Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Support our Troops (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Support our Troops
Adam Lassek
Member
Member # 1514

 - posted      Profile for Adam Lassek   Email Adam Lassek   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I will acknowledge that it is perfectly possible to support the troops while having diagreements with the administration. What I have been seeing a lot of lately, though, goes far beyond mere disagreements. People have been attacking the President and the war incessantly since the very beginning, and many of them are crossing the line, I think, from simply disagreeing with the President to being willfully and continually antagonistic.

Ted Kennedy is a good example. He has levelled attack after vicious attack at the President, and considering his ties to Kerry, there is almost certainly a political agenda behind them. The people calling for Rumsfeld's resignation, impeachment even, are another example. I see this as purely political posturing, and this sort of divisivness is terrible for the country.

I don't care if you don't like Bush. We're there, there are American lives at stake in Iraq, the time for dissent is long past. We need to be unified in our prosecution of the War on Terror or I don't see how we'll succeed.

Posts: 554 | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Lassek
Member
Member # 1514

 - posted      Profile for Adam Lassek   Email Adam Lassek   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
It only shows that the hammer analogy is not a perfect descriptor of the iraqi situation, which has zero to do with whether or not its possible to support troops without supporting the use to which they are put.
Okay, Ev, I'll grant you that point.
Posts: 554 | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
" don't care if you don't like Bush. We're there, there are American lives at stake in Iraq, the time for dissent is long past. We need to be unified in our prosecution of the War on Terror or I don't see how we'll succeed."

No, the time for dissent isn't past. If we cant dissent, then the terrorists have already won.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Ted Kennedy is a good example. He has levelled attack after vicious attack at the President, and considering his ties to Kerry, there is almost certainly a political agenda behind them. The people calling for Rumsfeld's resignation, impeachment even, are another example. I see this as purely political posturing, and this sort of divisivness is terrible for the country"

Actually, he's been bashing president Bush since about 3 seconds after Bush stabbed kennedy in the back. Since there is almost nothing Kennedy and Bush actually agree on, and Kennedy went WAY out of his way to help Bush with NCLB, which by the way Kennedy supported because it was better then NOTHING, which was the alternative and not because he thought it was a good solution, and that act gave Bush a LOT of credibility, and without Kennedy it would never have happened... and then Bush didn't fund it, well, Kennedy has good reason to hate Bush, with or without Kerry.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Lassek
Member
Member # 1514

 - posted      Profile for Adam Lassek   Email Adam Lassek   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
No, the time for dissent isn't past. If we cant dissent, then the terrorists have already won.
It is past in the sense that the decision to go to Iraq has already been made, and voicing your disagreement now will not really serve much of a purpose.
Posts: 554 | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Is it your opinion that no ongoing process can be discussed once it is begun?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Lassek
Member
Member # 1514

 - posted      Profile for Adam Lassek   Email Adam Lassek   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
without Kennedy it would never have happened... and then Bush didn't fund it
That's not true, Ev. Bush did fund it, just not as much as Kennedy wanted. Congress authorized between 26.4 to 32 billion dollars to be spent on NCLB for the past two years. Bush requested 22 Billion, which is certainly short-changing it a bit but characterizing this as "stabbing Kennedy in the back" is a bit dramatic.
Posts: 554 | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Lassek
Member
Member # 1514

 - posted      Profile for Adam Lassek   Email Adam Lassek   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
@TomD: Of course not. I do think that it is more important we concentrate on making the occupation a success rather than the constant political sniping that is going on.
Posts: 554 | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So for those of us who believe that the operation is far more likely to be successful if Bush is run out of town on a rail, do you agree that it is of paramount importance for us to drive him out of Washington?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WarrsawPact
Member
Member # 1275

 - posted      Profile for WarrsawPact   Email WarrsawPact   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
LetterRip -

Howdy.
quote:
ME: people are making more money, they believe that they and their families are ultimately better off, they already are enjoying many amenities they couldn't get before the war (though medicine is still barely below prewar levels)
LETTERRIP: Could you dig up your source please? Unemployment post war is far greater than prewar. Some families are better off, others are worse off. Some are wealthier, many are far poorer. Women are pretty much universally worse off regarding there personal freedom and autonomy. Some places have seen infrastructure exceed prewar infrastructure, but many locations are about the same or worse off. Freedom of speech is far greater. Things are currently a mixed bag as far as positive and negative results, although I think long term it will ultimately be to the Iraqis benefit.

