A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.
Posts: 8264 | Location: Fl | Registered: 05 July 2001
The problem is Iraq is a mess. We know that so how do we get out without avoiding a bloodbath? Is it a civil war? How much is Al Queda involved? Can most Americans find Iraq on a map?
"a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason."
Posts: 1944 | Location: Beautiful New Paltz, NY | Registered: 04 July 2006
Why do we have to go to a British site to find information about the US troop situation?
BBC NEWS Army fatigue forces US troop cut By Paul Reynolds World affairs correspondent, BBC News website
US President George W Bush plans to cut the number of troops in Iraq by 30,000 by July 2008, leaving a large force remaining - with no plan as yet for further withdrawals.
The cutback is the result of two factors.
Firstly, the current level of troops simply cannot be sustained because of strains on service personnel.
Secondly, the US commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, says the current tactics are working and that the reduction can be made without sacrificing those gains already made or expected in the coming months.
So the 30,000-strong reinforcement that started to flow in February and reached its peak this summer will be taken out.
Some 130,000 US troops will, under current conditions, remain in Iraq, a level that anti-war Democrats in Congress say is too high.
The hope of Gen Petraeus is that the troops will increasingly be used to help Iraqis take the lead and that the American role will eventually be reduced to what the coalition describes as "overwatch". As that happens so the numbers can be cut.
He offers no timetable for this process.
No decisions on further withdrawals will be made before March 2008. Unless Congress intervenes Mr Bush will probably see out his term in the White House, ending in January 2009, with US troops levels in Iraq remaining substantial.
He would leave it to his successor to work out how to bring the troops home.
Strains
If the surge had not "worked", the administration would have been in crisis because troop levels would have been reduced anyway.
The reason for this emerged vividly in an exchange at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday between Gen Petraeus and Senator Jim Webb of Virginia.
The military objectives of the surge are, in large measure, being met Gen David Petraeus US Commander in Iraq
Mr Webb, a Democrat who opposes the Iraq war, was once a marine. His son is currently one.
After pointing out that the improvement in Anbar province was not really connected to the surge but to tribal leaders, the senator complained bitterly that the tour of duty in Iraq had gone up to 15 months.
Soldiers and marines then got only 12 months off active service instead of the "two-for-one" policy that existed before - that is, you received twice the amount of time off that you spent on active service.
"We have this policy," said Senator Webb, "which has resulted in... a situation that I personally... have come to believe is very perilous to the well-being of the volunteer army, its system, the voluntary military system and to the well-being of these people, just the plain well-being of these people.
"The British in Iraq had a policy of four-to-one: six month employment, two years back [from Iraq]. The policy right now, particularly on the [US] army side, is three-quarters-to-one."
He then got this admission from Gen Petraeus: "That is something that very much informed my recommendation."
However, this factor was hardly mentioned in the general's written reports to the congressional committees. Instead the emphasis was on the success of the surge policy.
Congress poised
Eyes now shift to Congress.
It seems that for the moment, Mr Bush has the initiative against his critics there and may once again be able to stave off demands for a timetable to withdraw.
Democrats are looking at some other ways of influencing policy - for example by setting limits on the length of tours for the military in Iraq.
Whether Gen Petraeus really thinks he is being given enough time is not known. He co-wrote the US army manual on counterinsurgency, of which this operation is the first major test.
The manual stresses the long-term nature of the commitment.
He would probably have preferred the reinforcements to stay, but senior generals are political animals as well and Gen Petraeus has had to tailor his suit to the cloth available.
"a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason."
Posts: 1944 | Location: Beautiful New Paltz, NY | Registered: 04 July 2006
I would like to bring forward that war is not a necessarily inherent fact of life.
Cool, name a period in history when there wasn't one.
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.
Posts: 8264 | Location: Fl | Registered: 05 July 2001
BBC NEWS Iraq 'failing half US benchmarks' The Iraqi government has made little progress in meeting key political and military targets set by the US, a White House report says.
The report says that Iraq has performed satisfactorily on nine out of 18 benchmarks - one more than in July.
Among the failures, it cites militia control over security forces and not enacting laws on sharing oil resources.
The report comes a day after President George W Bush announced a troop withdrawal from Iraq.
