I'm a little uncertain by what mechanism you think pressure for more ethnic cleansing is building up.
I would concur with Shinto, on this one.
I don't think it matters when we leave, other than the longer we stay, the greater the chance that we'll be able to put together some sort of infrastructure, which may help, as well as allowing more people to flee Iraq, which will also save lives.
Thanatos on
0
Options
GoslingLooking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, ProbablyWatertown, WIRegistered Userregular
edited May 2007
The culture over there includes something of a revenge clause- you screw me over, I screw you over later. If you shoot my brother, I shoot you. In turn, the relatives of those two go at each other for a while until that revenge cycle burns out.
As it stands now, thousands and thousands of revenge cycles are getting started and perpetuated due to the war. None of them are ending as we're drawing the attention away from it and stepping in trying to stop them (futilely). It's not like they're going to forget. As time passes, more revenge cycles are started (some of them by us) without any of them ending. When we leave, all the built-up revenge cycles are going to start running at full power, with undivided attention.
The longer we stay, the more revenge cycles are built up, and the more dead Iraqis result from it.
Gosling on
I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
Imagine you're having a conflict within your family; then some government expert shows up and says he's going to fix things for you; he may be and expert but he doesn't know jack all about your family or it's problems. Odds are you will simply resent his presence and ignore his advice; what buisness does he have telling you how to run your life? This is what's happening in Iraq; the Americans are outsiders in the eyes of the people and nothing they do is going to make things better, they can try and curb the violence but as for social reform Iraq will have to sink or swim on it's own merits.
The US may have opened this can of worms when they took out Sadam but much of the conflict is part of a centuries old feud that isn't likely to be solved within years or even decades. The most the US can do is hold out until the local government is strong enough to maintain order then hope for the best.
Novus on
I'm not smart, but thanks to the internet I can pretend.
wii Number 0648 2052 0203 3154
I'm a little uncertain by what mechanism you think pressure for more ethnic cleansing is building up.
I would concur with Shinto, on this one.
I don't think it matters when we leave, other than the longer we stay, the greater the chance that we'll be able to put together some sort of infrastructure, which may help, as well as allowing more people to flee Iraq, which will also save lives.
We could also be building an infastructure that makes whatever dictator ends up taking over iraq's job much easier
I'm a little uncertain by what mechanism you think pressure for more ethnic cleansing is building up.
I would concur with Shinto, on this one.
I don't think it matters when we leave, other than the longer we stay, the greater the chance that we'll be able to put together some sort of infrastructure, which may help, as well as allowing more people to flee Iraq, which will also save lives.
We could also be building an infastructure that makes whatever dictator ends up taking over iraq's job much easier
I think that before anyone even has a chance of sorting out Iraq, someone needs to sort out this thread.
Never in my life have I seen so many lame sarcastic comments thrown into a mere two pages of the internet. This must be some sort of perverse record. Like a high score in being shit.
I think that before anyone even has a chance of sorting out Iraq, someone needs to sort out this thread.
Never in my life have I seen so many lame sarcastic comments thrown into a mere two pages of the internet. This must be some sort of perverse record. Like a high score in being shit.
Your momma is some sort of perverse record.
Also, I think it's quite clear by now that Iraq is a no-win scenario.
PJB: Why Congress Caved to Bush
by Patrick J. Buchanan
The anti-war Democrats are crying betrayal – and justifiably so.
For a Democratic Congress is now voting to fully fund the war in Iraq, as demanded by President Bush, and without any timetable for a U.S. troop withdrawal. Bush got his $100 billion, then magnanimously agreed to let Democrats keep the $20 billion in pork they stuffed into the bill – to soothe the pain of their sellout of the party base.
Remarkable. If the Republican rout of 2006 said anything, it was that America had lost faith in the Bush-Rumsfeld conduct of the war and wanted Democrats to lead the country out.
Yet, today, there are more U.S. troops in Iraq than when the Democrats won. More are on the way. And with the surge and retention of troops in Iraq beyond normal tours, there should be a record number of U.S. troops in country by year’s end.
Why did the Democrats capitulate?
