|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
alffy
Joined: 25 Apr 2006
|
 Posted: Sun May 27, 2007 10:04 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| Agreed. I've already started contacting people about a grassroots third party campaign. Gore, Kucinich, Richardson, Paul, Edwards... There's a very electable ticket somewhere in that mix. |
Ahh, haven't been around much lately but was perusing this thread and just gotta say...
I too like the idea of a valid third party, problem is, as gopher, kuros et al. have indicated we have a very layered and almost Byzantine political structure to navigate first. Third parties almost always fail to heed this. They try to start at the top and work down, when the other direction is needed.
Ross Perot is the best, recent example. He drew 18% of the public vote in '92, yet received no electoral votes. In effect, he and I were equally close to the presidency that year. He lacked a political infrastructure to run with. A valid third party will not exist until it builds from below: creates infrastructure, gets candidates elected to lower offices, builds a political base.
And I disagree that our country only has two political parties. Due to the structure of government, politicians are required to identify with one of the two major parties in order to be elected, but they are not required to adhere to it's philosophy. Rudy and Michael Bloomberg are good examples. So, in effect, each major party is made up of numerous sub-parties, or factions, and these are constantly in struggle for supremacy. With a strong president, or even strong candidate, the discordant factions line-up behind the front man (or woman) and present a unified front. When saliancy wanes (such as now- lame-duck status), the factions dissolve into separate camps, as the Republicans are doing now, and the Dems have been doing for 10 years or so. This is the most interesting times to be a political watcher.
So what does this mean for the next election, third parties, and most saliently, the war...with the candidates now struggling for supremacy within the parties we can't say. Now, if a strong candidate loses the leadership of his/her party and decides he/she is justified we may see a splitting off from the main into a new third party. This is the only viable means by which a new party may be formed from the top down. The candidate will take the infrastructure along with him when he goes. Problem is, as TUM pointed out, this will cause a schism within one party assuring the other wins. But this is only a short-term effect. A strong, viable new third party will eventually grow in it's own right and eventually be electable. Problem is, historically for this to happen, the original party it split from tends to wither, hence by the time the third party is viable, we have lost one of the original two parties, and we are back to a "two party" system.
Regarding the war, we are seeing this with the Dems now. Reid and Pelosi, while being in the same party, are from vying factions. Throw in the Clinton ("win-at-all-costs"), the Obama ("give-us-a-fresh-face"), and the Edwards ("outsiders-looking-in") factions we have many discordant views. It is the shifting alliances between factions that resulted in the latest funding bill. Pelosi ended up on the wrong side, as did many voters that were expecting something else.
And EFLTrainer...your list of candidates as viable third party "electables" are by definition not electable. Richardson and Paul, if they were to lose their respective party nominations (very likey, especially Paul) would need cross-over support in the generl election. This historically brings no infrastructure (i.e. Ross Perot), so no electoral votes, hence not elected. If Kucinich runs independently he would only splinter off the marginal Democratic voters (ala Nader) and reduce the chances of a Democratic president. Edwards, if he goes the independent route would be more interesting, but no more electable. He MIGHT split the Democratic party, which would also assure a Republican president, but also might start the road to a valid third party (at least until it or the Dems wither away). Gore is an enigma. He would be a valid Democratic candidate, but doesn't apparently want to run. As an independent, he would definately draw Democratic support, but would he draw the infrastructure? Could he start a third party?
Sory for the long post, its been awhile. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
hiua25
Joined: 03 Feb 2006
|
| Posted: Sun May 27, 2007 2:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I have to agree (for what it�s worth) with Kuros, Gopher, Joo, alffy et al on this one. There are certain people on this forum with a very poor understanding of politics.
A third party canditate doesn�t have a chance in hell of winning a Presidential race in the forseeable future. As has been said before the Democrats and Republicans have strong infrastructures and a strong hold over American politics. Constitutionally the U.S is not a two party state, but it might as well be because there are only two parties whose canditates have a chance of getting into Congress or the Presidency, and you know that EFL trainer!!!!
There is a very strong distinction between the merits of going to Iraq in the first place, and now four years later of staying there.