I was, as I said, quoting a recent and far-reaching poll of Iraqis we brought up in another thread. You can find it here:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-28-gallup-iraq-findings.htm

The thread is here:
http://www.ornery.org/forums/essays/cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=003692

Posts: 7500 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Lassek
Member
Member # 1514

 - posted      Profile for Adam Lassek   Email Adam Lassek   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
So for those of us who believe that the operation is far more likely to be successful if Bush is run out of town on a rail, do you agree that it is of paramount importance for us to drive him out of Washington?
Would you rather disagree with Bush in a dignified manner, or like a screaming lunatic? Which do you think is best for the country? Much of the vitriol aimed at Bush is not deserved, but rather a partisan attack to further someone's agenda. And it won't stop if Kerry is elected, because the way Democrats have behaved will prompt Republicans to behave exactly the same way if they are ousted from power. I don't see how a country see-sawing between extremes could possibly be stable.

As much as you hate Bush, would you be willing to do whatever it takes to remove him even if the tactics required hurt the country?

Posts: 554 | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ivan
Member
Member # 1467

 - posted      Profile for Ivan   Email Ivan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Much of the vitriol aimed at Bush is not deserved, but rather a partisan attack to further someone's agenda.
Adam, if you're going to imply that this is what Tom is doing, please direct us to the passage where Tom furthers "someone's agenda" with a partisan attack.
Posts: 1710 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
witless chum
Member
Member # 1643

 - posted      Profile for witless chum   Email witless chum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'd say much of the talk about the vitriol expressed against Bush is a partisan attack motivated by someone's adgenda.
That's politics as usual. "They are insane, criminal, deceitful fools, we are shining men of the people. We're speaking the plainspoken truth, they're leveling screaming attacks."

Check out how our Founding Fathers demonized one another. I don't see how even the most assine, screaming attacks on Bush "hurt the country" as if people haven't been exposed to our political system before. Ditto for the troops looking home and seeing this. They're Americans, they know the score. Maybe the guys sent to Vietnam can be surprised by this, as the country was in the throes of a major social change, but certainly not those sent to Iraq. Presumably they wouldn't be putting themselves in the position to die for their country if the sight of it would drive them to despair.

You're right to say that those still debating the wisdom of going to war are not terribly relevant to the 2004 election, although understanding what went right and wrong could be important to whom should be president in Feb. 2005 if the war is an important part of your political calculus. If the war is being mismanaged and that mismanagment would be fixed by electing Kerry and you care than it's important to debate that. If you think the war is Jim-Dandy and keeping Bush is essential to its Jim-Dandyness, than it's important to have that debate. I'm all for having it more orderly, but better to have a messy debate than to curtail its messiness and smother the whole thing.

The idea that democractic debate stops in wartime is just not intellectually responsible, IMO. A analogy would be the impression Kerry probably wants people to take is that they should vote for him because he served in Vietnam and the president didn't. Well that was horsecrap in the past when old Bush made it over Clinton and its horsecrap now. If it convinces fools to vote for Kerry, I'll be happy for their votes, but I won't respect the thought behind them. "Useful idiots," didn't old Rush mean people who are stupid, but vote Republican by that?

Dan

Posts: 642 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"That's not true, Ev. Bush did fund it, just not as much as Kennedy wanted. Congress authorized between 26.4 to 32 billion dollars to be spent on NCLB for the past two years. Bush requested 22 Billion, which is certainly short-changing it a bit but characterizing this as "stabbing Kennedy in the back" is a bit dramatic."

You'll note this is about 50% of the funding that it was SUPPOSED to get as drawn up, and 50% what Bush promised Kennedy that he would request for NCLB in order to get Kennedy's support in passing the legislation.