Because they lack the courage of their convictions. Because they fear the consequences if they put their anti-war beliefs into practice. Because they are afraid if they defund the war and force President Bush to withdraw U.S. troops, the calamity he predicts will come to pass and they will be held accountable for losing Iraq and the strategic disaster that might well ensue.
Democrats are an intimidated party. The reasons are historical. They were shredded by Nixon and Joe McCarthy for FDR’s surrenders to Stalin at Tehran and Yalta, for losing China to Mao’s hordes, for the “no-win war†in Korea, for being “soft on communism.â€
The best and the brightest – JFK’s New Frontiersmen – were held responsible for plunging us into Vietnam and proving incapable of winning the war. A Democratic Congress cut off aid to Saigon in 1975, ceding Southeast Asia to Hanoi and bringing on the genocide of Pol Pot.
Democrats know they are distrusted on national security. They fear that if they defund this war and bring on a Saigon ending in the Green Zone, it will be a generation before they are trusted with national power. And power is what the party is all about.
Yet, not only does the situation in Iraq appear increasingly grim, with rising U.S. and Iraqi casualties, other shoes are about to drop that will reverberate throughout the region.
Support for Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, with his war in Lebanon a debacle and his leadership denounced by a commission he appointed, is in single digits. Waiting in the wings is Likud super-hawk “Bibi†Netanyahu, the most popular politician in Israel, who compares today to Munich 1938 and equates Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with Hitler.
If and when Bibi comes to power, he will use every stratagem to provoke us into attacking “Hitler.â€
Also drumming for war on Iran are the floundering neocons and the Israeli lobby. Under orders from the lobby, Nancy Pelosi stripped from a House bill a stipulation that Bush must come to Congress for authorization before launching an attack on Iran.
With Democratic contenders reciting the mantra “All options are on the table,†and Iran defying U.N. sanctions, pursuing nuclear enrichment and detaining U.S. citizens, Bush has a blank check to launch a third war.
Lebanon is ablaze. Gaza is ablaze. The Afghan war is not going well. The Taliban have a privileged sanctuary. The NATO allies grow weary.
In Pakistan, the most dangerous country on earth – one bullet away from an Islamic republic with atom bombs – our erstwhile ally, President Musharraf, is caught in a political crisis over his ouster of the chief justice.
Presidents Musharraf in Islamabad, Kharzi in Kabul and Siniora in Beirut, and Prime Minister Maliki in Baghdad, sit on shaky thrones. No one knows what follows their fall. But it is hard to see how it would not be crippling for America’s position.
With such volatility in this crucial region of the world, with such uncertainty, it is easy to see why Democrats prefer to be the “dummy†at the bridge table and let Bush play the hand.
The congressional Democrats are cynical, but they are not stupid. If the surge works and U.S. troops are being withdrawn by fall 2008, they do not want it said of them that they “cut and ran†when the going got tough, that they played Chamberlain to Bush’s Churchill.
And if the war is going badly in 2008, they know that the American people, in repudiating the party of Bush and Cheney, have no other choice than the party of Hillary and Pelosi and Harry Reid.
That is why congressional Democrats are surely saying privately of the angry anti-war left what has often been said by the Beltway Republican elite of the right: “Don’t worry about them. They have nowhere else to go.â€
And that is why the anti-war left was thrown under the bus.
A country of half a billion people does not ride around in someone's pocket.
The Democrats lack the courage of their convictions? More like they want to end the war, but in a way that is more stable than pulling all the troops out at once because of a lack of funding.
No man, so many Republicans are waivering that this fall if things haven't improved the hammer is going to come down.
Which set of insurgents do they plan on negotiating with?
you mean they aren't just one organised group?!?!?!
Shock!
Yes they are. Al Queda... duh. They are like this super organised criminal organisation. All terrists/insirgints are Al Queda. Osama is their leader, he sits in a big leather swivle chair, with a fluffy cat and a ring on his little finger.
A country of half a billion people does not ride around in someone's pocket.
The Democrats lack the courage of their convictions? More like they want to end the war, but in a way that is more stable than pulling all the troops out at once because of a lack of funding.
No man, so many Republicans are waivering that this fall if things haven't improved the hammer is going to come down.
