Law School Discussion

403-3 democrats & republicans choose not to pull-out of IRAQ

Julie Fern

  • *****
  • 25797
  • hillary clinton say "boo!"
    • View Profile
Re: 403-3 democrats & republicans choose not to pull-out of IRAQ
« Reply #30 on: November 28, 2005, 03:08:07 PM »
yes, there just too many.  julie could be accused of post-whoring if she posted on no other subject.

republicans clearly party of values.  in case of cunningham, that value something like $2.4 million.

wait until stuff with abrahamof really come out.

Re: 403-3 democrats & republicans choose not to pull-out of IRAQ
« Reply #31 on: November 28, 2005, 03:14:05 PM »
the House voted 296133 to go for it... the senate voted 7723 to authorize the mission in iraq...many of whom were democrats...

Where do I find the vote count?  What was the Republican count?  And the Dems?  And Independents?


jg983

Re: 403-3 democrats & republicans choose not to pull-out of IRAQ
« Reply #33 on: November 28, 2005, 08:26:07 PM »
i find it both scary and amusing that the onion is growing steadily more accurate. 

Why do you torture me with your fake LSN link? I want to know what all the fuss is about.

! B L U E WAR R I O R..!

  • *****
  • 7267
  • "make a friend who was once a stranger" br.war.
    • View Profile
Re: 403-3 democrats & republicans choose not to pull-out of IRAQ
« Reply #34 on: November 30, 2005, 01:46:36 PM »

"Immediate withdrawal" would qualify as a timetable for withdrawal. HTH.

now that you pointed out that he was wrong, he's going to redefine the word "timetable" to mean something it does not, just like he did in the other thread with the word "federalism."

you make me laugh..."immediate withdrawl" is NOT a timetable for anything...

stop criticising the war...accept it...hussein is out...dems and reps wanted the war...now...lets support the "fledgling government"...lets support the troops...lets support the december 15th elections...shut the naysayers up and do the job right...

this is the major problem with the democratic party...criticise...backtrack ...rehash...so unorganized

until taken to task.

403-3...that is all aye need to write...it cut to the extreme chase...


and all liberals say is...well shucks...golly gee "nobody advocates an immediate pull-out"...EXACTLY...aye say shut up and lets get this thing done!

without bunk criticism...without backtracking.


ps.

spiff:
give the "federalism" thing up...you are wrong...it is on the other thread...
federalism is at the heart for "the people's rights"... not "the states rights".
read some madison...he broadly explains it all...hth :)

Re: 403-3 democrats & republicans choose not to pull-out of IRAQ
« Reply #35 on: November 30, 2005, 01:51:21 PM »
dems and reps wanted the war

By what vote count?  Split it up for me by party, or give me a link.  I'm curious.

jg983

Re: 403-3 democrats & republicans choose not to pull-out of IRAQ
« Reply #36 on: November 30, 2005, 02:02:18 PM »

"Immediate withdrawal" would qualify as a timetable for withdrawal. HTH.

now that you pointed out that he was wrong, he's going to redefine the word "timetable" to mean something it does not, just like he did in the other thread with the word "federalism."

you make me laugh..."immediate withdrawl" is NOT a timetable for anything...

stop criticising the war...accept it...hussein is out...dems and reps wanted the war...now...lets support the "fledgling government"...lets support the troops...lets support the december 15th elections...shut the naysayers up and do the job right...

this is the major problem with the democratic party...criticise...backtrack ...rehash...so unorganized

until taken to task.

403-3...that is all aye need to write...it cut to the extreme chase...


and all liberals say is...well shucks...golly gee "nobody advocates an immediate pull-out"...EXACTLY...aye say shut up and lets get this thing done!

without bunk criticism...without backtracking.


ps.

spiff:
give the "federalism" thing up...you are wrong...it is on the other thread...
federalism is at the heart for "the people's rights"... not "the states rights".
read some madison...he broadly explains it all...hth :)

So stating the obvious somehow pwns liberals? Kudos.

Julie Fern

  • *****
  • 25797
  • hillary clinton say "boo!"
    • View Profile
Re: 403-3 democrats & republicans choose not to pull-out of IRAQ
« Reply #37 on: November 30, 2005, 02:29:52 PM »

you make me laugh..."immediate withdrawl" is NOT a timetable for anything...


repeating yourself doesn't make this true.


spiff:
give the "federalism" thing up...you are wrong...it is on the other thread...


you mean that misapplication of federalist 51?  i probably should give up though.  your posts don't have an ounce of reasoning so why waste time?

bluecoward member of flat earth society.