Call it �making the most of a bad job�. I agree that it was wrong to go there in the first place, but now that �we� (I am British) are there we might as well stick it out until the job is completed else all that effort and blood spilt will have been in vain. Also, if the troops leave before the job is done Iraq will descend into full on civil war and will not improve for a very long time indeed. Also it could become a veritable breeding ground for terrorists, extremist Islam will no doubt thrive in the ensuing chaos.
Do you understand this distiction EFL? I think that if you do then many �silly�swing voters in the U.S will understand as well and will take it into consideration while voting. It seems to be quite a smart analysis to me. I think that NM is the one who is silly.
MOS, American democracy isn�t a �joke�. How could the Democrats run on a platform of getting out of Iraq asap in the mid-terms? Congress (even controlled by the Democrats) doesn�t have the authority to end the war! Only the President has the authority to do that I believe (with Congressional approval only). Even if the next President is Obama or Clinton and they break their promise of getting out if Iraq, that won�t make democracy in America a joke. They would get voted out next time around for lying. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sun May 27, 2007 3:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| Agreed. I've already started contacting people about a grassroots third party campaign. Gore, Kucinich, Richardson, Paul, Edwards... There's a very electable ticket somewhere in that mix. |
And most of the people who vote for that party will be Demo voters. That's a good idea, because it will split their voting base and open the way for the Repubs to take the presidency again.
Well done sir. |
In case you hadn't noticed, or bothered to do your research, the ranks of independents have been swelling.... with moderate republicans. You 30%ers are becoming a fairly rare species... let us hope it continues that way. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sun May 27, 2007 3:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Don't have time for a long response now, so suffice to say, you've made a lot of assumptions about what I am thinking. Read only what I stated, and nothing more, and you will see where your assumptions have been added to my thoughts.
Thanks for the great responses, the two of you that have really laid them out so well. More later.
| hiua25 wrote: |
I have to agree (for what it�s worth) with Kuros, Gopher, Joo, alffy et al on this one. There are certain people on this forum with a very poor understanding of politics.
A third party canditate doesn�t have a chance in hell of winning a Presidential race in the forseeable future. As has been said before the Democrats and Republicans have strong infrastructures and a strong hold over American politics. Constitutionally the U.S is not a two party state, but it might as well be because there are only two parties whose canditates have a chance of getting into Congress or the Presidency, and you know that EFL trainer!!!!
There is a very strong distinction between the merits of going to Iraq in the first place, and now four years later of staying there.
Call it �making the most of a bad job�. I agree that it was wrong to go there in the first place, but now that �we� (I am British) are there we might as well stick it out until the job is completed else all that effort and blood spilt will have been in vain. Also, if the troops leave before the job is done Iraq will descend into full on civil war and will not improve for a very long time indeed. Also it could become a veritable breeding ground for terrorists, extremist Islam will no doubt thrive in the ensuing chaos.
Do you understand this distiction EFL? I think that if you do then many �silly�swing voters in the U.S will understand as well and will take it into consideration while voting. It seems to be quite a smart analysis to me. I think that NM is the one who is silly.
MOS, American democracy isn�t a �joke�. How could the Democrats run on a platform of getting out of Iraq asap in the mid-terms? Congress (even controlled by the Democrats) doesn�t have the authority to end the war! Only the President has the authority to do that I believe (with Congressional approval only). Even if the next President is Obama or Clinton and they break their promise of getting out if Iraq, that won�t make democracy in America a joke. They would get voted out next time around for lying. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sun May 27, 2007 5:17 pm Post subject: ... |
|
|
| Quote: |
I too like the idea of a valid third party, problem is, as gopher, kuros et al. have indicated we have a very layered and almost Byzantine political structure to navigate first. Third parties almost always fail to heed this. They try to start at the top and work down, when the other direction is needed.
Ross Perot is the best, recent example. He drew 18% of the public vote in '92, yet received no electoral votes. |
Which is why the electoral college should be removed. The problem with that is that neither of the two parties would like to cede such power moreso than that it would cause trouble to do so.
Secondly, third parties would have more opportunities if the size of congress weren't frozen at its current size (as it's been since 1911. Of course, unfreezing its size wouldn't be without its difficulties, but it would better match what was envisioned by the founding fathers. While we're taught in history and government classes that the House of Representatives was designed in proportion to population, our representation has fallen to 1 rep per 500,000 citizens. What this means is that power is continuing to be consolidated rather than expand as it was intended.