And whether "Stabbing kennedy in the back" is dramatic or not, its exactly how Kennedy feels about the situation, and has acted in a manner exactly consistent with my characterization, so I'd say its probably a TRUE statement.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WarrsawPact
Member
Member # 1275

 - posted      Profile for WarrsawPact   Email WarrsawPact   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Have you looked at the numbers yet, LR?
Posts: 7500 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
We need to be unified in our prosecution of the War on Terror or I don't see how we'll succeed.
So in the name of loyalty, we must support what we sincerely believe to be horrible mistakes? Try to understand: We think Bush is mostly wrong, or even all wrong, about how he's prosecuting the WoT. We cannot unite behind a sustained effort to drive straight into a wall.

[ May 13, 2004, 02:47 PM: Message edited by: RickyB ]

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Agreeing with ricky here.

IF we support the president, then we support policies we believe cannot possibly lead to anything other then catastrophe.

Without dissent, the policies will never change.

Without change, we'll lose.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I hadn't noticed that survey before, otherwise I would have critiqued it for you.

Two things jump out

1) Look at TV saturation, - approximately 95% of the population. Now go to the CIA world fact book. The data is a bit dated (1997) but the numbers given are 1.75 million TVs for a population of 24.7 million.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/print/iz.html

Assuming a family size of 5 then that gives us about a third of familes with TVs. So, the question is, is it reasonable to believe that TV ownership increased so drastically over a seven year period?

I'll email Riverbend, and see what she says, but I'm skeptical.

Even assuming that there methods are good and didn't massively oversample more affluent Iraqis, we still have a second problem.

The don't weight their sample by percentage of population for total. (Indeed their description of methodology is utterly horrid they don't include any pertinent details needed to analyse their work.)

Basically the way things have been reported is utterly useless.

Without detailed information on the weighting procedures and the sample composition the link you gave is essentially useless.

If someone has a subscription to Gallup and would be willing to email me excerpts of the pertinent data, I'd be willing to analyze it and see if the numbers make sense and then post my findings.

Here is the gallup source link, but a subscription is required.

http://www.gallup.com/content/default.aspx?ci=11527

LetterRip

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Lassek
Member
Member # 1514

 - posted      Profile for Adam Lassek   Email Adam Lassek   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Adam, if you're going to imply that this is what Tom is doing, please direct us to the passage where Tom furthers "someone's agenda" with a partisan attack.
Ivan, I'm not talking about anything Tom said and I don't really think this is a problem on Ornery. I am referring to things I have been seeing primarily in the media, and in the Senate.
Posts: 554 | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Lassek
Member
Member # 1514

 - posted      Profile for Adam Lassek   Email Adam Lassek   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
You'll note this is about 50% of the funding that it was SUPPOSED to get as drawn up, and 50% what Bush promised Kennedy that he would request for NCLB in order to get Kennedy's support in passing the legislation.
69% of the maximum, 83% of the minimum. I was under the impression that the 32 Billion figure was set by Congress. Am I incorrect?

Regardless, I was responding to your statement that Bush didn't fund it at all, which is clearly not true.

Posts: 554 | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
In my book, creating legislation and not funding it fully the first year... thats not funding it at all, especially when you tout it as a big achievement, and then try to hide the fact you aren't giving the legislation teeth.

Now, Bush did ask for some funding for it, but... not enough. Not enough to do what the act was supposed to do.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Lassek
Member
Member # 1514

 - posted      Profile for Adam Lassek   Email Adam Lassek   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I agree with you Ev, Bush short-changed NCLB and that was a stupid thing to do. But I'm not going to accept you calling 22 Billion Dollars nothing.
Posts: 554 | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I call it underfunding a program that used for political gain, and not enough to fund the program to do what it was supposed to do, thereby causing damage to several state systems, including Oregons which was forced to cut days out of its school calendar because of lack of money directly caused by Bush underfunding NCLB.