He said he had accepted the advice of the US commander in Iraq, Gen David Petraeus, who gave his own progress report to Congress earlier this week and said the recent military "surge" in Iraq was working.
Iraq faces daunting challenges... political progress at the national level has still been disappointing Benchmark Assessment Report
Mr Bush's plan would take troop numbers back to about 130,000 by July 2008 - the level before the build-up began in February.
Speaking after President Bush's announcement, the Iraqi foreign minister, Hoshyar Zebari, said his government had to move more rapidly towards national reconciliation and political progress.
Mr Zebari said Iraq faced many challenges, from terrorism, from regional intervention and from conflicting interests.
Meanwhile another US government report says that religious freedom in Iraq has sharply deteriorated over the past year.
The annual State Department report on religious freedom said people of all religions and sects in Iraq were subject to harassment, intimidation, kidnapping, and killing.
It blamed the situation on the insurgency.
De-Baathification
The White House report on benchmarks, delivered to Congress, is the Bush administration's own assessment of the situation in Iraq. It is one of several recent US reports on Iraq's progress.
READ THE REPORT IN FULL
Most computers will open this document automatically, but you may need Adobe Reader
Based on data available as of 1 September 2007, it says "the Iraqis have made satisfactory progress since January 2007 on nine benchmarks".
It mentions improvement in only one area compared with the initial assessment by the White House in July - reconciling former members of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party.
The report says more than 45,000 former army personnel have already been granted pensions or reinstated to active duty.
Among the targets where the Iraqi government had made satisfactory progress were:
* forming a constitutional review committee and completing the review * enacting and implementing legislation on de-Baathification * legislation in semi-autonomous regions
But failure was registered in meeting seven benchmarks, including:
* the equitable distribution of hydrocarbon resources * increasing the number of Iraqi security forces able to operate independently * ensuring that Iraq's political authorities are not undermining or making false accusations against foreign forces
The report also said it was too early to assess two benchmarks - amnesty legislation and a militia disarmament programme.
Overall, the White House paints a mixed picture but admits that progress by the national government has been disappointing, the BBC's Jane O'Brien in Washington says.
The report does, however, offers justification for an enduring relationship with the Iraqi government, our correspondent says.
'Beyond benchmarks'
In August, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) - a Congressional watchdog - said Iraq had met only three out of the 18 benchmarks.
The Bush administration later challenged the report, saying the GAO portrayed the situation only in "blacks and whites" and ignored "grey" areas of progress.
After the release of the latest report, the White House said that even though Iraqis had failed to pass key national legislation, "the objectives of such laws are in some ways already being achieved" in practice.
Oil revenues, for instance, were being shared equally, it said, "even if the formal benchmarks themselves have not been met".
And it said that US efforts in Iraq extended far beyond the 18 benchmarks.
"We continue to work with the Iraqis to establish the strategic environment in which security and meaningful reconciliation can develop and take root - in ways not easily measured by these benchmarks," the statement said.
"a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason."
Posts: 1944 | Location: Beautiful New Paltz, NY | Registered: 04 July 2006
I would like to bring forward that war is not a necessarily inherent fact of life.
Cool, name a period in history when there wasn't one.
By your logic then Saw, every country would be involved in every war. In most cases, it appears as if countries learn from there mistakes, and I can only hope that this Iraq mistake will FINALLY wake up this country, although as long as we still have all the same people in power that probably will not happen.
Vietnam???
"Yeehaw" is not a foreign policy!
Posts: 875 | Location: The Emerald City | Registered: 02 January 2007
I would like to bring forward that war is not a necessarily inherent fact of life.
Cool, name a period in history when there wasn't one.
Mark 5-verse 9 Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.
There seems to be a difference between those who read the word and those who live the word.
"a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason."
Posts: 1944 | Location: Beautiful New Paltz, NY | Registered: 04 July 2006
By your logic then Saw, every country would be involved in every war.
How the hell did you arrive at that? I was just observing that mankind has always been in a conflict somewhere on the globe and although I haven't researched it, I'm guessing that the entire planet has never had one period of peace in all of recorded history
I didn't say it's good or right but that just seems to be the way it is.
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.