As such, I see no oversights or errors in third party strategies. Instead, the system, as it is, simply doesn't make third parties viable. The only situation where a third party has had success is when the second party got bumped off.
Hence, I agree with EFL when he says we don't have a 2-party system. We don't. We just have a system that limits third party participation. And I'm not so sure that that was intended as opposed to simpy what evolved.
I would like to hear anyone make the case for why there should only be two parties, as there are a plethora of arguments for why empowering third parties would benefit the US. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sun May 27, 2007 8:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| Agreed. I've already started contacting people about a grassroots third party campaign. Gore, Kucinich, Richardson, Paul, Edwards... There's a very electable ticket somewhere in that mix. |
| alffy wrote: |
| Ross Perot is the best, recent example. He drew 18% of the public vote in '92, yet received no electoral votes. In effect, he and I were equally close to the presidency that year. |
|
A perfect argument for abolishing the electoral college. It would, in essence, give us a slight hybrid parliament in that the President could end up coming from the non-ruling party from the get-go. Or, at least more often.
| Quote: |
| He lacked a political infrastructure to run with. A valid third party will not exist until it builds from below: creates infrastructure, gets candidates elected to lower offices, builds a political base. |
This is why I argue for this to come from the grass roots level. Build the infrastructure THEN select a candidate. Make them come to us.
A VERY important aspect of a successful third party MUST be election funding reform. ALL except private donations, capped at a very low number must b e eliminated OR go with the systems being implemented at the state level with ONLY public money, and equal amounts for each - regardless of size of following, at least up to some point in the election cycle. Additionally, I would, like Ireland does, cap campaigning at 6 months prior to the election.
| Quote: |
| Now, if a strong candidate loses the leadership of his/her party and decides he/she is justified we may see a splitting off from the main into a new third party. This is the only viable means by which a new party may be formed from the top down. |
Agreed. But not necessarily from the bottom up. Imagine if MoveOn and any number of anti-war, pro-environment groups got serious about supporting a third-party candidate. The infrsstructure is already there.
| Quote: |
| The candidate will take the infrastructure along with him when he goes. Problem is, as TUM pointed out, this will cause a schism within one party assuring the other wins. But this is only a short-term effect. A strong, viable new third party will eventually grow in it's own right and eventually be electable. Problem is, historically for this to happen, the original party it split from tends to wither, hence by the time the third party is viable, we have lost one of the original two parties, and we are back to a "two party" system. |
So, additional changes might include open primaries. I don't understand why closed primaries have not been declared unconstitutional...
| Quote: |
| And EFLTrainer...your list of candidates as viable third party "electables" are by definition not electable. |
Not under the conditions of a grass roots third party.
| Quote: |
| Richardson and Paul, if they were to lose their respective party nominations (very likey, especially Paul) would need cross-over support in the generl election. |
This is already happening, and a lot of that support is registering independent. Most of it coming from the ranks of moderate Republicans.
| Quote: |
| If Kucinich runs independently he would only splinter off the marginal Democratic voters (ala Nader) and reduce the chances of a Democratic president. Edwards, if he goes the independent route would be more interesting, but no more electable. He MIGHT split the Democratic party, which would also assure a Republican president, but also might start the road to a valid third party (at least until it or the Dems wither away). Gore is an enigma. He would be a valid Democratic candidate, but doesn't apparently want to run. As an independent, he would definately draw Democratic support, but would he draw the infrastructure? Could he start a third party? |
Thus, my idea is to not get one or two of them, but several of them, then let them work out who gets to run based on the sad reality of the numbers. You leave the semi-Dems alone at the head of the Democratic party and get the true progressives and mildly progressive off in a third party, you're going to pull a siginificant number of the Dems, Independents (and new disillusioned Reps), the Greens and Libertarians.
Done right, with the right ticket, a strong, unambiguous message... might work.
Dream ticket might be Gore/Richardson, though my personal fave would be Gore/Kucinich. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sun May 27, 2007 8:23 pm Post subject: ... |
|
|
| Quote: |
| I don't understand why closed primaries have not been declared unconstitutional... |
Because primaries are not covered by the Constitution.
Another revolution would be for the primaries not to follow the same standard order.
This is already happening with Nevada.
It would make huge sense for prmaries to be held on a rotational basis, or for some kind of lottery to be established.