I knew someone would quibble over the particulars in the first half of the article. It's the second half that I'm more interested in. Let's ignore the fact that Buchanan is almost 70 years old so when he pulls examples he'll do it from his era, and his height of political expertise, and not ours. That he'll put more weight into history then in the eccentricities of modern spin. Personally I'm not against such an attitude, since we barely examine history at all these days.
Let's discuss this one:
That is why congressional Democrats are surely saying privately of the angry anti-war left what has often been said by the Beltway Republican elite of the right: “Don’t worry about them. They have nowhere else to go.â€
And that is why the anti-war left was thrown under the bus.
Has the Democratic party trivialized the section of the party that got them into office, just as the Republicans did for 6 years. Is the Anti-War left the new Fundy Right?
Alexan Drite on
0
Options
GoslingLooking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, ProbablyWatertown, WIRegistered Userregular
edited May 2007
So Clinton, Obama and Dodd voted against the funding, and I can only assume Kucinich did as well. That's, if I'm not missing anyone, all the Democratic candidates with the opportunity to vote on this.
Gosling on
I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
That is why congressional Democrats are surely saying privately of the angry anti-war left what has often been said by the Beltway Republican elite of the right: “Don’t worry about them. They have nowhere else to go.â€
And that is why the anti-war left was thrown under the bus.
Has the Democratic party trivialized the section of the party that got them into office, just as the Republicans did for 6 years. Is the Anti-War left the new Fundy Right?
The "Anti-War Left" in general (not specifically just people opposed to the Iraq War, which is more numerous) has always been the "Fundy Right" of the Democratic party. Ultimately, passage of Bush's funding bill was inevitable, and benchmarks or withdrawal dates would have been meaningless.
Has the Democratic party trivialized the section of the party that got them into office, just as the Republicans did for 6 years. Is the Anti-War left the new Fundy Right?
Well, yes and no. Safe voters are often trivialized, that is correct. Marginal voters have more power.
But you realize that these safe voters were not the ones that got the Democrats into a majority in congress. Independents put the Democrats in office - and it was to put a break on Bush more than as a command to end the war no matter what.
Ultimately, I think it would be irresponsible for the Democrats to withhold funding at this point. I'd much rather that we wait until fall, then if things still aren't going well I would hope there would be enough Republican defectors to bring more options to the table than the funding/no funding choice.
In any case - I'd say the Democrats did in fact win quite a victory.
The put the $2.10 minimum wage hike legistlation whole, without compromise, into the funding bill. That was one of the main pillars of their platform.
So Clinton, Obama and Dodd voted against the funding, and I can only assume Kucinich did as well. That's, if I'm not missing anyone, all the Democratic candidates with the opportunity to vote on this.
And there goes my faith in the future of the US goverment.
Gaddez on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
So Clinton, Obama and Dodd voted against the funding, and I can only assume Kucinich did as well. That's, if I'm not missing anyone, all the Democratic candidates with the opportunity to vote on this.
And there goes my faith in the future of the US goverment.
Defunding would have been disastrous, and that's really the only tool available to congress. Bush would be willing to bleed the army white in order to press for more funding and score political points.
Keith had a great Special Comment the other night- ripped into the Dems for punking out, and ripped into W. for playing political chicken with the lives of American soldiers at stake.
Tach on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
Keith had a great Special Comment the other night- ripped into the Dems for punking out, and ripped into W. for playing political chicken with the lives of American soldiers at stake.
Yeah I saw that. But, you know, it's a lot easier to stand on principle when you don't have to deal with pragmatic politics and the consequences of principled stands.
Defunding would have been disastrous, and that's really the only tool available to congress. Bush would be willing to bleed the army white in order to press for more funding and score political points.
The culture over there includes something of a revenge clause- you screw me over, I screw you over later.
Or, more hyperbolically - You give me incorrect change, I go Kaiser Soze on your ass.
The bigshots in the Middle East seem about as interested in peace as American bigshots are in the electric car: They pay the idea plenty of lip service, and it's been showing up in nerdy magazines for dozens of years, but nobody wants to get too close to it for fear of seeming weak. The ironic thing is that is for most everyday schlubs, they'd love to have (it or something like it), but don't have the knowledge/means/access to break away from the status quo.