Posts: 8264 | Location: Fl | Registered: 05 July 2001
Cool, name a period in history when there wasn't one.
Ok, little problem there, because we might, and probably will, disagree what constitutes 'war'. But how's about:
The period between the Big Bang and the agraric revolution (10.000 BC)? That long enough?
(Had I been talking to Polycarp, I would have said "The period between the Big Bang and the murder of Abel.")
There are bound to have been struggles, rivalries, and such, but war as we know it now, involving mass destruction and theft of land, ideologically ultimately leading to world domination belongs to OUR culture only.
quote:
recorded history
That is, excuse me for saying, your fallacy.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: Randal Graves,
Posts: 246 | Location: Q | Registered: 25 August 2007
What constitutes war? How about tribes, nations or nation states sending fighters, soldiers or armies out to kill fighters, soldiers or armies of another tribe, nation or nation state? Too broad, or does that totally eliminate the possibility that there has never been a period of peace in all of recorded history?
I'll let you and Poly sort unrecorded history. I'm sure there was no war during the big bang, except perhaps on the molecular level.
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.
Posts: 8264 | Location: Fl | Registered: 05 July 2001
I understand what you wrote, it's wrong but I understand it. Do you think Gengis Kahn, Hitler and the Roman Emperors had world domination on their minds? If they didn't they did a good job of hiding it. You said that war wasn't a natural condition of humanity. I said that history demonstrates otherwise. There has always been conflict somewhere. It has usually been about land, natural resources or religion. We are no different than our ancestors.
I'm not quite sure what "up at heart means", but if it means upset, I don't do that.
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.
Posts: 8264 | Location: Fl | Registered: 05 July 2001
Generally, I hate doing this, because it leads nobody nowhere, but here it is:
quote:
I understand what you wrote,
I don't think so, too many wrong assumptions.
quote:
it's wrong
Maybe, but you didn't manage to demonstrate that.
quote:
but I understand it.
Evidently not.
quote:
Do you think Gengis Kahn, Hitler and the Roman Emperors had world domination on their minds?
Yup, as you could have read in the above.
quote:
If they didn't they did a good job of hiding it.
Agreed.
quote:
You said that war wasn't a natural condition of humanity.
No, I didn't, but close enough.
quote:
I said that history demonstrates otherwise. There has always been conflict somewhere.
1. As I said, war is something that belongs to culture, not our nature, and I explained this by pointing out that before our culture existed, war, as I understand it (mass destruction, theft of land, ideologically ultimately leading to world domination belongs ), didn't exist.
2. Conflict isn't the same as war.
quote:
It has usually been about land, natural resources or religion.
Land: typically our culture, but I'll grant you that this must have happened in more peaceful societies as well. Natural Resources: Typically our culture. Care to know why? Religion: Typically our culture. Care to know why?
quote:
We are no different than our ancestors.
Homo Sapiens is slightly older that you might think, whether or not you're ready to allow this into your tighly framed version of this conversation or not.
quote:
I'm not quite sure what "up at heart means", but if it means upset, I don't do that.
In any case, I strongly advice you to mind your tone. I don't appreciate your purposely antagonizing manner of addressing anything anybody who poses a threat to your philosophy brings to the discussion. Yes, you DO do this on purpose. Besides, "upset, I don't do that.": I don't buy it, you're too much on your personal crusade to make that one stick.
Posts: 246 | Location: Q | Registered: 25 August 2007
You know what, never mind. I find your general behaviour abrasive, borderline abusive, and not in any way inviting to any form of real exchange. More power to you, but I don't want to spend my time online turning the world into my enemy. It's a pity though, because this could have been an opportunity for you to learn something that you by your own admission don't know a lot about. You're missing chances, you know, and you do it to yourself.
Godspeed Sawdust, I mean that. Hope you'll find some peace.
Randal.
PS-> Man, what kind environment is this, where you have to patronize people to pieces in order to get through to them? And what kind of environment facilitates such a mode of communication?