Bottom line is that half the states don't get much of a say when candidates drop out after the same states, time and again, decide who wil be running.
And I don't buy into crap about how New Hampshire and Iowa are so furiously independent that they should go first. That's mythology. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sun May 27, 2007 8:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| hiua25 wrote: |
I have to agree (for what it�s worth) with Kuros, Gopher, Joo, alffy et al on this one. There are certain people on this forum with a very poor understanding of politics.
A third party canditate doesn�t have a chance in hell of winning a Presidential race in the forseeable future. |
Big assumptions. I don't recall anyone claiming it WILL happen now, or even at all. I stated simply it was time for a serious run at it. A simple handshake agreement between the Dems and the new party for the third party to bow out of the race in the one or two weeks prior if it looks like ANY Rpublican would win it otherwise would solve any vote split issues. And this should be up front from the get-go, and not just behind closed doors, either.
| Quote: |
| the U.S is not a two party state, but it might as well be because there are only two parties whose canditates have a chance of getting into Congress or the Presidency, and you know that EFL trainer!!!! |
Indeed. I said so myself, as you know. (Thus, why say this at all? Just calculate it into your assumptions.)
| Quote: |
| There is a very strong distinction between the merits of going to Iraq in the first place, and now four years later of staying there. |
Incorrect. Both were/are terribly and utterly wrong.
| Quote: |
| Call it �making the most of a bad job�. I agree that it was wrong to go there in the first place, but now that �we� (I am British) are there we might as well stick it out until the job is completed |
Talking points. Give some reason. There is ZERO prospect of success there militarily. Zero.
| Quote: |
| else all that effort and blood spilt will have been in vain. |
And that will never change. You will only have more blood and death in the end and STILL never reach your goal. (Without going off on tangents: th strategy of the Neo-cons IS to never win. They have already told us we will be there DECADES. Why? The oil will be in serious decline after... about 3 decades. They know they cannot, but they are convinced they can get enough oil out to make it worthwhile. Guarantee: soon there will be a pull back of US troops with a great Congrats! to the Iraqis for doing so well. Then, US troops will pull back to almost entirely ensuring the flow of oil while Iraqis fight the "insurgency.")
| Quote: |
| Also, if the troops leave before the job is done Iraq will descend into full on civil war and will not improve for a very long time indeed. |
Talking point. Alread is.
| Quote: |
| Also it could become a veritable breeding ground for terrorists, extremist Islam will no doubt thrive in the ensuing chaos. |
Talking point. BECOME??? Aww, man.... I thought this was a serious post. I should have read it through all the way...
| Quote: |
| MOS, American democracy isn�t a �joke�. How could the Democrats run on a platform of getting out of Iraq asap in the mid-terms? Congress (even controlled by the Democrats) doesn�t have the authority to end the war! Only the President has the authority to do that I believe (with Congressional approval only). |
Talking point. Utterly incorrect. Congress, and Congress alone, can declare war, and, thus, undeclare it. In war, the President is the CinC, the top general, in essence. He is beholden to the Congress for ALL political issues. (I realize in practice this is not exactly the case, but it is why VietNam finally ended and it will be why Iraq ends.)
| Quote: |
| Even if the next President is Obama or Clinton and they break their promise of getting out if Iraq, that won�t make democracy in America a joke. They would get voted out next time around for lying. |
Political stupidity is not what makes America a joke, if, in fact, she is one. It is the relinquishing of virtually all our civil rights and allowing propaganda to be our main source of info.
1. No habeus corpus.
2. No right to trial.
3. No protections from search and seizure.
4. A dubious voting sytem.
5. No direct election of the president.
6. Extreme levels of corruption.
7. Illegal actions from the entire leadership in the Republican part/current administration.
8. The corruption of the DoJ. (150 appointees from a 6th tier religious law school?? Frick...)
9. Illegal acts in violation of treaties (binding US law.)
10. Torture.
11. Renditions.
Does this sound like the US you were born into? It sure as hell is not th US *I* was born into. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sun May 27, 2007 8:29 pm Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
| Quote: |
[quote="Nowhere Man"]
| Quote: |
| I don't understand why closed primaries have not been declared unconstitutional... |
Because primaries are not covered by the Constitution. |
The right to vote surely is. Closed primaries actually prevent anyone not registered to a party from voting. Unconstitutional. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The_Conservative
Joined: 15 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Sun May 27, 2007 8:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| hiua25 wrote: |
I have to agree (for what it�s worth) with Kuros, Gopher, Joo, alffy et al on this one. There are certain people on this forum with a very poor understanding of politics.