Yeah I was kind of wondering how the US Military can successfully negotiate with a large number of extremely fluid groups whose sole raison d'etre it seems is to oppose their presence.
"Hey guys, look, we're both just here to drum up support for our respective groups, so let's not fuck each other in the ass on this, ok? We'll shoot over your heads, you shoot over ours, and we all go back to our sandy tents/bombed-out hovels happy."
Randomtask on
Most men pursue pleasure with such breathless haste that they hurry past it.
- Soren Kierkegaard
I think its interesting that Sadr is talking about national unity and protecting Iraqis no matter their religion or creed. Hurrah Pan-Iraqism! Sadly though, a lot of that is getting tossed under stories about how apparently Muslim youths are AOK with suicide bombers and how the US is stepping up its attacks against Sadr.
As far as Bush bleeding the Army white, I hope he's the cause of the Republicans losing a majority of the military vote for the next two generations.
Isn't this how most wars end; the two sides sit down together and come to an arrangement? Isn't the whole point of the bombing, shooting and general killyness to give yourself a stronger position when the nogations actually happen? Maybe I'm missing something.
I know that 72 virgins fits in the reasoning but I don't know where.
Picardathon on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
I think its interesting that Sadr is talking about national unity and protecting Iraqis no matter their religion or creed. Hurrah Pan-Iraqism! Sadly though, a lot of that is getting tossed under stories about how apparently Muslim youths are AOK with suicide bombers and how the US is stepping up its attacks against Sadr.
Yeah I'm not really sure what to make of it. If Al Sadr is in earnest, I could easily see it turning into a Castro/ Khomeni situation.
In any case - I'd say the Democrats did in fact win quite a victory.
The put the $2.10 minimum wage hike legistlation whole, without compromise, into the funding bill. That was one of the main pillars of their platform.
Really? A victory? As compromises go, this one seems to be fairly one-sided. How does funding for 3 more months of carnage = minimum wage increase? They folded on the very issue that got them elected (as opposed to the minimum wage increase, which is fine, but not the reason they hold the power of the purse that they're not exercising).
I'm surprised that more attention hasn't been paid to this 'bargaining' aspect. No one believes there will be serious improvement by September, including Petraeus. In effect, the President got his money, the Democrats got a few concessions, and the debate is suspended for the summer while Americans get murdered in the desert. Fantastic victory.
In any case - I'd say the Democrats did in fact win quite a victory.
The put the $2.10 minimum wage hike legistlation whole, without compromise, into the funding bill. That was one of the main pillars of their platform.
Really? A victory? As compromises go, this one seems to be fairly one-sided. How does funding for 3 more months of carnage = minimum wage increase? They folded on the very issue that got them elected (as opposed to the minimum wage increase, which is fine, but not the reason they hold the power of the purse that they're not exercising).
I'm surprised that more attention hasn't been paid to this 'bargaining' aspect. No one believes there will be serious improvement by September, including Petraeus. In effect, the President got his money, the Democrats got a few concessions, and the debate is suspended for the summer while Americans get murdered in the desert. Fantastic victory.
It's not true that no one believes there will be improvement by september.
Save the moral indignation over the bargaining. If the Democrats committ political suicide by not having enough Republican support when they defund we'll have another Republican president and Congress soon enough. Does that seem like a good idea to you? A good recipe for avoiding unnecessary deaths?
Save the moral indignation over the bargaining. If the Democrats committ political suicide by not having enough Republican support when they defund we'll have another Republican president and Congress soon enough. Does that seem like a good idea to you? A good recipe for avoiding unnecessary deaths?
I'd take another GOP administration if it meant no more Americans had to die in Iraq. The fact that the Dem leadership can't get their shit together on withdrawal reinforces that. Hypothetical guesses on '08 shouldn't even factor in here. Republicans will say we don't 'support the troops' no matter what we do, so we may as well actually support the troops and bring them home.
And if you're bothered by moral indignation, you should probably avoid discussing unjust wars. Soldiers were dying for nothing. Now they're dying for a minimum wage increase. That doesn't agitate you?
And if you're bothered by moral indignation, you should probably avoid discussing unjust wars. Soldiers were dying for nothing. Now they're dying for a minimum wage increase. That doesn't agitate you?