Posts: 246 | Location: Q | Registered: 25 August 2007
good point randal. it isnt the same. there can surely be conflict, which is essentially disagreement, without war.
people just use war as an excuse to 'solve' conflict. but all it really does is create more conflict, and thus, more war. face it, humans, at the natural level, are no differnt than animals. only animals dont usually kill for no specific reason.
quote:
I'm not quite sure what "up at heart means", but if it means upset, I don't do that.
actually, don, you DO get upset. there have been times when you threw tantrums for not getting your way. heres a good example, when i was comparing bush to chavez and you threw a hissy fit:
Posted 28 August 2007 06:11
quote:
Fine, Bush sucks, have a nice day. Believe what ever you want. I don't care.
i actually got a good laugh out of that one. sure sounds upset to me
------------------------------------------ debating conservatives is easy. so easy, even a caveman can do it!
"if this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck lot easier, just so long as im the dictator" -GWB Dec 18,2002
Posts: 1614 | Location: ft myers florida area | Registered: 23 September 2006
1. As I said, war is something that belongs to culture, not our nature, and I explained this by pointing out that before our culture existed, war, as I understand it (mass destruction, theft of land, ideologically ultimately leading to world domination belongs ), didn't exist.
2. Conflict isn't the same as war.
1. You are trying to change the definition of war to apply to the twentieth and twenty first centuries. Horse hockey, and I mean that in the happiest terms with no anger or angst. War is cultural in practice but it's origins are genetic, located in the lizard brain, you know, that fight or flight instinct.
2. Potato, patato. Change the bread on a shit sandwich and it's still a shit sandwich.
3. Sorry to add a little research into this conversation but I invite you to go through the centuries looking for a time of global peace.
4. It must be difficult for you in your everyday life to disagree with someone. Best wishes Randal.
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.
Posts: 8264 | Location: Fl | Registered: 05 July 2001
i actually got a good laugh out of that one. sure sounds upset to me
I remember that one Mike, I had a good chuckle over that myself. Here's a little secret for you Mike. I'm the only one who is an expert on when I get upset on this board. I have a twisted sense of humor. What you might think is a tantrum is comedy for me.
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.
Posts: 8264 | Location: Fl | Registered: 05 July 2001
people just use war as an excuse to 'solve' conflict.
Actually, it's my understanding that people use 'conflict' as an excuse for 'war', and that they use 'war' as an excuse for making a heap of dough. Which is why this subject is so dear to my heart. In MY philosophy, no amount of money warrants this:
Sawdust,
quote:
4. It must be difficult for you in your everyday life to disagree with someone. Best wishes Randal.
That's the thing, isn't it? Is disagreeing the same as turning the person you disagree with into the enemy? You seem to think so, I don't. Remarkably related to the subject.
A propos your timeline/research: no amount of patronizing is going to turn the 3rd millenium BC into the 20the millenium BC, and no amount of patronizing is going to turn our culture into not our culture. This goes to reading and understanding what I said. You didn't get it, and in stead of carefully re-reading it, you framed my argument. Which is why I said you're purposely abrasive, and "That's the thing, isn't it? Is disagreeing the same as turning the person you disagree with into the enemy? You seem to think so, I don't. Remarkably raleted to the subject."
Again, and for the last time, Godspeed. I don't think we'll be having many more exchanges anymore
Posts: 246 | Location: Q | Registered: 25 August 2007
PS-> Man, what kind environment is this, where you have to patronize people to pieces in order to get through to them? And what kind of environment facilitates such a mode of communication?
Posts: 246 | Location: Q | Registered: 25 August 2007
Is disagreeing the same as turning the person you disagree with into the enemy?
Randal, do you honestly believe I think of you as an enemy? Do you think I care enough about you to think of you of anything other than a guy I discussed a couple of things with on the internet? Trust me Randal, you are not my enemy. I don't know you from Adams house cat.
You are the one framing the argument Randal, and I use the term argument in the logical sense, not the hostile disagreement sense. You want to frame war and world domination to mean the war in Iraq. You said "I would like to bring forward that war is not a necessarily inherent fact of life," however if you spend a little time with the time line of history, you'll see mankind has never been without it.
I'm not saying it's a good thing, I am saying it's a fact of life that history has proven.
Feel free to ignore or engage me Randal. For me, there's always Adams house cat around the corner.
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.
Posts: 8264 | Location: Fl | Registered: 05 July 2001
Read-Only Topic