A third party canditate doesn�t have a chance in hell of winning a Presidential race in the forseeable future. |
Big assumptions. I don't recall anyone claiming it WILL happen now, or even at all. I stated simply it was time for a serious run at it. A simple handshake agreement between the Dems and the new party for the third party to bow out of the race in the one or two weeks prior if it looks like ANY Rpublican would win it otherwise would solve any vote split issues. And this should be up front from the get-go, and not just behind closed doors, either.
. |
Hang on now! You claimed in response to an earlier post that a lot of support for this independent 3rd party was coming from ex- Republicans. That being the case why would they agree to let the Dems win? If they joined a third party, obviously they are not in favour of the Dems either.
So why would they back any agreement such as you say? They'd be more likely to make an agreement with the Reps as their sympathies are closer to that party.
So you'd get another split in the third party itself...and we're back to a two party system.
The only way such an agreement with a third party would work is if the vast majority of people in the third party were from the Dems or the Reps. That would solve the vote splitting. If you have 50-50 or 60-40...its not likely to work for the simple reason that people are going to (usually) favour the party they came from.
That being said a third party is an interesting idea. Hmm, maybe they could wind up being the kingmakers if they can't become the ruling party. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sun May 27, 2007 9:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The_Conservative wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| hiua25 wrote: |
I have to agree (for what it�s worth) with Kuros, Gopher, Joo, alffy et al on this one. There are certain people on this forum with a very poor understanding of politics.
A third party canditate doesn�t have a chance in hell of winning a Presidential race in the forseeable future. |
Big assumptions. I don't recall anyone claiming it WILL happen now, or even at all. I stated simply it was time for a serious run at it. A simple handshake agreement between the Dems and the new party for the third party to bow out of the race in the one or two weeks prior if it looks like ANY Rpublican would win it otherwise would solve any vote split issues. And this should be up front from the get-go, and not just behind closed doors, either.
. |
Hang on now! You claimed in response to an earlier post that a lot of support for this independent 3rd party was coming from ex- Republicans. That being the case why would they agree to let the Dems win? If they joined a third party, obviously they are not in favour of the Dems either.
So why would they back any agreement such as you say? They'd be more likely to make an agreement with the Reps as their sympathies are closer to that party.
So you'd get another split in the third party itself...and we're back to a two party system.
The only way such an agreement with a third party would work is if the vast majority of people in the third party were from the Dems or the Reps. |
I think the brewing disgust with politics as usual may be far more than many think. I'm not sure on this yet, but if so, they stay with the moderates and get the Republicans out for a while just to play it safe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
contrarian
Joined: 20 Jan 2007
Location: Nearly in NK
|
| Posted: Sun May 27, 2007 10:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The Dems blinked.
Reif if he wanted to get re-elected could'nt vote against the money. He is Mormon (active) in Nevada a state in which the Mormon vot can make of break and politician.
Neither Hillary Clinton nor Obama are really electable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
daskalos
Joined: 19 May 2006
Location: The Road to Ithaca
|
| Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 6:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
There IS such a thing as a problem of standing so close to the forest, that you can't see the trees.
The Democrats ran on a platform, in the mid-term elections, that they would end US involvement in Iraq as soon as possible. That's what the voters wanted, thats why they voted Democrat.
Then, the first opportunity they had to implement what they promised, they caved. Not only that, but they voted an Iraq spending bill that included all kinds of pork-barrelling.
They lied to the people who voted for them.
I understand US 'democracy' all too well.
It's a joke. |
Or do you understand US democracy at alll? Since the Dems did not have a veto-proof majority, they opted not to put US soldiers in even graver danger than they are by not funding them.
To sustain the deadlock would have made them complicit in the deaths of more Americans, and justly or not, that's what matters to Americans. Or Britons. Or Iraqis. That idea that this is an unjust war doesn't mean Americans are willing to have more Americans die than is necessary. This may not be right, but it is so.
