Army of South Vietnam is much like the Iraqi army of today, they may like the uniform but they find actual fighting distasteful and should those former residents of South Vietnam who live here now prefer to point the finger elsewhere that really shouldn't surprise you.

The peace accords did allow everyone's troops, except ours, to remain on the chessboard where they were but it was a treaty based on the eventual political settlement of the conflict.

Gee ya think that the north's refusal to remove their troops from the south might have been an indication of what their eventual settlement was going to be? Nixon caved on that point because he was running for president and wanted out, its not any more complicated than that.

You are totally glossing over the Democratic Parties betrayal of the people of South-East Asia and trying to make it seem as if the Republicans were just as guilty.

Not glossing over what the dems did just pointing out that the republicans are as much to blame. We fought two war against communism in asia in Korea we left troops there and that country is still free. In Vietnam we pulled all our troops out and that country fell to the communists. How YOU can underplay that fact makes me question your dedication to objectivity.

 

[NickCole]

Your version wasn't quite like CNN was discussing yesterday.

Good. I hate to repeat what someone else has already said.

Remember what the orignal vote was in Congress.

I remember.

What's your point?

The blame game needs to be behind us

It would be foolhardy to forget the destructive and divisive words and actions of BushRepublicans over the past several years.

On September 11, 2001 I encouraged people to support Bush and BushRepublicans, to end the criticism and partisanship because we needed to be united, and surely Bush and BushRepublicans would use their power and 9/11 to bring us together and make wise decisions. Boy, was I naive about how rotten some people really are.

Bush & Co and BushRepublicans using 9/11 to further divide us and start an unnecessary war is unforgivable. They called us un-American and unpatriotic and allies of terrorists because we dared voice opposition to their stupid and wasteful war.

The blame game needs to be behind us? Call it what you want, but those who wasted hundreds of billions of our treasury, thousands of American lives and our standing in the world, to say nothing of making a chaotic snake pit out of Iraq, several legislative messes to clean up (prescription drug entitlement for instance), important existing messes not attended to (alternative minimum tax for instance, and social security), and other important legislation not even begun (health care for instance), while they focused on nonsense like flag burning and keeping "under God" in the Pledge of Allegience and banning gay marriage, will be held accountable. They SHOULD be held accountable. I'm not interested in revenge but I am not going to forget; I won't be hoodwinked again by those smarmy liars.

 

[Kulindahr]

1. Can you please advise the forum who "most of the Democrats" are who posit that firearms shouldn't exist in America? As in a list of names? Otherwise, it would seem you've gone off the rails again.

2. Can you please advise how you came to the conclusion that these unnamed people and anyone who agrees somehow becomes "pro-rape, pro-murder, pro-crime?"



Can you please substantiate your statement that somehow "taking away firearms" would mean "at least 2.5 million more crimes in the U.S. every year?"

Not that I don't necessarily trust you, but a history of playing fast and loose with the facts has dimmed your reputation.

That's your fantasy of my "playing fast and loose with the facts", Alfie... and if my inability to recall sources "dims" my reputation, then you should have none at all -- most of your posts since I've been at JUB have been rant, insult, personal attacks, and slogans.

Now, let's see. There were these things called the "Brady Bill" and the "Lautenberg Amendment". Each was voted for by all or nearly all the Democrats in Congress. Each was part of an agenda of one or more organizations who have admitted that their goal is to outlaw all guns from America. Now you have two choices: either all the congresscritters who voted for those are lazy and incompetent, or they are aware of the agenda and decided to aid it. If you want to concede that most of those Democrats were lazy and incompetent, I'll withdraw my assertion -- I just assume they're being responsible enough to check into things they're voting for.

That such people are "pro-rape, pro-murder, and pro-crime" is obvious from the intent. According to government sources, which substantiate the claims of John Lott, Jr., upwards of 2.2 million crimes each year are stopped by armed citizens; I believe Lott puts the figure at 2.5 million, and I've read some that put it higher. Since government as it stands perfers not to accord citizens the credit they're due, I go with the 2.5 million figure (also since as with many other things a fair number of people just don't report chasing a bad guy away, unless there's actual gunfire). Now take away those firearms, and presto! all those crimes would have actually happened, rather than being nipped in the bud. Thus anyone who wishes to take guns away is telling those citizens who defend themselves, their families, neighbors, and property, "We think you'd be better off as victims of those violent criminals" -- that's pro-crime, or at least pro-victimization.
I use the term "pro-rape" because of some chicks I know who were faced with rapists. The only one who got away was the one with a concealed handgun. Knowing this, one of the other two went to get her CHL, and learned to shoot. When a certain female Democrat senator one day was expounding on how only the police should have guns, this chick called her "pro-rape", and the others agreed.
The logic is the same for pro-murder: if you believe in taking away the instruments whereby people might defend themselves against murder, you're pro-murder, plain and simple. Arguing against that is like the man who threw his child into the swimming pool and the child drowned; "I didn't want him to drown! I did it for his own good!" he argues.

 

[Kulindahr]

I'm often frustrated when politicians talk about "the lessons of Vietnam". Mostly they seem to mean "don't get tangled in a war". But the actual lessons from Vietnam are different.
The first begins with those same words, but adds "that you don't really mean to win". Our efforts in Vietnam were hampered over and again by political decisions that forced the military to operate with one hand tied behind its back, and one shoe on and one shoe off. The same was done in Iraq from the moment Saddam's government go toppled and Bush sent in Bremer -- who made military decisions and made them all wrong.
The second lesson is "don't walk out on people who are counting on you." I agree with much of what I've seen in previous posts: we did not train the SV (South Vietnamese) forces sufficiently; their abilities were inflated by people who wanted to look good, and so we left (political decision!) while they had no ability to actually defend themselves, and without providing exit transportation to people that any half-sentient redneck could have figured out were going to get slaughtered once the North took over -- which it did, and they did.