That's not really my view of the situation so . . . I can't really feel any way about it.
Would it agitate you for a lot more people to die in a war against Iran because the Republicans retook the government in 2008?
It’s a pretty safe guess that American troops will start pulling out of Iraq no later than the spring of next year, or in time to give the Republican presidential candidate at least a small helping hand.
It’s not a guess but a certainty that whenever those troops do leave, they will never, ever go back there again.
What isn’t certain at all is whether American as well as other troops from other countries (such as Canada) will ever go back to what could be called Iraq’s lesser equivalents around the world — that is, to countries where people are being killed in large numbers.
The debacle in Iraq has brought to an abrupt end the era of American imperialism that followed its victory in the Cold War and the creation of what was called, and for a time indeed appeared to be, a “unipolar world.”
The new sense in Washington of imperial limits is to be wholly applauded. But with two cheers, not three.
The risk is that after the unipolar world will come a no-polar world.
It’s worth remembering that the botched occupation of Iraq wasn’t the only U.S. military intervention during its decade or so of seemingly unchallengeable global dominance. Earlier, the U.S. led a NATO force (a small Canadian contribution as part of it) into Kosovo to halt ethnic cleansing there. Likewise in Bosnia.
Moreover, the failure of the U.S., and of others, to intervene in Rwanda to stop the slaughter of nearly one million people was almost universally condemned.
All these undertakings were justified as “humanitarian interventions.”
And now, perhaps never again, as in the Sudan’s Darfur region despite a death toll there estimated at 400,000 and rising.
The key reasons for change are the pain and humiliation the U.S. is now suffering in Iraq.
But that’s not the only change. British Prime Minister Tony Blair retires in a few weeks. Lost from the international stage will be the most eloquent advocate of humanitarian interventionism.
In Chicago in 1999, Blair delivered perhaps the finest speech of his career when he called on the world to act, “in pursuit of global values: liberty, democracy, tolerance, justice,” on the grounds that globalization means interdependence and that interdependence has to mean “a common value system to make it work.”
The new values are very likely to be those of realism, pragmatism, and national interest; no blunders like Iraq, therefore, but also not much of anything at all.
It goes without saying the new international tone will be set principally by whomever succeeds George W. Bush.
But with the unipolar world now yesterday’s world, other voices can also be heard. Among these, the most intriguing has to be that of Bernard Kouchner, the surprising choice of French President Nicolas Sarkozy for his foreign minister.
From his spot on the right of centre, Sarkozy has leaned far to the left. Kouchner is co-founder of the Nobel Peace Prize-winning humanitarian organization, Doctors Without Borders.
Between Blair and Kouchner, there isn’t much space. He too is a strong advocate of liberal interventionism. He originally supported the Iraq war as justified by “overthrowing an evil dictator” (Saddam Hussein).
Iraq is now the third rail of international politics.
But every act of genocide or mass slaughter, or the cumulative acts of an oppressive regime like Zimbabwe, is not necessarily lethal in the same way. And the moral costs of inaction can be as deeply wounding as those caused by an inept, arrogant intervention. As foreign minister of a middle power, Kouchner’s reach won’t be that long. His voice will still matter. He deserves to be heard.
Richard Gwyn usually appears on Tuesdays. Contact him at gwynr@sympatico.ca
The Dems caved becasue they don't want ot take the flak for losing the war. Come fall when the surge is not working bush will have absolute ownership of the war's failure.
kinda sad how both sides seem to have no shame playing politics with troops lives
The Dems caved becasue they don't want ot take the flak for losing the war. Come fall when the surge is not working bush will have absolute ownership of the war's failure.
kinda sad how both sides seem to have no shame playing politics with troops lives
You say that like politics is a game that has no relation to how many troops die. If Al Gore had played politics a little better the Iraq War might not have happened. If the Democrats play well now who knows if on net hundreds of thousands might be saved over the next decade.
I'm a little tired of this view that politics is without consequence.
The Dems caved becasue they don't want ot take the flak for losing the war. Come fall when the surge is not working bush will have absolute ownership of the war's failure.
kinda sad how both sides seem to have no shame playing politics with troops lives
You say that like politics is a game that has no relation to how many troops die. If Al Gore had played politics a little better the Iraq War might not have happened. If the Democrats play well now who knows if on net hundreds of thousands might be saved over the next decade.