Democratic voters will remember this effort and not hold it against the Dems in Congress. In the next election, Congress will gain Dem seats and the White House will also fall that way, whoever the nominee is. And then we'll be able to get out of this ill-conceived, poorly executed war. A war that could have done much good, were it not for the bungling ineptitude of Bush, et al. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 8:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| daskalos wrote: |
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
There IS such a thing as a problem of standing so close to the forest, that you can't see the trees.
The Democrats ran on a platform, in the mid-term elections, that they would end US involvement in Iraq as soon as possible. That's what the voters wanted, thats why they voted Democrat.
Then, the first opportunity they had to implement what they promised, they caved. Not only that, but they voted an Iraq spending bill that included all kinds of pork-barrelling.
They lied to the people who voted for them.
I understand US 'democracy' all too well.
It's a joke. |
Or do you understand US democracy at alll? Since the Dems did not have a veto-proof majority, they opted not to put US soldiers in even graver danger than they are by not funding them. To sustain the deadlock would have made them complicit in the deaths of more Americans, and justly or not, that's what matters to Americans. |
Talking point. Pure BS. There is plenty of funding in the pipeline. If funding is cut, they simply bring them home. THAT'S the point! Bush would have no choice. And, if they need more money to bring them home, by what rationale would the Dems not fund that?
| Quote: |
| Or Britons. Or Iraqis. That idea that this is an unjust war doesn't mean Americans are willing to have more Americans die than is necessary. This may not be right, but it is so. |
For chrissake, this is like saying more will die of lung cancer and liver disease if we stop selling cigarettes and alcohol. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hiua25
Joined: 03 Feb 2006
|
| Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 10:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
While EFL�s style in certainly combative and a bit otp, he/she is not the worst offender on this board in terms of abusive posts to be fair.
I think we both agree, EFL, that the war was a huge mistake, and that the two-party system in America is a political reality that is unlikely to be broken up in the forseeable future. However I don�t agree with your position on pulling out of Iraq.
I think �we� have got to stay, provide support to those people trying to build an infrastructure for the Iraqi people. The insurgents have a breaking point militarily and if �we�can get to that point, with the new infrastructure in place �we�can then begin to pull out with the job done. You argue that Iraq already is a mess and a breeding ground for terrorists, I argue back that although Iraq is a disaster right now, it will get alot worse if �we� pull out now and leave the Iraqi people in flux, without a proper infrastructure or competent security forces so that the extremists can take over completely. Let�s instead try to make the best of a bad job and leave a stable, democraticaly elected Iraqi government and a stable society with good prospects.
Incidentally, one thing that needs to be done is to decide the criteria for deciding wether the job is completed or not. That�s for future administrations to decide. But now there seems to be no hope for Iraq without foreign (i.e American and British) troops helping out.
Of course there might never be peace and prosperity in Iraq, we don�t know what will happen in the future. But I think that we have to try at least.
The Democratic canditates are promising to pull out of Iraq just to get votes, not because it�s the right thing to do either for American security, world security in general or for the wellbeing of the Iraqi people.
I think you were wrong to say that Congress is responsible for going to war. As far as I know the war in Iraq was planned and initiated by the President�s office and the Pentagon only with the approval of Congress. So Congress didn�t start the war at all, they only approved it.
Lastly, I think it is wrong to say that American democracy is a joke because the Democrats in Congress haven�t ended the war.
If the Democrats cut all funding to American troops in Iraq as EFL suggested, that could well be seen in a very very negative light because they would be cutting the President and the military off at the knees. It would be an incredibly reckless policy. Forcing the troops to abandon Iraq quickly because of a lack of money would humiliate the President, it could well put soldiers lives in danger. I imagine that even withdrawing troops asap would be a huge logistical operation that would require a lot of money and man hours. Any problems at all in the withdrawal would be blamed on Senator ESL and the Democrats.
If you�re seriously arguing that Congress should do that then you�re crazy, it would never happen. No-one who is smart enough to get elected to Congress would agree to such a reckless and stupid thing.
If the Democrats made ending the war a campaign promise during the mid-terms (which I�m not sure about) then it was a damn stupid promise to make because they must have known it would be impossible to keep with Bush still in the White House. Bush can simply veto any bill to cut funding or bring the troops home and force the Democrats to compromise (which is kind of what they have done). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