So, applying those to Iraq, (if I were replacing Bush as president):
1. Hang the asshole that dismantled the Iraqi Army. That might be two assholes, really; my bet is Rummy had input on that.
1b. Round up people who made similar stupid decisions, send them to boot camp, and put them out on the roads over there. (cynically: tell the world they're going, and leak word to the insurgents where they're going to be).
2. Shut down this foolish study group, and turn it over to the War College. If you don't have a military education, you have no business trying to make military plans. But be sure there are a couple of real historians in the group, preferably seasoned with sociology and political theory; we've made too many mistakes assuming the Iraqis will respond like Americans or Europeans, when they're an utterly different culture and stage of historical development.
2. b Form a second group that is under the strictest secrecy, to look at the ideas of the War College group and comment on them. In this group should be some (preferably educated) leaders from among the Kurds, the Sunnis, and the Shiites. They just might have a little bit of insight into the country, after all.
3. Tell the leaders over there -- not "the government", which I'm not sure is much more than a symbol, but the people who are actually doing some leading of people who actually follow them -- that our aid for rebuilding is frozen for the time being because a few of their fellow Iraquis are behaving like mean, wicked little children, and there's no point in us spending money when those few are just going to tear things down.
3b. Kick out the big coporations who are supposed to be building big projects. If they're repairing things, require them to hire Iraqis as trainees, so there will be people who know the installations once we've gone. For the rest of the aid, call all the Sheiks or whatever together and hand them a catalog of domestic items they can order (from the U.S. and other coalition countries) out of, and that they have a large credit line starting at $50,000 a month, to buy what their people need.
4. Promise that we will keep a presence there until the country is stable, but that we will leave any time 90% of the "council" of sheiks requests us to.

5. Lean on some more stable countries in the area to take in refugees, at our expense, if the whole thing comes apart.

BTW, as stand-in president, I would not issue Bush & Co. a pardon for anything unless they could get me the combined fortunes of Bill Gates, George Soros, Paul Allen, and another billionaire of their choosing.
Then I'd use some of that to fund a Moon program, and send them there -- permanently.

 

[NW007]

It's a pity you haven't provided a link or the transcript, especially as you're only providing one side of that poll's findings. The flip side of that poll was an equal number fearing the Republicans would drag their feet and take too long to exit Iraq. As such, I really don't know what value this poll holds as a metric for what the public's expectations of BOTH parties really are.

One thing of which I'm certain is this war is viewed as a Republican war, it's seen as Bush's war, which is quite accurate. After all, it was evidence culled, chosen, and provided by the Executive branch that comprised the case for war, and it was GW Bush and the GOP Senate leaders who made certain the vote to use force was held just before the 2002 elections, and it was Bush and his party that made up shit to sell this war, shit like the president repeatedly claiming that he feared "mushroom clouds" over American cities as America's fate, if the Congress didn't see things his way. Given all of the lies in the selling of the war and all of the cheap, partisan (as in GOP) politics surrounding the timing of the Iraq authorization, it is indeed a good and accurate thing that the American people recognize exactly who it was that led us into this disaster, and I suspect America will recall that the Democrats neither started the war nor are they responsible to end it. After all, the conducting of war is largely an Executive matter, not legislative.

I agree with NickCole -- there probably aren't any magic plans or solutions to exit Iraq and the determination to withdraw will be a complicated matrix of pros and cons. Indeed, as with all fraudulent and botched beginnings of enterprises such as war, it is the getting out that requires so much deliberation and planning, especially in this circumstance where it seems there was no planning beyond the invasion, no "next steps" were carefully charted for post-invasion occupation of Iraq in 2003.



Yes, well, the media always likes to fret and wring its hands when it comes to the Democrats, just as the media loves to salute the "steeled determination" and "sense of focus" of the Republicans even as they made a total mash of the war. Dems are simply going to have to do the best they can with a bad situation, and let the chips fall where they may.



Yes, what of it? The vote was as follows: The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 was passed by the United States Congress authorizing force by a largely party line vote of 296-133, and by the Senate on October 11 by a vote of 77-23.[/B] But again, I don't know what you're trying to nail up against the vote as it was gained under false pretenses.



I've always found that people who refuse help and seek instead to "brand" their efforts as their own at the start of certain endevors are usually the very same idiots who, after their great ideas prove to be terrible realities and after everything their opponents said would come to pass comes to pass, say, "Well this is a fine fix you got us in." Sorry, doesn't work that way, and in no way am I being sarcastic or dismissive of the critical importance of Iraq when I say that it's a little late to look at people who opposed the invasion and to try and blame them for one's own lies and incompetence.

The facts -- so clear to almost everyone but apparently not to you -- are that had the truth been told about Iraq and its WMD, Bush's request to use force in Iraq likely would have failed -- there was no case to support the serious business of going to war. Democrats cannot and should not forget that going to war wasn't their idea, it was Bush's idea, and it is him that the American people must, and will, ultimately hold accountable. Put another way, this mess need not and should not have ever occurred, and while the Dems will do what they can to remediate the situation, it wasn't their planning, it wasn't their lies, and it wasn't their war.

And who are the VIABLE Democratic potential leaders who opposed the war from the start who at the time(2003) were elected officals.??

And hindsght is always 20/20, whereas most decisions be it military, economic, political, business or whatever have to be made based upon what is known at the time.

Let's move forward, but realize one option may end up sending more troops not fewer.