I said bush didn't fund the act, I never called 22 billion "nothing." There IS a difference.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Zyne
Member
Member # 117

 - posted      Profile for Zyne   Email Zyne   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Everard said:

quote:
No, the time for dissent isn't past. If we cant dissent, then the terrorists have already won.
Nice and wise [Smile]

Adam asked:

quote:
Would you rather disagree with Bush in a dignified manner, or like a screaming lunatic?
I would rather he act as other than a screaming lunitic, but, since I can't have that, I'll continue to engage him how he pleases. Today, in discourse, where he will appeal to superstition and I will win with reason. How is Bush dignified, again? His only policies, his only ideas, are all partisan, foolish, short-sighted, ignorant, stupid, I could go on, etc. The longer he remains in office, the more we all hurt.

Tomorrow, someday soon, in the ballot box, we will chop off his head, and his dignity can roll down the hill into the river.

The best thing for my country would be that lot, out of office, now. Next best is voted out in November.

NCLB? You must mean SomeCLB. Or SelectedCLB. But not No, never No.

Posts: 4003 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ivan
Member
Member # 1467

 - posted      Profile for Ivan   Email Ivan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Adam-

quote:
Would you (Tom) rather disagree with Bush in a dignified manner, or like a screaming lunatic? Which do you think is best for the country? Much of the vitriol aimed at Bush is not deserved, but rather a partisan attack to further someone's agenda.
Then,
quote:
Ivan, I'm not talking about anything Tom said and I don't really think this is a problem on Ornery. I am referring to things I have been seeing primarily in the media, and in the Senate.
Please excuse my confusion. If you didn't think this was a problem, then why did you bring it up in response to Tom's posts?

-Ivan

Posts: 1710 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Lassek
Member
Member # 1514

 - posted      Profile for Adam Lassek   Email Adam Lassek   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's called a rhetorical question, Ivan.
Look it up.

Posts: 554 | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Lassek
Member
Member # 1514

 - posted      Profile for Adam Lassek   Email Adam Lassek   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Zyne: I would rather he act as other than a screaming lunitic, but, since I can't have that, I'll continue to engage him how he pleases. Today, in discourse, where he will appeal to superstition and I will win with reason. How is Bush dignified, again? His only policies, his only ideas, are all partisan, foolish, short-sighted, ignorant, stupid, I could go on, etc. The longer he remains in office, the more we all hurt.

Tomorrow, someday soon, in the ballot box, we will chop off his head, and his dignity can roll down the hill into the river.

The best thing for my country would be that lot, out of office, now. Next best is voted out in November.

I think you are just being partisan--you hate his politics, so everything he does will be wrong. I hated Clinton but I can admit not everything he did was wrong.

The utter hatred spewing forth from your keyboard is yours, Zyne, Bush didn't make you do it. You claim to be the one who is reasonable, but you are posting nothing but rhetoric and hyperbole. You have proven my point quite succinctly about how liberals are behaving.

Posts: 554 | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Adam, can you suggest a policy or initiative of Bush's that I should NOT dislike?

I'm open to persuasion, here; it's perfectly possible that I'm not aware of EVERYTHING he's done.

[ May 15, 2004, 10:09 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
David Ricardo
Member
Member # 1678

 - posted      Profile for David Ricardo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I will just quote for you the army's opinion on the best way to support the troops.

quote:
One high-level military strategist told me that Rumsfeld is "detested", and that "if there's a sentiment in the army it is: Support Our Troops, Impeach Rumsfeld".
Enough said.
Posts: 1429 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
TomD - He just passed a diesel emissions cap that the green groups are very happy with. Gotta give him that. He's still an environmental menace, but you did ask [Smile]
Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ben5
Member
Member # 1488

 - posted      Profile for ben5     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Daruma28- We've also created a a lot of terrorists or at least made people in Iraq sympathize with them.
Also, what goverment will replace the anarchy in Iraq now, a dictator? an Islamic state? how about ayatollas like they have in Iran? will there be a civil war?
Only a dictatorship or other totalitarian state can keep Iraq in order, because without secret police and lack of freedom of the press you will have civil war or anarchy.

Posts: 138 | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1