I'm a little tired of this view that politics is without consequence.
I imagine that the idea comes from the fact that so many things in politics seems like hot headed arguing. One side bickers with the other a sort of deadlock happens and important things dont happen as fast as people think they should. Hence the view that politics don't have consequences, because to the average person it looks like all talk no action. Most don't think that poilitics are without consequnce, rather they think that the results and the consequences don't come fast enough. People don't find the government decisive enough.
The Dems caved becasue they don't want ot take the flak for losing the war. Come fall when the surge is not working bush will have absolute ownership of the war's failure.
kinda sad how both sides seem to have no shame playing politics with troops lives
You say that like politics is a game that has no relation to how many troops die. If Al Gore had played politics a little better the Iraq War might not have happened. If the Democrats play well now who knows if on net hundreds of thousands might be saved over the next decade.
I'm a little tired of this view that politics is without consequence.
I imagine that the idea comes from the fact that so many things in politics seems like hot headed arguing. One side bickers with the other a sort of deadlock happens and important things dont happen as fast as people think they should. Hence the view that politics don't have consequences, because to the average person it looks like all talk no action. Most don't think that poilitics are without consequnce, rather they think that the results and the consequences don't come fast enough. People don't find the government decisive enough.
Yeah, I wish the government did everything I wanted much faster also.
I hate having to compromise with these other three hundred million people on the choice of representatives and policy.
Posts
I don't think it matters when we leave, other than the longer we stay, the greater the chance that we'll be able to put together some sort of infrastructure, which may help, as well as allowing more people to flee Iraq, which will also save lives.
As it stands now, thousands and thousands of revenge cycles are getting started and perpetuated due to the war. None of them are ending as we're drawing the attention away from it and stepping in trying to stop them (futilely). It's not like they're going to forget. As time passes, more revenge cycles are started (some of them by us) without any of them ending. When we leave, all the built-up revenge cycles are going to start running at full power, with undivided attention.
The longer we stay, the more revenge cycles are built up, and the more dead Iraqis result from it.
But then, I think it is pretty clear that you and I see the world and the way it works in very different ways.
The US may have opened this can of worms when they took out Sadam but much of the conflict is part of a centuries old feud that isn't likely to be solved within years or even decades. The most the US can do is hold out until the local government is strong enough to maintain order then hope for the best.
wii Number 0648 2052 0203 3154
We could also be building an infastructure that makes whatever dictator ends up taking over iraq's job much easier
Ever heard of Family Feud?
Or a nice game of Rock Paper Sissors
Never in my life have I seen so many lame sarcastic comments thrown into a mere two pages of the internet. This must be some sort of perverse record. Like a high score in being shit.
Your momma is some sort of perverse record.
Also, I think it's quite clear by now that Iraq is a no-win scenario.
Among other gems - the Democrats lost China?
A country of half a billion people does not ride around in someone's pocket.
The Democrats lack the courage of their convictions? More like they want to end the war, but in a way that is more stable than pulling all the troops out at once because of a lack of funding.
No man, so many Republicans are waivering that this fall if things haven't improved the hammer is going to come down.
Actually, I think he meant COBRA.
Let's discuss this one:
Has the Democratic party trivialized the section of the party that got them into office, just as the Republicans did for 6 years. Is the Anti-War left the new Fundy Right?
The "Anti-War Left" in general (not specifically just people opposed to the Iraq War, which is more numerous) has always been the "Fundy Right" of the Democratic party. Ultimately, passage of Bush's funding bill was inevitable, and benchmarks or withdrawal dates would have been meaningless.
Well, yes and no. Safe voters are often trivialized, that is correct. Marginal voters have more power.
But you realize that these safe voters were not the ones that got the Democrats into a majority in congress. Independents put the Democrats in office - and it was to put a break on Bush more than as a command to end the war no matter what.
Ultimately, I think it would be irresponsible for the Democrats to withhold funding at this point. I'd much rather that we wait until fall, then if things still aren't going well I would hope there would be enough Republican defectors to bring more options to the table than the funding/no funding choice.