Re: 403-3 democrats & republicans choose not to pull-out of IRAQ
« Reply #38 on: November 30, 2005, 02:59:34 PM »
dems and reps wanted the war

By what vote count?  Split it up for me by party, or give me a link.  I'm curious.

you won't find a vote count for who "wanted the war" because the resolution was an authorization to use force when appropriate.  people will differ as to what they consider appropriate.

Yeah, but earlier he used the overall vote count to justify his claim that both Republicans and Democrats supported going to war.  But what I'd like to know is what the numbers were for each party.  I'm guessing that although many Dems voted for the war, the percentage of Republicans who supported the war is higher (probably much higher) than the percentage of Democrats who supported it.  This is probably why I've asked twice now and he hasn't responded.

! B L U E WAR R I O R..!

  • *****
  • 7267
  • "make a friend who was once a stranger" br.war.
    • View Profile
Re: 403-3 democrats & republicans choose not to pull-out of IRAQ
« Reply #39 on: November 30, 2005, 10:11:41 PM »

you make me laugh..."immediate withdrawl" is NOT a timetable for anything...


repeating yourself doesn't make this true.


spiff:
give the "federalism" thing up...you are wrong...it is on the other thread...


you mean that misapplication of federalist 51?  i probably should give up though.  your posts don't have an ounce of reasoning so why waste time?

bluecoward member of flat earth society.


Dana Priest: The President and his national security advisers have tried to make the argument that it is, in fact, in the US interest to be involved in Kosovo because the stability of Europe is central to overall NATO alliance and US stability. The Kosovo crisis could very well spill over to Montenegro, Albania and could effect the fragile peace in Bosnia, where thousands of US troops are still deployed. US official have insisted, however, that because it is in Europe, other NATO nations should bear the brunt of the military burden and they will if a peace implementation force is ever deployed. Brits, and French will have more troops there than we do and right now British planes are participating in air strikes.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fairfax, VA: How would you explain the sudden turnabout of the congress in first denouncing the proposed US action in Kosovo, and then approving it with no explaination as to what had changed in the course of two days?

Dana Priest: Traditionally Congress has stood behind the president, any president, once military action begins. In doing this, they are standing squarely behind the military personnel who are putting their lives on the line and who may be looking to the U.S. for support in difficult moments. This is not to say that members of Congress have changed their minds about the wisedom of the policy. I don't believe they have.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

bethesda, maryland: Does Clinton have an exit strategy?
What happens if air strikes are ineffective?

Dana Priest: This is the big missing piece. Notice, however, that officials are now saying the goal is not to force Milosevic to the bargaining table (which military action of course cannot do) but to "degrade" his military's ability to harm the Kosovars--same formulation as you see in Iraq. Pentagon officials are careful to point out that military actions cannot achieve political ends, it can only destroy things and people. But the administration is clearly using the strikes to soften him up, to make him change is mind. If he does not, the real question is when would the strike ends. We have no clear sense of this and many of the Pentagon officials I have spoken to this week don't have a good answer for that either. We really have not seen a situation like this before.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

washington, dc: Is there a timeline as to when ground forces will be deployed?

Dana Priest: Ground forces are to be deployed only after Milosevic agrees to a peace accord, meaning that they will no go in fighting, but only to implement a peace. This could happened in a matter of weeks after the bombing, perhaps sooner, if Milosevic were to quickly sign on the dotted line.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Somewhere, USA: Sandy Berger is a trade lawyer, not a geo-political military strategist. Is there any counter-balancing professional voice in the WH or DoD who can point out the weaknesses in the current policy to the President? it appears that the Administration has insulated itself from all but Albright's highly theoretical point of view. The bombing may well not change the serb's mind. Is Clinton going to try to force the US to send ground forces, even without a treaty? Please say he isn't that crazy.

Dana Priest: At moments like this, I believe Clinton also listens careful to his military chiefs. And I believe he will be prohibited from sending in ground troops both by their counsel--they are very much opposed--and by members of Congress who are also opposed to sending ground troops into such a quagmire.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

New York City, NY: The American public clearly does not understand the urgency of the situtation in Kosovo. The public's opinion is, police in the Middle East to keep oil prices down, but let eryone else handle their own problems when it comes to human lives. Do you think the Clinton Administration has clearly demonstrated the need for military intervention or does the American public simply not care.

Dana Priest: As a reporter who has covered the president on other issues, I have been surprised at the fact that they have done so little preparation and explanation. It has really only come about in the last few days. Perhaps that is an indication of how unsure they have been about the direction this would take.


...


once ya get past this...let me know...