In any case - I'd say the Democrats did in fact win quite a victory.
The put the $2.10 minimum wage hike legistlation whole, without compromise, into the funding bill. That was one of the main pillars of their platform.
And there goes my faith in the future of the US goverment.
Defunding would have been disastrous, and that's really the only tool available to congress. Bush would be willing to bleed the army white in order to press for more funding and score political points.
I think in the context here it's just him describing "things democrats have been blamed for by popular opinion."
And it's true- they got blamed for "losing China" even though the idea that China was America's to be lost is completely ridiculous.
Yeah, that makes a lot more sense.
Or, more hyperbolically - You give me incorrect change, I go Kaiser Soze on your ass.
The bigshots in the Middle East seem about as interested in peace as American bigshots are in the electric car: They pay the idea plenty of lip service, and it's been showing up in nerdy magazines for dozens of years, but nobody wants to get too close to it for fear of seeming weak. The ironic thing is that is for most everyday schlubs, they'd love to have (it or something like it), but don't have the knowledge/means/access to break away from the status quo.
"Hey guys, look, we're both just here to drum up support for our respective groups, so let's not fuck each other in the ass on this, ok? We'll shoot over your heads, you shoot over ours, and we all go back to our sandy tents/bombed-out hovels happy."
- Soren Kierkegaard
As far as Bush bleeding the Army white, I hope he's the cause of the Republicans losing a majority of the military vote for the next two generations.
Yeah I'm not really sure what to make of it. If Al Sadr is in earnest, I could easily see it turning into a Castro/ Khomeni situation.
Jesus I hope so. I've really lost faith in military voters, but would love to be proven wrong.
Really? A victory? As compromises go, this one seems to be fairly one-sided. How does funding for 3 more months of carnage = minimum wage increase? They folded on the very issue that got them elected (as opposed to the minimum wage increase, which is fine, but not the reason they hold the power of the purse that they're not exercising).
I'm surprised that more attention hasn't been paid to this 'bargaining' aspect. No one believes there will be serious improvement by September, including Petraeus. In effect, the President got his money, the Democrats got a few concessions, and the debate is suspended for the summer while Americans get murdered in the desert. Fantastic victory.
It's not true that no one believes there will be improvement by september.
Save the moral indignation over the bargaining. If the Democrats committ political suicide by not having enough Republican support when they defund we'll have another Republican president and Congress soon enough. Does that seem like a good idea to you? A good recipe for avoiding unnecessary deaths?
Even Bush expects serious casualties all summer. So I guess I meant no one except those even crazier than Bush.
I'd take another GOP administration if it meant no more Americans had to die in Iraq. The fact that the Dem leadership can't get their shit together on withdrawal reinforces that. Hypothetical guesses on '08 shouldn't even factor in here. Republicans will say we don't 'support the troops' no matter what we do, so we may as well actually support the troops and bring them home.
And if you're bothered by moral indignation, you should probably avoid discussing unjust wars. Soldiers were dying for nothing. Now they're dying for a minimum wage increase. That doesn't agitate you?
That's not really my view of the situation so . . . I can't really feel any way about it.
Would it agitate you for a lot more people to die in a war against Iran because the Republicans retook the government in 2008?
Humiliation in Iraq could prompt America to say 'never again'
kinda sad how both sides seem to have no shame playing politics with troops lives
You say that like politics is a game that has no relation to how many troops die. If Al Gore had played politics a little better the Iraq War might not have happened. If the Democrats play well now who knows if on net hundreds of thousands might be saved over the next decade.
I'm a little tired of this view that politics is without consequence.
Enlist in Star Citizen! Citizenship must be earned!
If they are eventually successful the five summer months when they appeared a little weak are going to be forgotten.
I imagine that the idea comes from the fact that so many things in politics seems like hot headed arguing. One side bickers with the other a sort of deadlock happens and important things dont happen as fast as people think they should. Hence the view that politics don't have consequences, because to the average person it looks like all talk no action. Most don't think that poilitics are without consequnce, rather they think that the results and the consequences don't come fast enough. People don't find the government decisive enough.
Yeah, I wish the government did everything I wanted much faster also.
I hate having to compromise with these other three hundred million people on the choice of representatives and policy.